251230.mbx

251230.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 260 Headlines 700 CREDIT: Decker Sues Over Failure to Protect and Safeguard PII AETNA INC: Offers Fertility Benefits for LGBTQ Class as Settlement AMERICAN PLUMBING: Freeman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Wins Dismissal of Opt-in Plaintiffs in FLSA Suit ANSON BELT & BUCKLE: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AYLO GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT: E.P. Files Suit in D. Utah BAKER UNIVERSITY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claim BALANCER LABS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BENTON HARBOR, MI: Reaches $25M Tentative Deal in Water Crisis Suit BIG SANDY: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Over Text Messages BLUE OWL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 2 BRUNO & SON'S: Bajrami Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wage CALIFORNIA: Immigrant Truckers Sue Over Licenses' Cancellation CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CARTIER INC: Choi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CASSAVA SCIENCES: Settles Securities Class Suit for $31.25-Mil. CENTRACARE HEALTH: Underpays Scanning Technicians, Schroeder Says CHARMING MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Wins Class Action Suit Over Fraud Portion Sizes CONDUENT BUSINESS: Court Appoints Corban Rhodes to Steering Comm. CORNEACARE INC: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COZY COMFORT COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CROSSTOWN COURIER: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CURB MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing D'YOUVILLE UNIVERSITY: Miller Sues Over Wage Violations DAVIES MCFARLAND: Faces Johns Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Jackson Suit Transferred to E.D. New York DIETZ & WATSON: Veasley Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages DONALD TRUMP: Global Nurse Seeks to Expedite Class Hearing Date ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit EMERSON ECOLOGICS: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California EPIQ SYSTEMS: Rieger Suit Transferred to D. Columbia EPIQ SYSTEMS: Tejon Suit Transferred to D. Columbia EPIQ SYSTEMS: Whalen Suit Transferred to D. Columbia EPIQ SYSTEMS: Whalen Suit Transferred to D. Columbia FIRST CAPITAL PRO: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York FITLIFE FOODS: Irish Suit Removed to S.D. Florida FLY VAUNT LLC: Ponton Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona FORGE UNDERWRITING: Sued Over Liability Insurance Policy FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION: Faces Padilla Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. FOSTER FARMS LLC: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah FRESH INC: Burke Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products GARDEN CITY, GA: Settles Class Suit With $1.4 Million Refund Fund GATE GOURMET: Armenta Suit Removed to C.D. California GAUZY LTD: Duong Sues Over Drop in Share Price GENERAL MILLS: Argueta Suit Removed to S.D. California GEORGE'S INC: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah GOOGLE LLC: Arroyo Suit Removed to N.D. California GRADY MEMORIAL: Does not Properly Pay Paramedics, O'Connor Says GRUBHUB INC: Mollins Files Suit in N.D. Illinois HEALTH AND HAPPINESS: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HOLLYWOOD MI INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HOPE HEALTH INC: Williams Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI/PII HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah HP HOOD LLC: Purnell Suit Removed to E.D. California HURON CENTER PETERMAN: Flores Sues Over Physical Barriers INFOSYS MCCAMISH: $17.5-Mil. Class Settlement Gets Final Approval INVITATION HOMES: Offers Debt Relief, Cash Payments to Settle Suit IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Carmichael Files Suit in C.D. Illinois IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Reagan Files Suit in C.D. Illinois JUDY E. HANDLER: Baldwin Sues Over Physical Barriers KLARNA GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims KROGER CO: Must File Class Cert Response by March 18, 2026 KUNLUN TECH: Attack The Sound Sues Over Unlawful Copying of Works LAST BRAND: Fabrikant Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme LIFERX.MD INC: Whitacre Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey LOWE'S HOME: Faces Class Suit Over False Discount Advertising MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS: Nieva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAMIYE BROTHERS: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MARIKA LLC: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beaty Says MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Schott Sues Over Compromised Private Info MAYAGUEZ, PR: Bid to Deny Class Certification Tossed as Moot MEC MANUFACTURING: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MICHIGAN: O'Connor Appeals Judgment Order to 6th Circuit MINERVA 2915 CORP: Antonio Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MODANI FURNITURE: Simmons Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MODERN CLEANING: Santos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Bartlett Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Becker Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Collins Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Ehlers Sues Over Wrongful Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Gholi Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Heinle Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Irwin Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Morgan Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Mullins Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Owens Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Labeling MONSANTO COMPANY: Porter Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Purnell Sues Over Wrongful Sale and Marketing MONSANTO COMPANY: Quist-Natter Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Reynolds Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Rundquist Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sal MONSANTO COMPANY: Webber Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Woolbert Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MORTGAGE ONE INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah NETFLIX INC: Fendelander Sues Over Proposed Netflix Merger NURA PLLC: Gilchrist Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. NUZEST USA INC: Hunthausen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OPTUMRX INC: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $1.86MM ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bennett Says ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Blount Says P.D.K.N. P-7 LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination PARTS AUTHORITY METRO: Ornelas Suit Removed to C.D. California PARTS AUTHORITY: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PENNSYLVANIA: Court Rejects "Heilner" SORNA Class Action Bid PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing Scheme PIER SIXTY: Songun Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PIERRE FABRE: Faces Class Suit Over Skincare Products' False Ads PILOT CORP: Simmons Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PLANTATION SALES: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination PLATINUM CORRAL: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Mitchell Says PORVEN REAL ESTATE: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Kaneff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PUPCULTURE 149: Faces Montiel Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. RAIN BIRD CORPORATION: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Arizona RAYUS RADIOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action RED CLASSIC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Gilmore Files Verification Under Delaware Law RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Reed Files Suit in E.D. Virginia RIDGE WALLET: Benson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. RIVERGATE KW: Jackson Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Data Breach Suit Deal Final Hearing Set Jan. 23 RUSSIA: Messaging App Users Sue Over Media Restrictions SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Judge Authorizes Range Fire Hazard Class Suit SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Settlement in Anderson Wins Final Nod SAX LLP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach SE2 LLC: Zehren FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Kansas SEB MANAGEMENT: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination SIGNATURE SENIOR: Lackey Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida SK BATTERY AMERICA: Britton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SLM CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud SPRING ENERGY: Court Refuses to Consolidate "Nock" ST. MARY'S HEALTHCARE: Burton Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ST. MARY'S HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Job Offers STELLANTIS NV: CPM Investigates Jeep and Gladiator's Fire Hazards SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order to 3rd Circuit SUKH BROTHERS: Orozco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUPERPLAY LTD: Operates Illegal Online Gambling Game, Morrow Says TALBOTS LLC: Porcuna Sues Over Misleading "Limited-Time" Sales TEAM COMPANIES: Brockmeyer Files Suit in C.D. California TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Su Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TRACKI INC: Appeals Approved Pseudonym Bid in Doe Suit to 2nd Cir. TYSON FOODS INC: Lucien Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ULTA SALON: Ade-Fosudo Suit Removed to D. Maryland UNITED AIRLINES: Ahdoot Probes Fiduciary Breaches in 401K Plan UNITED PARCEL: Court Certifies "Malone" Workers Class UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Blue Sues Over Failure to Secure PII US FOODS INC: Moreno Suit Removed to N.D. California VISTASITE EYE CARE: Plasari Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York VITAS HOSPICE SERVICES: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Florida WERNER ENTERPRISES: Hike Suit Removed to E.D. California WILDERMUTH FUND: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit WING QUARTER INC: Mckensie Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages WOOD PERSONNEL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Faces Class Action Over Data Sharing to Meta ********* 700 CREDIT: Decker Sues Over Failure to Protect and Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Decker, on behalf of himself and all other individuals similarly situated v. 700 CREDIT, LLC, and SIMMONS-ROCKWELL AUTOMOTIVE, Case NO. 7:25-cv-10485 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendants for their failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). As part of its regular business practices, 700 Credit collected, stored, and maintained the PII of its Clients' customers, including Simmons Rockwell. In October 2025, 700 Credit experienced a Data Breach where an unknown third party gained access to 700 Credit's network environment and systems ("Data Breach" or "Breach"). The Data Breach impacted millions of individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, exposing their name, Social Security number, date of birth, and address (collectively, "Private Information") in the Breach. In providing their Private Information to Simmons-Rockwell, and 700 Credit through Simmons-Rockwell's website, Plaintiff and the Class Members reasonably expected these sophisticated business entities to keep their Private Information confidential and secured from unauthorized disclosures, to use this information for business purposes only, and to disclose it only as authorized. Simmons-Rockwell and 700 Credit failed to do so, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in the Breach. Despite 700 Credit discovering the Breach in October 2025, 700 Credit and Simmons-Rockwell have delayed alerting victims of the Data Breach. Upon information and belief, Defendants are yet to send notice letters of the Breach to affected individuals. Simmons-Rockwell failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private information and failed to ensure that its vendor, 700 Credit, would maintain adequate safeguards to protect Simmons-Rockwell customers' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are customers of Simmons-Rockwell and were required to provide their PII to Simmons-Rockwell. 700 Credit is the largest provider of credit reports, soft pull credit data, identity verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions for Automotive, RV, Powersports and Marine dealerships, including Defendant Simmons Rockwell.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com AETNA INC: Offers Fertility Benefits for LGBTQ Class as Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kristen Hwang, writing for Cal Matters, reports that Aetna will provide equitable fertility benefits to LGBTQ members, including 91,000 Californians, under the terms of a class action lawsuit settlement. Like many young girls, Mara Berton and June Higginbotham both knew from an early age they wanted families and to become mothers. But as lesbians, they were excluded from accessing the same fertility treatment insurance benefits offered to heterosexual peers. Instead, like many other same-sex couples, Berton and Higginbotham, who live in Santa Clara County, had to pay $45,000 out of pocket to conceive while heterosexual colleagues with the same insurance plan had many of those costs covered. "We knew it wasn't right," Berton said in an exclusive interview with CalMatters. She joined a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. "What we're fighting for is about family building and having kids…It was really important to both of us, I think, that other couples not have to do this." Last week, in a landmark settlement, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California Haywood Gilliam, Jr. approved a preliminary agreement for the class action lawsuit requiring Aetna to cover fertility treatments for same-sex couples -- like artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization -- as they do with heterosexual couples. It is the first case requiring a health insurer to apply this policy nationally across all of its enrollees. An estimated 2.8 million LGBTQ members will benefit, including 91,000 Californians. Under the settlement, Aetna will also pay at least $2 million in damages to California-based members who qualify. Those who may be eligible must submit a claim by June 29, 2026. "I truly hope that this is the first of many insurers to change their policy," said Alison Tanner, senior litigation counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women's Law Center. "We were looking at that as an issue of inequality -- that folks who were in same-sex relationships were being treated differently." Roughly 9 million additional Californians will soon have access to mandated fertility benefits under a new law taking effect in January. The law applies to state-regulated plans -- which Aetna is not in this case -- and amends the definition of infertility to include same-sex couples and single people. Previously, Aetna's policy required enrollees to engage in six to 12 months of "unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse" without conceiving before qualifying for fertility benefits, according to the class action complaint. The policy allowed for women "without a male partner" to access benefits only after undergoing six to 12 cycles of artificial insemination unsuccessfully depending on age. Lawyers argued that the policy fundamentally treated LGBTQ members differently and effectively denied them access to the benefit, which can be prohibitively expensive for many people. In an email, Aetna spokesperson Phillip Blando said the plan provides infertility benefits in accordance with each member's plan, coverage rules and applicable law. "Aetna is committed to equal access to infertility coverage and reproductive health coverage for all its members, and we will continue to strive toward improving access to services for our entire membership," Blando said. Medical infertility definition includes LGBTQ Berton, who was the lead plaintiff in the case, said she was blindsided by the policy. She had consulted with a fertility clinic and decided to move forward with donor sperm and artificial insemination, when a representative from Aetna called and said she did not meet the definition of infertility. She appealed the decision multiple times; she was rejected. The experience felt "dehumanizing," her wife Higginbotham said. Insurance had dictated Berton attempt 12 rounds of artificial insemination before she would be eligible for benefits. Her doctors recommended no more than four rounds. Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy director for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said a policy like that could only be designed to dissuade people from accessing their health benefits. Doctors typically recommend three to four cycles of artificial insemination before IVF, but Tipton said there have also been studies showing it is more efficient and cost effective to go straight to IVF. In 2023, the society updated its medical definition of infertility to include LGBTQ folks and individuals who don't have partners. They did so in part to stop insurers from denying claims like Berton and Higginbotham's. "The driving force was a realization that it takes two kinds of gametes to have kids," Tipton said. "Regardless of the cause of that absence, you have to have access in order to be treated for a fertility issue." Since the definition changed, Tipton said more employers and insurers are covering benefits for LGBTQ folks or single people. They have also leveraged the definition to enact statewide benefits expansions, including California's upcoming fertility benefits mandate. Berton and Higginbotham said they also worried about running out of donor sperm that matched Higginbotham's Jewish and Native American heritage -- and was limited in supply. "I don't feel like your insurance should be involved in those types of decisions and kind of determine your journey," Berton said. The couple pulled together money from family members and decided to proceed even without coverage. After four unsuccessful rounds of intrauterine insemination, they moved on to IVF, partially to give themselves the best chance of conceiving with the donor they chose. The experience was "all consuming" and emotionally difficult as Berton endured hormone injections, egg retrievals and a miscarriage. But today, she and Higginbotham have two healthy twin girls whose favorite thing is to play on the swings and "take every book off of their shelf" for their mothers to read. The couple achieved their family dreams before the lawsuit concluded. Even so, Higginbotham said she hopes the settlement will help other LGBTQ couples across the country. "I know people that don't have children, that wanted children, because the stuff isn't covered. I know people that their timeline was delayed and maybe they have fewer kids than they wanted," Higginbotham said. "The settlement is such a huge step forward that is really righting a huge wrong." [GN] AMERICAN PLUMBING: Freeman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Freeman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. AMERICAN PLUMBING SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; WALTER JACOB KUHLMAN, III, a natural person; JAMES JAY HANACEK IV, a natural person; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03640-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought alleged violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001 (hereafter "the Wage Order"), California Civil Code, and the California Business and Professions Code against Defendants, seeking to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, punitive damages, restitution, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, and related relief through this class action. The Defendants deducted employee wages purportedly for retirement plan contributions but fraudulently failed to remit those amounts to the employees' retirement accounts, resulting in losses recoverable as unpaid wages, restitution, penalties, interest, and equitable relief. This action seeks, inter alia, appropriate ERISA remedies, statutory remedies under Labor Code Section 221, and restitution and injunctive relief under the unfair competition law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other similarly situated workers for deducted wages, unpaid wages, statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' failures to: Pay all wages earned; Only deduct wages lawfully; Issue only accurate and complete itemized wage statements; and Timely pay wages upon termination of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the position of Plumbing Foreman. American Plumbing Systems, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California and also a citizen of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Glenn Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Bl, PMB 42554 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Phone: (213) 725-9094 Facsimile: (213) 634-2485 Email: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Wins Dismissal of Opt-in Plaintiffs in FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kathleen Fredericks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ameriflight, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1757-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss four opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice. Plaintiff Kathleen Fredericks initiated this action against Ameriflight under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court certified a collective action for certain FLSA claims. On September 29, 2025, the parties notified the Court that they had settled following ADR. Ameriflight subsequently moved to dismiss four opt-in plaintiffs from the collective, asserting that after opting in, they failed to participate in discovery or respond to written discovery requests. The Court granted unopposed motions allowing counsel to withdraw for each opt-in plaintiff based on their failure to respond to counsel's repeated communications and discovery obligations. Rule 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss the action or any claim against the defendant if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) may be sua sponte, but it may be with prejudice only if the failure to comply with the court order was the result of purposeful delay or contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing the action. The Court found that dismissal of certain opt-in plaintiffs under Rule 41(b) was warranted because Spiller, Zhai, Calfas, and Reuven failed to prosecute their claims. The Court found that although these opt-in plaintiffs failed to prosecute, the record does not establish purposeful delay or contumacious conduct, nor has the Court imposed lesser sanctions sufficient to justify dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b)'s heightened standard. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court dismissed without prejudice opt-in plaintiffs Nathaniel Spiller, Rui Zhai, Kaela Calfas and Itamar Reuven claims against the Defendant for failure to prosecute. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=04TTmy from PacerMonitor.com ANSON BELT & BUCKLE: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Youngren, and all others similarly situated v. Anson Belt & Buckle Co., LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-15350 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://ansonbelt.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view products including customizable ratchet belts, straps, leather and microfiber belt options, dress and casual styles, and belt accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law AYLO GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT: E.P. Files Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aylo Global Entertainment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as E.P., S.A., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Aylo Global Entertainment, Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated., Aylo Holdings, Corp., Aylo Holdings S.A.R.L., Aylo Freesites Ltd., 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01141-DBB (D. Utah, Dec. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability for Tort Action. Aylo -- https://www.aylo.com/ -- is a tech pioneer offering world class adult content platforms.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brennan H. Moss, Esq. PARKINSON BENSON POTTER 2750 Rasmussen Rd., Ste. H-107 Park City, UT 84098 Phone: (415) 534-7970 Email: brennan@pbp.law BAKER UNIVERSITY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Baker University data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Baker University data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Baker University Security Incident: What Happened? Baker University is notifying individuals about a data security incident potentially affecting personal information. In December 2024, the university detected suspicious network activity, leading to a network outage. An investigation revealed unauthorized access to certain files and folders between December 2 and December 19, 2024. This led to a review to identify compromised data. The Baker University data breach may have exposed names, birthdates, driver’s license numbers, financial account and health insurance details, medical and passport information, Social Security numbers, student ID numbers, and tax identification numbers. Individuals whose information was impacted are being directly notified. According to a report submitted to the Maine Attorney General's Office, 53,624 individuals are affected by the Baker University data breach. Baker University, offering over 50 programs including bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, conducts classes at its Baldwin City, Kansas campus, online, and in hybrid formats. What You Can Do After the Baker University Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Baker University data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Baker University to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] BALANCER LABS: 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 investors in cryptocurrency issued by Balancer (ticker: BAL), resulting from allegations that Balancer may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Balancer cryptocurrency 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=48945 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 November 3, 2025, Bloomberg published an article entitled "Hack Drains Over $100 Million From Crypto Protocol Balancer." The article stated that "Balancer, a decentralized finance protocol, has been hit by a major exploit that drained more than $100 million in digital assets, according to blockchain security firms. Security researchers at PeckShield and Cyvers flagged the incident, warning that funds linked to the attacker's wallet were still being siphoned. Total losses have climbed to about $128 million, Cyvers said in a message." 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 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] BENTON HARBOR, MI: Reaches $25M Tentative Deal in Water Crisis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean McGarry of ABC57 reports that the City of Benton Harbor announced it has reached a tentative agreement with the plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against the city. A court has been asked to approve the terms in order to resolve claims related to the city's lead water crisis. As part of the agreement, plaintiffs will continue ongoing legal proceedings against Benton Harbor's insurance company, seeking to receive a $25 million judgement. Benton Harbor's government and residents will not pay any amount of the judgement, according to a release from the city. "The City and its officials have denied any wrongdoing," said Mayor Marcus Muhammad. "The City is committed to meeting state and federal requirements for water quality, and to [continue] working with state and local organizations to promote resident welfare." The class action lawsuit was filed by several Benton Harbor residents in 2021, claiming local and state government officials failed to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act when the public was actively uninformed of toxic levels of lead in their water. [GN] BIG SANDY: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Over Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Shapiro of TCPA World reports that a furniture store company by the name of Big Sandy Furniture a/k/a Big Sandy Superstore ("Defendant") has just been sued for claims that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting a consumer who was on the DNC list with multiple text messages in the span of less than a year. The lawsuit alleges that Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to send unsolicited text messages promoting and advertising the ability to obtain various furniture and appliances even though the Plaintiff was on the National DNC list. What will happen in the end with this case is still to be determined but what is fascinating is that we are again faced with the question of whether text messages are covered under the DNC provisions. The lawsuit alleges that Defendant sent unsolicited text messages, and we know that the TCPA prohibits telemarketers from contacting consumers without their express consent and who are on the DNC registry. But this still begs the question of whether a text message is a form of a "call" that is covered under the TCPA? Of course, we know that TCPA DNC provisions prohibit calling consumers who are on the Do-Not-Call list but this case just brought four months after the landmark Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 2025 WL 2491195 (N.D. Fl. Aug. 26, 2025) where it noted that texts are not "calls" but noted that courts have been divided on this issue. So, we are still left with the same question that needs answering. One can only speculate that Defendant might feel empowered knowing that there are courts that have held that texts are not "calls" for purposes of analyzing violation of the TCPA but surely Plaintiff’s counsel must have also known this when deciding to file this lawsuit. This issue that courts appear to be split on doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon and it does make you wonder whether the Plaintiff’s counsel has some trick up their sleeve. I will be sure to keep my ears and eyes posted on this case and will update you once there is more to discuss. Talk to you soon. [GN] BLUE OWL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Blue Owl Capital Inc. (NYSE: OWL). Shareholders who purchased shares of OWL during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/blue-owl-capital-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=180988&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: February 6, 2025 to November 16, 2025 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Blue Owl was experiencing a meaningful pressure on its asset base from business development companies' redemptions; (2) as a result, the Company was facing undisclosed liquidity issues; (3) as a result, the Company would be likely to limit or halt redemptions of certain business development companies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: February 2, 2026 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/blue-owl-capital-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=180988&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of OWL during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is February 2, 2026. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 BRUNO & SON'S: Bajrami Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ramazan Bajrami, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BRUNO & SON'S INC., d/b/a THE CLUB A STEAKHOUSE, AGRON SELIMAJ, and BRUNO SELIMAJ, Case No. 1:25-cv-10461 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result, Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime compensation. The Defendants knew that nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime compensation and misappropriation of tips, would economically injure Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, and violated federal and state laws. During the statutory period, Defendants paid all tipped employees, including Plaintiff, the then-current New York's foodservice worker's minimum wage, which was less than the full NY Minimum Wage. However, Defendants were not entitled to pay tipped employees the lower foodservice workers' minimum wage because Defendants failed to provide them, including Plaintiff, with written notice that Defendants were taking a tip credit from the minimum wage. The Defendants were required to provide written notice of the tip credit at the beginning of Plaintiff's and the other tipped employees' employment, but Defendants failed to do this. In fact, Defendants never provided Plaintiff, or the Class members, with wage notices, as required by NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server at the Restaurant from early 2025 through November 29, 2025. Bruno and Sons, Inc. d/b/a The Club A Steakhouse is a New York corporation that owns and operates the restaurant known as The Club A Steakhouse located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 CALIFORNIA: Immigrant Truckers Sue Over Licenses' Cancellation -------------------------------------------------------------- Rozana Spokesman reports that a group of immigrant truck drivers has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming the state's plan to revoke commercial driver's licences is unlawful and will cause significant harm to workers and their families. The lawsuit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court. It was brought by the Sikh Coalition, a national civil-rights organisation, and the Asian Law Caucus on behalf of the affected drivers. According to the organisations, California's decision violates the due process rights of licence holders and threatens their economic stability. According to the lawsuit, approximately 17,000 truckers received notices from the DMV informing them their commercial driver's licences would be revoked because the licences were set to expire after the drivers' legally authorised period of stay in the United States. The number of affected drivers has reportedly increased as additional notices were issued. Munmeeth Kaur, Legal Director at the Sikh Coalition, said in a statement supporting the lawsuit that "These drivers have spent years anchoring their lives to these careers, only to now face potential economic ruin through no fault of their own. They deserve better, and California must do better." Legal representatives for the drivers contend that the state's actions jeopardise livelihoods built over many years and that the revocations should be paused while the case is heard. The complaint asserts that the DMV's plan to cancel the licences without adequate procedural protections contravenes fundamental rights. The California DMV declined to comment on the pending litigation when approached for a response. The issue has gained wider attention amid national debate over licensing for immigrant drivers, with concerns amplified by recent fatal truck crashes involving drivers not authorised to be in the United States. One such incident in Florida in August resulted in an illegal U-turn that killed three people, and another crash in California in October similarly involved a driver without legal status, further intensifying public and regulatory scrutiny. [GN] CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- On December 19, 2025, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Paul Durkacz against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") and Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"), and their broker-dealer subsidiaries (together, the "Defendants"). The action alleges that Defendants defrauded investors by placing and executing manipulative trades designed to artificially deflate the price of Quantum Biopharma Ltd. ("Quantum") securities. The action is brought on behalf of all persons who sold securities of Quantum between January 6, 2021 and October 15, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby. The action, brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is captioned Paul Durkacz v. CIBC World Markets Inc., No. 1:25-cv-10565 (S.D.N.Y.). CIBC and RBC are Canadian chartered banks whose U.S. subsidiaries are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and operate as major market makers, routinely placing and executing securities trades for investors as well as for their own trading accounts. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 9, 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a manipulative and illegal trading practice known as "spoofing," which involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these "baiting orders" was to mislead other market participants about the true level of supply and demand for Quantum securities, or about the stock’s price volatility, thereby influencing the market price of Quantum to benefit Defendants’ own trading positions. Defendants entered thousands of these baiting orders on U.S. stock exchanges to create the false impression that Quantum’s stock price reflected genuine supply-and-demand and volatility dynamics, while simultaneously profiting by, among other things, purchasing Quantum securities at prices artificially depressed by their manipulative and deceptive conduct. Investors who sold Quantum securities during the Class Period are members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than February 23, 2026. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Abe Alexander at Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8500, or via email at aalexander@gelaw.com.[GN] CARTIER INC: Choi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cartier, Inc. The case is styled as Marie Choi, as an individual on behalf of plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cartier, Inc., Case No. 25STCV36836 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Cartier -- https://www.cartier.com/en-us/home -- is a French luxury goods conglomerate that designs, manufactures, distributes and sells jewelry, watches, leather goods, sunglasses and eyeglasses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dominique N. Westmoreland, Esq. THE WESTMORELAND LAW FIRM 609 Deep Valley Dr., Ste. 200 Rllng Hills Est, CA 90274-3614 Phone: 424-285-5362 Email: dwestmoreland@wml-law.com CASSAVA SCIENCES: Settles Securities Class Suit for $31.25-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA, "Cassava", the "Company"), a biotechnology company focused on developing novel, investigational treatments for central nervous system (CNS) disorders such as Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC)-related epilepsy, announced that it has reached a definitive agreement to resolve the previously disclosed consolidated securities class action litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division (In re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE) (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). This lawsuit was originally filed in 2021. Under the agreement, Cassava will pay $31.25 million to achieve a complete settlement and release of all claims and causes of action that have been or could be asserted by the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class, which is defined as all purchasers or acquirers of Company common stock or call options on Company common stock or sellers of put options on Company common stock between September 14, 2020 and October 12, 2023 (subject to certain exclusions). The court will decide whether later-filed securities class action litigation should be consolidated into the Consolidated Securities Action. The settlement is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company. Cassava fully reserved a loss contingency of $31.25 million in the second quarter of 2025 relating to the Consolidated Securities Action. "We are pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement to resolve our most significant, legacy litigation," said Rick Barry, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cassava. "With this agreement, we can dedicate our attention and resources to the continued development of simufilam as a potential treatment for TSC-related epilepsy." About Simufilam Simufilam is a proprietary, investigational oral small molecule believed to modulate activity of the filamin A protein, which regulates diverse aspects of neuronal development1. About Cassava Sciences, Inc. Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA), is a biotechnology company focused on developing novel, investigational treatments, including simufilam, for central nervous system disorders, such as tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-related epilepsy, and potentially other indications. Simufilam is a proprietary, investigational oral small molecule believed to modulate activity of the filamin A protein, which regulates diverse aspects of neuronal development1. The Company is planning a Phase 2 proof-of-concept study to evaluate simufilam in patients with TSC-related epilepsy, collaborating closely with the TSC Alliance and key opinion leaders. The program is based on a method of treatment patent issued in 2025 and in-licensed from Yale University. Cassava is based in Austin, Texas. [GN] CENTRACARE HEALTH: Underpays Scanning Technicians, Schroeder Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SCHROEDER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRACARE HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04558 (D. Minn., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendant to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the members of the Class at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all of their overtime hours worked. Plaintiff Schroeder has been employed as a CT Scanning Technician at the CentraCare - St. Cloud Hospital in Minnesota from approximately 2016 to the present. He is classified as a non-exempt employee and paid on an hourly basis. He is a full-time employee and routinely works more than 40 hours per week and more than 80 hours bi-weekly. CentraCare Health is an integrated health system with more than 12,500 employees and providers, serving ten hospitals and 30 clinics across central and southwestern Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com CHARMING MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer rights litigation firm, today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Charming Medical, Limited; Kit Wong; Ching Man Cheung; Josephine Yan Yeung; Leut Ming Gung; Shu Tai Victor Yu; Cathay Securities Inc.; WWC, P.C.; And Cogency Global, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Louie v. Charming Medical Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-10535, asserts claims under Secs.10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased Charming Medical Securities between October 21, 2025, and November 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is February 17, 2026. If you purchased Charming Medical Securities between October 21, 2025, and November 12, 2025, inclusive, and have suffered significant losses, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Mollie Chadwick at (619) 798-5307, or via email at mchadwick@scott-scott.com, for more information. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON FEBRUARY 17, 2026 Charming is a medical company that claims to "enhance the quality of life from the inside out by integrating Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) wellness practices with modern technology." Specifically, by "combining customized TCM-inspired constitution-regulating plans and modern wellness therapies, we provide comprehensive wellness and beauty services and products for women and TCM-inspired therapies tailored for men." The Company's stock trades on NASDAQ under the symbol "MCTA." The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act arising from the suspension of Charming's stock in November 2025, following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. In the weeks leading up to November 12, 2025, Charming's share price surged from the initial public offering price ("IPO") of $4.00 to an all-time high of $29.36 per share, despite no fundamental news from the Company justifying such a spike. Investigations and public reports have revealed that Charming's stock became the subject of an illicit social-media-based promotion scheme that artificially inflated its price. These reports detail how impersonators claiming to be legitimate financial advisors touted Charming in online forums, chat groups, and through social media posts with sensational, but baseless, claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON FEBRUARY 17, 2026 The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is February 17, 2026. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 17, 2026. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Mollie Chadwick at (619) 798-5307, or via email at mchadwick@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide, with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Montréal, Connecticut, California, Ohio, Texas, Delaware, Nebraska, and Virginia. Mollie Chadwick, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 798-5307 mchadwick@scott-scott.com [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Wins Class Action Suit Over Fraud Portion Sizes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Kelso of Nation's Restaurant News reports that Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. won a class-action lawsuit filed by a shareholder in late 2024 claiming the chain was skimping on portion sizes. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found this week that the online "viral criticisms" about portion sizes were not sufficient evidence to support claims of fraud against the restaurant chain, according to Bloomberg Law. The accusations picked up steam last year following a review from social media influencer Keith Lee, who claimed in a May TikTok review that Chipotle's chicken portion was "crazy low." The post generated more than 2.3 million engagements. The lawsuit also cited a Wells Fargo analyst's report showing that the portion sizes of 75 burrito bowl orders from different locations were inconsistent. "Chipotle's portion sizes were inconsistent and left many customers dissatisfied," alleges plaintiff Michael Stradford in his Nov. 11, 2024, complaint in a California federal court. "The company understated how difficult it would be to convince customers of the ‘overall value proposition of its menu' given that the Company provided customers with highly inconsistent (and in the view of some customers, lacking) portion sizes," the suit said, adding that the company acted fraudulently by making no changes to its policy on portion sizes even as customers were complaining on social media about them. During Chipotle's second quarter 2024 earnings call, then-CEO Brian Niccol acknowledged some "outlier" restaurants with low scores on portion sizes and said the company would sharpen its focus on training and investments to ensure more consistency. "We've probably found about 10% or more of restaurants that we view as outliers that needed to be retrained (and) re-coached to be executing against what we believe are the right standards," he said. "At the same time, we collectively said we do not go back one inch on our equity of generous portion sizes. For 90% of our restaurants, they're doing business as usual. This really was something where we doubled down as a system, but we really needed to kind of train up roughly 10% of the system." [GN] CONDUENT BUSINESS: Court Appoints Corban Rhodes to Steering Comm. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Michael A. Hammer of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has appointed DiCello Levitt Partner Corban Rhodes to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the consolidated class action, In re: Conduent Business Services Data Breach Litigation. The litigation stems from a massive data breach at Conduent Business Services that compromised the personal and health information of over 10.5 million individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Conduent failed to implement adequate cybersecurity safeguards and delayed notifying those affected. Reportedly, it's the eighth-largest healthcare data breach in U.S. history. Corban joins the following eight-member Plaintiffs' Steering Committee: Shauna Itri (Chair; Seeger Weiss), Ashley Crooks (Hausfeld), Connor Hayes (Lynch Carpenter), Raph Graybill (Graybill Law Firm), Thomas Loeser (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy), Linda Nussbaum (Nussbaum Law Group), and Brian Gudmundson (Zimmerman Reed). DiCello Levitt's full team on the matter includes Corban Rhodes, Adam Levitt, Amy Keller, David Straite, Ellen Teuscher, and Erin Kerrane. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, antitrust, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, and civil and human rights litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases—whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise—for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations—and our capital—on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN] CORNEACARE INC: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Frank Senior, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. CORNEACARE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10481 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://mycorneacare.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. CORNEACARE, INC., operates the My CorneaCare online retail store, as well as the My CorneaCare interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal COZY COMFORT COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cozy Comfort Company, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-15348 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://thecomfy.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view and purchase a selection of oversized wearable blankets, pants, slipper socks, and giant throw blankets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law CROSSTOWN COURIER: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crosstown Courier Service, Inc. The case is styled as Cristina Correia Rodrigues, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., Case No. 25STCV36874 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Crosstown -- https://www.gocrosstown.com/ -- is a full-service delivery, logistics and warehousing company.[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 CURB MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org report that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Curb Mobility and other ride-hailing services colluded with Uber to fix prices and stifle competition, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The 48-page antitrust lawsuit alleges that, beginning in 2022, defendants Curb Mobility, Flywheel Technologies, Creative Mobile Technologies, and ARRO conspired with Uber to coordinate prices for their ride-hailing services, in violation of the federal Sherman Act. According to the filing, Uber and the defendants entered into a horizontal agreement that allowed riders to hail traditional taxis directly through Uber's app. The case asserts that Uber maintains a supracompetitive -- a term meaning above what can be sustained in a competitive market—price for all ride-hailing services. The suit further contends Uber imposed "uniform or near-uniform" prices for UberX rides and taxis hailed through the Uber app. Unfortunately for riders, the lawsuit says, Uber's fare increases "are not accompanied by meaningful improvements in service quality, innovation, or passenger experience." "On the contrary," the complaint reads, "rising wait times, diminished driver availability, reduced customer-support responsiveness, and ongoing safety concerns directly undermined the value proposition previously used to justify lower fares." [GN] D'YOUVILLE UNIVERSITY: Miller Sues Over Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Miller, and others similarly situated v. D'Youville University and Joggeshwar Das, Case No. 1:25-cv-01413 (W.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"); New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking all available remedies under the relevant statutes including back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, double damages, compensatory damages including emotional distress damages, attorney's fees and costs of litigation. The Plaintiff alleges that he was: under FLSA and NYLL discriminated against, demoted and/or discharged from his employment in retaliation for complaining of and opposing Defendant's policies and practices that misclassified employees job titles and duties and denied overtime wage compensation to them in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; that his demotion and/or discharge were in retaliation for protected whistleblower conduct of reporting to management/leadership of unlawful conduct of Defendant D'Youville by paying his wages in whole or part from federal grants that Plaintiff did not work under; and 3) Plaintiff's demotion and/or discharge after reporting unlawful conduct of Defendants despite a commendable work history of promotions and without discipline or negative work performance evaluations was motivated in part based on his taking medical leave and Defendants thereby interfered with and retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"); says the complaint. The Plaintiff was continuously employed by Defendant D'Youville University from 2007 to July 7, 2025. D'Youville University is a nonprofit academic institution operating in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Ghim, Esq. NISAR LAW GROUP, P.C. One Grand Central Place 60 East, 42nd Street, Ste. 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 600-9534 Fax: (516) 604-0157 Email: sghim@nisarlaw.com DAVIES MCFARLAND: Faces Johns Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER JOHNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIES, MCFARLAND & CARROLL, LLC and INDIANA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. GD-25-012966 (Pa. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cty., December 4, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. On or about May 22, 2025, Defendant DMC detected unauthorized access on its IT Network. In response, Defendant DMC launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. On or around November 24, more than six months after being made aware of the data breach, Defendant DMC began sending notice letters to individuals impacted. As a result of Defendants inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their private information; the loss or diminished value of their private information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. Davies, Mcfarland & Carroll, LLC is a law firm based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that provides services to numerous individuals and companies, including Indiana Regional Medical Center. IRMC is a community-owned, independent hospital in Indiana, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (215) 888-3214 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Jackson Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jacqueline Jackson, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diageo North America, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05654 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06994-ENV-MMH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization. Diageo North America -- https://www.diageo.com/en -- is a global leader in beverage alcohol with an outstanding collection of brands across spirits and beer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Brian Fernandes, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. DAVID FERNANDES 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 839-2333 Fax: (818) 986-9698 Email: dfernandes@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com - and - Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. MILBERG LLP 1 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: ntarnor@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Ratcliffe Le Coney, Esq. Tasha Nicolette Thompson, Esq. Timothy Sun Martin, Esq. KAPLAN MARTIN LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036-6710 Phone: (212) 316-9500 Email: cleconey@kaplanmartin.com tthompson@kaplanmartin.com tmartin@kaplanmartin.com - and - Mark R. Conrad, Esq. Madison Bower, Esq. CONRAD METLITZKY KANE LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 343-7102 Email: mconrad@conmetkane.com mbower@conmetkane.com DIETZ & WATSON: Veasley Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kason Veasley, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DIETZ & WATSON, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-07152 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), and common law due to the Defendant failure to pay proper wages. Due to the extensive PPE donning, doffing and walking process described herein, Plaintiff and Hourly Employees spent 16 to 25 minutes per day before and after their scheduled shifts completing their required PPE donning, doffing and walking activities. Consequently, Defendant's timekeeping system failed to account for all of the time Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Hourly Employees spent donning, doffing and walking. The Defendant knew or should have known that the time spent by Plaintiff and its Hourly Employees in connection with the pre- and post-shift off-the-clock work was compensable under the law. Indeed, in light of the explicit U.S. Department of Labor guidance and binding Supreme Court precedent cited herein, there is no conceivable way for Defendant to establish that it acted in good faith. Defendant violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiff and similarly situated Hourly Employees to work in excess of forty (40) hours during a workweek without paying overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times the regular rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently employed as an Hourly Employee as a machine operator at Defendant's production facility in Baltimore, Maryland. Dietz & Watson is a premium meat and cheese company located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kmilz@sommerspc.com DONALD TRUMP: Global Nurse Seeks to Expedite Class Hearing Date --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Movant Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to move the hearing date for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification from Feb. 12, 2026 to either January 22, 2026, January 29, 2026, or any date between those dates, at the Court's convenience. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of individuals and entities from the healthcare, education (K-12 and higher education), manufacturing, and STEM research fields. The Plaintiffs challenge the President’s September 19, 2025, Proclamation and various federal agencies’ implementation of the Proclamation, which unlawfully imposed a $100,000 fee on employers for each H-1B worker. The Movant Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Concurrently, the Plaintiffs Nephrology Associates, BAE Industries, and Lower Brule Day School filed a motion for class certification, to represent a Proposed Class of: "All U.S. employers who have filed or will file an H-1B petition that is subject to the $100,000 fee under the Sept. 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)." The Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction because they, as well as the unnamed class members and the broader public, are facing imminent irreparable harm from the $100,000 fee. The Plaintiff Global Nurse Force, which helps U.S. hospitals address nursing shortages by matching them with nurses from abroad through the H-1B program, is unable to do so because its clients cannot afford to pay an extra $100,000 per nurse. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PPp6Su 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 ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Bahena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-15350 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.electrolux.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view and purchase a variety of refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, vacuum cleaners, and kitchen equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised patient information. The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Emergency Medical Services Authority informing them that their information may have been compromised in a data breach in 2024. The EMSA data breach occurred between Feb. 10 and 13, 2024, according to a class action lawsuit. During the breach, an unauthorized party allegedly gained access to EMSA's network and acquired files that contained sensitive patient information. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim EMSA failed to protect their information through reasonable cybersecurity measures. As a result, the plaintiffs and other class members had to deal with the consequences of identity theft, the class action lawsuit contends. Emergency Medical Services Authority is an ambulance service in Oklahoma. The service provides emergency medical care to more than 1 million people each year. EMSA has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the EMSA settlement, class members can receive up to $3,000 for documented monetary losses that are fairly traceable to the data breach. This includes bank fees, communication charges, credit-related expenses and more. Class members can also receive up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $15 per hour, for a maximum lost time payment of $60. Lost time payments are included in the $3,000 cap for monetary losses. Class members can receive two years of free single-bureau credit monitoring and identity protection services through the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 3, 2026. The final approval hearing for the EMSA data breach settlement is scheduled for April 6, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 5, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who were mailed notice that their private information may have been impacted by the data incident that Emergency Medical Services Authority experienced in February 2024. Potential Award Up to $3,000 in monetary and out-of-pocket losses and two years of credit monitoring. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses fairly traceable to the data incident, such as phone bills, bank statements, correspondence and receipts. 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 03/05/2026 Case Name Quick, et al. v. Emergency Medical Services Authority, Case No. CJ-2024-2470, in the U.S. District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma Final Hearing 04/06/2026 Settlement Website EMSASettlement.com Claims Administrator EMSA Data Incident Claims Administrator P.O. Box 5414 Portland, OR 97228-5414 (877) 277-7514 Class Counsel William B. Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Defense Counsel Lisa A. Houssiere BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Kristopher E. Koepsel RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS [GN] EMERSON ECOLOGICS: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Krishell K. Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, an individual v. EMERSON ECOLOGICS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2505959 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03425. On October 21, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint which sets forth the following 8 causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erin F. Norris, Esq. Jemuel Gascon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone (213) 643-9300 Email: erin.norris@dentons.com jemuel.gascon@dentons.com - and - Reem Albudoor, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone (619) 236-1414 Email: reem.albudoor@dentons.com EPIQ SYSTEMS: Rieger Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nicole Rieger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epiq Systems, Inc., Angeion Group LLC, JND Legal Administration, Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, Huntington National Bank, Western Alliance Bank, Epiq Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-04793 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04327-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Epiq -- https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us -- is a leading legal and compliance services platform integrating people, process, and technology.[BN] EPIQ SYSTEMS: Tejon Suit Transferred to D. Columbia --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Roger Tejon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epiq Systems, Inc., Angeion Group LLC, JND Legal Administration, Huntington National Bank, Western Alliance Bank, DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:25-cv-22453 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04372-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Epiq -- https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us -- is a leading legal and compliance services platform integrating people, process, and technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Mitchell, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 237-2727 Fax: (202) 237-6131 Email: mmitchell@bsfllp.com EPIQ SYSTEMS: Whalen Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mary Jane Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epiq Systems, Inc., Angeion Group LLC, JND Legal Administration, Huntington National Bank, Western Alliance Bank, DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:25-cv-04499 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04375-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Epiq -- https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us -- is a leading legal and compliance services platform integrating people, process, and technology.[BN] EPIQ SYSTEMS: Whalen Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mary Jane Whalen, Monica Meiloaica, Chasom Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epiq Systems, Inc., Angeion Group LLC, JND Legal Administration, Huntington National Bank, Western Alliance Bank, Case No. 3:25-cv-04522 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04351-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Epiq -- https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us -- is a leading legal and compliance services platform integrating people, process, and technology.[BN] FIRST CAPITAL PRO: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Capital Pro, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Courtney Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Capital Pro, Inc., John Milone, Case No. 2:25-cv-06963 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. First Capital Pro -- https://www.firstprocapital.com/ -- is a financial institution that offers mortgages, asset management, loans, and real estate funding services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com FITLIFE FOODS: Irish Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kareem Irish, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FITLIFE FOODS SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 2025-022367-01 was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Dec. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-25904-XXXX. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for purported disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").[BN] Andrew Schertzer, Esq. SCHERTZER LAW, PLLC 712 S. Howard Ave., #205 Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (248) 513-1017 Email: Schertzer.andrew@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Esq. FORD & HARRISON, LLP 1 SE Third Avenue, Suite 2130 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 808-2143 Facsimile: (305) 808-2101 Email: erodriguez@fordharrison.com FLY VAUNT LLC: Ponton Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fly Vaunt LLC. The case is styled as Dawn Ponton, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated v. Fly Vaunt LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04763-SHD (D. Ariz., Dec. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fly Vaunt LLC -- https://flyvaunt.com/ -- connects everyday travelers with fully privates flight.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com FORGE UNDERWRITING: Sued Over Liability Insurance Policy -------------------------------------------------------- AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORGE UNDERWRITING LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10170 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2025) is an action for declaratory judgment and breach of the excess directors' and officers' liability insurance policy No. B0509 FINFW1800560 sold by Forge to AmTrust specifically to cover losses resulting from securities claims made after a transaction in which AmTrust's majority controlling stockholders acquired the company's minority common shares. Forge Underwriting Limited is an underwriting agency focused on select financial and professional lines classes of business on a worldwide basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Sills, Esq. Tamara D. Bruno, Esq. Peter M. Gillon, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 31 West 52nd St New York, NY 100019 Telephone: (212) 858-1000 Facsimile: (212) 858-1000 Email: tamara.bruno@pillsburylaw.com robert.sills@pillsburylaw.com peter.gillon@pillsburylaw.com FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION: Faces Padilla Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL PADILLA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION LLC, and GREGORY T. ELLIOT, individually, and ARCHIE VISITA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06766 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. This is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the overtime provisions of the FLSA; (ii) the overtime provisions of the NYLL; (iii) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their manual laborers all of their earned wages not less frequently than on a weekly basis; (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees all of their earned wages in full and without deduction; (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice containing specific categories of accurate information upon hire; (vi) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage statement containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; and (vii) any other claim that can be inferred from the facts set forth in the case. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from November 2022 until June 9, 2025 as a non-managerial laborer. Formwork Construction LLC is a New York limited liability company that operates a construction company in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Ryan S. Riger, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 FOSTER FARMS LLC: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler doing business as: Butler Poultry, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc McEntire, Karen McEntire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foster Farms LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-07996 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01136-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Foster Farms -- https://www.fosterfarms.com/ -- is a privately held American poultry company since 1939.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP PLLC 499 A Breakwater Dr. Benton, MS 39039 Phone: (662) 673-0091 Email: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com FRESH INC: Burke Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products ----------------------------------------------------- HELENA BURKE; and BREEANA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRESH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10520 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2025) is a class action seeking to challenge the Defendant's false and deceptive practices in the labeling and marketing of its "Fresh Sugar" products (collectively, the "Products"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the front labels of the Products advertise the inclusion of "SUGAR" in the Products (the "Sugar Representation"), leading reasonable consumers to believe the Products contain sugar. The Sugar Representation is bolstered by the Products' off-label marketing, which prominently represents that the Products are "powered by sugar," "infused with sugar" and that they contain "Sugar For Lasting Hydration." Moreover, photos of crystallized sugar are placed immediately adjacent to the marketing and advertising of the Products, alongside descriptions of the skincare benefits of sugar. Despite the Sugar Representation and other sugar marketing, and unbeknownst to consumers, the Products do not contain sugar. Had Plaintiffs and other consumers been aware that these representations were false and misleading, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for them, says the suit. Fresh, Inc. is a beauty care company that produces body and skin care products, make-up, fragrances, and home accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Hakakian, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 Email: jhakakian@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com GARDEN CITY, GA: Settles Class Suit With $1.4 Million Refund Fund ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Curl, writing for Savannah Agenda, reports that Garden City will stop charging its fire protection fee beginning Jan. 1 and will set aside $1.4 million to partially refund residents and businesses after agreeing to settle a class action lawsuit challenging the legality of the fee. The Garden City Council approved a resolution this month during a special called meeting agreeing to a final order and judgment in Bobby Black v. Garden City, a case filed in Chatham County Superior Court on behalf of taxpayers who paid the city's fire fee dating back to October 2020. Savannah Agenda reached out to Garden City officials for comment on Monday morning and this article will be updated if a response is received. The lawsuit alleged that Garden City's fire fee functioned as an illegal tax under Georgia law. Rather than continue litigating, city officials opted to settle, citing the cost, uncertainty, and risk of prolonged litigation. Under the settlement, Garden City will create an Aggregate Refund Fund totaling $1.4 million, which will be distributed by a court-appointed administrator, minus litigation costs, to all customers who paid the fire fee between Oct. 7, 2020, and the date of final court approval. According to the resolution, eligible class members are expected to receive approximately 27% of the fire fees they paid during that period. The agreement also makes clear that the $1.4 million payment will serve as the sole and exclusive source for refunds and legal costs, fully resolving all claims against the city related to the fire fee. As part of the settlement, Garden City agreed to stop billing or collecting the Fire Protection Fee after Dec. 31, 2025, effectively repealing a program that has been in place since 2010 and amended as recently as 2022. Garden City's decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of such fees across Chatham County and the City of Savannah. In October, a Chatham County Superior Court judge ruled that the county's now-abandoned fire fee was an illegal tax, ordering the county to refund roughly $26.9 million to more than 36,000 residents, plus about $3.4 million in interest, as previously reported. The county has since replaced the fire fee with a property tax increase and is appealing the ruling. The judgement has also caught the attention of the City of Savannah. During a recent Savannah City Council workshop, City Attorney Bates Lovett cited the $30 million ruling as a cautionary example as the city moves forward with plans to implement a stormwater utility fee. "I'm here to warn you that there's storms in the area and it's not all wonderful news," Lovett told council members. While the Georgia Supreme Court recently upheld Athens-Clarke County's stormwater fee, some judges issued concurring opinions warning that local governments should proceed carefully when designing such programs, suggesting that future courts may be less accepting. Savannah officials have argued that a stormwater fee would be a more equitable way to fund drainage and flood-mitigation projects, in part because it would apply to tax-exempt properties such as churches and nonprofits. City Manager Jay Melder has said Savannah has time to monitor ongoing litigation before stormwater bills go out, which are not until July, as currently planned. Mayor Van Johnson has similarly argued that the city should continue moving forward while monitoring the situation and making changes if necessary. During their Dec. 11 meeting, the Savannah City Council ended up postponing consideration of the stormwater fee to Jan. 22 to provide more time to gather public feedback after a years-long outreach effort apparently failed to draw much community participation. Johnson said that the feedback could lead to changes being made to the ordinance, but that the council will vote on the proposal, one way or the other, at the council's Jan. 22 meeting. Meanwhile, the city council approved a $646 million budget for 2026, after removing the $10 million in projected stormwater fee revenue. [GN] GATE GOURMET: Armenta Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nadine Armenta & Anthony Bojorquez, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated and Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. GATE GOURMET, INC., ROSEMARY JIMEMEZ GAUCIN, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25716 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11922. The Plaintiffs' Complaint sought only relief under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). On November 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; meal break violations; rest break violations; wage statement violations; untimely final wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; unfair competition based on the same alleged Labor Code violations; and, violations of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian Berry, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Regina Agopian, Esq. Dominic Sbrocca, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: brian.berry@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com regina.agopian@morganlewis.com dominic.sbrocca@morganlewis.com GAUZY LTD: Duong Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------- BAO DUONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAUZY LTD.; EYAL PESO; and MEIR PELEG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10179 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Gauzy securities between March 11, 2025 and November 13, 2025 inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seek to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) three of the Company's French subsidiaries lacked the financial means to meet their debts as they became due; (2) as a result, it was substantially likely insolvency proceedings would be commenced; (3) as a result, it was substantially likely a potential default under the Company's existing senior secured debt facilities would be triggered; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Gauzy's share price fell $2 per share, or 49.8%, over two consecutive trading days, to close at $2.02 per share on November 17, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Gauzy Ltd. develops, manufactures, and markets vision and light control technologies. The Company offers suspended particle device and liquid crystal films. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 GENERAL MILLS: Argueta Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jessica Argueta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a FRUITY CHEERIOS, Case No. 25CU054520C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03661-AJB-MMP. The Complaint concerns General Mills's Fruity Cheerios cereal product (the "Product"). Plaintiff, a "consumer rights 'tester,'" alleges the Product is misleadingly packaged because it contains nonfunctional slack-fill, as defined by federal and state law. Plaintiff alleges she "would not have purchased the Product, or would not have paid a price premium for the Product, had she known that the size of the package and product label were false and misleading." The Complaint includes two causes of action for common-law fraud and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan O'Neill, Esq. Richard Z. Lee, Esq. DTO LAW 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640 Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: (415) 630-4100 Facsimile: (415) 630-4105 Email: moneill@dtolaw.com rlee@dtolaw.com - and - Michael R. Panek, Esq. DTO LAW 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 335-6999 Facsimile: (213) 335-7802 Email: mpanek@dtolaw.com GEORGE'S INC: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc McEntire, Karen McEntire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. George's Inc., George's Chicken, LLC, Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc., George's Foods, LLC, George's Processing Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00099 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01139-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. George's -- https://georgesinc.com/ -- is among the top ten largest vertically integrated chicken producers in America, supplying a broad range of quality poultry products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Kyle McNew, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT PLLC 310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 951-7234 Fax: (434) 951-7254 Email: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Edward Tucci, Esq. STINSON LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 785-9100 Email: michael.tucci@stinson.com - and - William Greene, Esq. STINSON LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 335-1568 Fax: (613) 335-1657 Email: william.greene@stinson.com GOOGLE LLC: Arroyo Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicole Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 25CV478687 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-10706. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for violation of Arizona’s Telephone, Utility, and Communication Service Records Act ("TUCSRA"). It alleges that "through Google Cloud Contact Center AI ("GCCAI"), Google willfully and without the authorization of the Plaintiff or Class Members (the customers), procured, attempted to procure, or conspired with Verizon to procure telephone record information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, all of whom are residents of Arizona, when they called Verizon."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Travis Leblanc, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 Email: tleblanc@cooley.com - and - Teresa Michaud, Esq. COOLEY LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 561 3250 Facsimile: +1 213 561 3244 Email: tmichaud@cooley.com GRADY MEMORIAL: Does not Properly Pay Paramedics, O'Connor Says --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN O'CONNOR, individually and for others similarly situated v. GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a GRADY HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:25-cv-06979-VMC (N.D. Ga., December 8, 2025) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Grady employs the Plaintiff as one of its hourly employees who regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But Grady does not pay Plaintiff O'Connor and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for hours they work in excess of 40 in a workweek, the complaint contends. Instead, Grady pays O'Connor and the other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials it excludes from these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit. Plaintiff O'Connor was employed by the Defendant as a paramedic since approximately July 2018. Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation is a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 North Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GRUBHUB INC: Mollins Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grubhub, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth M. Mollins Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Grubhub, Inc., Case No. 633512/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Contract. Grubhub Inc. -- https://www.grubhub.com/ -- is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth Marc Mollins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C. 1393 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 101S Hauppauge, New York Phone: (631) 608-4100 Email: kmollinslaw@aol.com HEALTH AND HAPPINESS: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Livingston Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Health And Happiness (H&H) US, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-15340 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://zestypaws.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of supplements for dogs and cats, focusing on digestive support, immune health, joint health, and calming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law HOLLYWOOD MI INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hollywood Mi, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-15336 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://hollywooddj.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of DJ controllers, lights, speakers, mixers, headphones, cables for DJ and PA systems, and related pro audio and lighting equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law HOPE HEALTH INC: Williams Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI/PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOPE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-13882-JD (D.S.C., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information ("PHI/PII") of certain individuals. The PHI/PII of certain individuals include, but not limited to: name; address; date of birth; Social Security number; username and password; driver’s license number; state identification card number; birth certificate; prescription information; mental or physical condition; mental or physical treatment; clinical information; health insurance information; medical record number; patient number; other ID number; credit/debit card no; credit/debit card expiry; date of service; lab results ("PHI/PII" or "Private Information"). On March 20, 2025, Defendant discovered that an unauthorized party 19th gained access to its network between March and March 20, 2025, and accessed or acquired certain files and folders that contained Private Information (hereafter referred to as the "Data Breach"). On December 4, 2025, the Defendant sent out data breach notice letters to individuals who were affected by the data breach. Omitted from the data breach notice letter were the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted details have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff, who retains a vested interest in ensuring that their PHI remains protected. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant’s failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient of Hope Health, which is how Defendant obtained her Private Information. The Defendant provides integrated health services for roughly 85,000 patients and has over 100 providers covering primary care, dental care, chiropractic care, pharmacy services, rheumatology, endocrinology, behavioral health and psychiatry, pain management, substance use treatment, and women’s health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843 494-5536 Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler doing business as: Butler Poultry, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc McEntire, Karen McEntire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., House of Raeford Farms of Louisiana, LLC, Amick Farms, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-12629 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01137-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. House of Raeford -- https://houseofraeford.com/ -- founded in 1925 and headquartered in Rose Hill, North Carolina, provides poultry products for foodservice, retail, and export markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq. ASHCRAFT AND GEREL 701 East Bay St Ste 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bjoyce@ashcraftlaw.com HP HOOD LLC: Purnell Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Reginald Eugene Purnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HP HOOD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV027053 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03624-CSK. The Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks penalties under PAGA for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sander van der Heide, Esq. Tashayla Billington, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 900 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 361-0991 Email: svanderheide@cdflaborlaw.com tbillington@cdflaborlaw.com HURON CENTER PETERMAN: Flores Sues Over Physical Barriers --------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Flores, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HURON CENTER PETERMAN PROPERTIES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04036-TPO (D. Colo., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Save a Lot, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. HURON CENTER PETERMAN PROPERTIES LLC is a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com INFOSYS MCCAMISH: $17.5-Mil. Class Settlement Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Week News Desk reports that India's IT bellwether Infosys announced that a US court approved a settlement of class action lawsuits involving its subsidiary Infosys McCamish Systems LLC. In a stock exchange filing on Saturday, December 20, the IT major said a US court had granted final approval to a settlement that covers all pending class actions against McCamish and related entities, without any admission of liability. The cases relate to class action lawsuits filed in the United States against McCamish, which provides technology and outsourcing services to insurance and financial firms. Infosys had first disclosed these cases to investors in a company statement on November 3 2023, and has been providing periodic updates in its financial statements. On March 13, 2025, McCamish and the plaintiffs took part in a mediation process that resulted in an "agreement in principle" setting out proposed settlement terms. Under that agreement, McCamish has agreed to pay $17.5 million into a settlement fund to resolve the lawsuits. The fund is intended to settle claims not just against McCamish but also against certain customers who had been named in related class actions. Infosys said the court granted final approval to this settlement on December 18, 2025. If no appeal is filed within 30 days of that order, the settlement will become effective, and all allegations in the class action suits will be fully resolved, again with no admission of wrongdoing by McCamish. [GN] INVITATION HOMES: Offers Debt Relief, Cash Payments to Settle Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Invitation Homes has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that the home leasing company failed to include a clause in its leases that would reimburse tenants $100 per month for performing maintenance. The Invitation Homes class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 12, 2025, and covers all individuals who rented in a Minnesota residence leased by Invitation Homes or its affiliates and did not receive compensation for the performance of maintenance at any point July 12, 2015 through July 12, 2021. Settlement documents estimate that there are approximately 1,072 settlement class members. The court-approved Invitation Homes settlement website is available at MNInvitationHomesSettlement.com. According to the website, Invitation Homes settlement class members who submit a valid, timely, claim form are eligible for either debt relief or cash payments. Both benefits be determined by calculating the total number of months the class member lived in the property owned by Invitation Homes but did not receive credit for performing maintenance, multiplied by 100, then multiplying the resulting figure by 0.55, the settlement site explains. Debt relief will be primarily issued as a credit against any outstanding debt a class member has with Invitation Homes, according to the settlement agreement. If a class member does not have debt, or if any credit remains after it is applied to their debt balance, they are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of the remaining credit. Per the settlement, payments will be distributed to class members via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 120 days after issuance before expiration. To submit an Invitation Homes settlement claim form, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can generate a unique PDF copy of the claim form here with their personal information to print and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Invitation Home settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 10, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Invitation Home real estate settlement at a hearing on April 6, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Invitation Homes class action lawsuit alleged that the leasing company failed to include in leases a credit that would reimburse tenants $100 each month they performed maintenance, in violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. [GN] IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Carmichael Files Suit in C.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iroquois Memorial Hospital. The case is styled as Andrea Carmichael, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly situated v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital, Case No. 1:25-cv-01506-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Iroquois Memorial Hospital -- https://iroquoismemorial.com/ -- is a not-for-profit corporation that serves over 50,000 people in East- Central Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Reagan Files Suit in C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iroquois Memorial Hospital. The case is styled as Faye Reagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital, Case No. 1:25-cv-01507-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., Dec. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Iroquois Memorial Hospital -- https://iroquoismemorial.com/ -- is a not-for-profit corporation that serves over 50,000 people in East- Central Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com JUDY E. HANDLER: Baldwin Sues Over Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Baldwin, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUDY E. HANDLER IRREVOCABLE TRUST and SONAMU INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04022 (D. Colo., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited this particular Chicken Teriyaki once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Chicken Teriyaki, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. JUDY E. HANDLER IRREVOCABLE TRUST, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Chicken Teriyaki is situated upon and that is the subject of this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com KLARNA GROUP: 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 Klarna Group plc (NYSE: KLAR) resulting from allegations that Klarna may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Klarna 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=48971 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 November 18, 2025, Yahoo! Finance posted an article entitled "Klarna Revenue Surges Yet Longer Loans Trigger Provisions" on its website. The article, originally published on Bloomberg, stated that Klarna "reported record revenue that beat estimates for its third quarter, while setting aside more provisions for credit losses, in its first set of earnings since going public." The article stated that Klarna "posted a net loss of $95 million, as the firm set aside more money for potentially souring loans. The company said provisions represented 0.72% of gross merchandise volume, up from 0.44% a year ago. Provisions for loan losses came in at $235 million, above analyst estimates of $215.8 million." On this news, Klarna stock fell 9.3% on November 18, 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] KROGER CO: Must File Class Cert Response by March 18, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Womick v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Ill., Filed: June 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to modify expert disclosure and class certification briefing deadlines. The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and its class certification expert reports are due on or before March 18, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply brief in support of class certification and its rebuttal expert reports are due on or before May 22, 2026. The presumptive trial month is September 2026. The Court will schedule a Final Pretrial Conference by separate order. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] KUNLUN TECH: Attack The Sound Sues Over Unlawful Copying of Works ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attack The Sound LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, David Woulard, Stan Burjek, James Burjek, Berk Ergoz, Hamza Jilani, Maatkara Wilson, Arjun Singh, Magnus Fiennes, and Michael Mell, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KUNLUN TECH CO., LTD, SKYWORK AI PTE.LTD, and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:25-cv-15354 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought challenging Defendants' practice of systematically copying and storing works by independent artists to fuel a commercial, mass market music-generation engine branded as "Mureka." The Defendants created and sell an AI product that directly competes in the markets where independent artists earn their living, including sync licensing, production and library music, streaming, commissions, and lyric licensing. The Defendants did not merely "study" genres or abstract musical styles; to run their mass-market music engine, they copied and maintain a centralized library of massive quantities of sound recordings and musical works taken from online sources without permission, together with text and metadata, and use those copies to train and operate models that produce outputs designed to replace licensed music at scale. The Defendants' misconduct extends beyond copyright. Mureka offers sophisticated voice-synthesis and voice-cloning capabilities, including tools that design, clone, and deploy human-like singing and speaking voices across multiple languages. The Defendants collect, store, and exploit biometric identifiers and voiceprints derived from human performances, including distinctive vocal attributes of artists, without complying with the safeguards required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Defendants also misuse artists' voices and identities for commercial gain without consent or adequate disclosure, violating the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA) and similar protections. The Defendants further violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing technological measures that control access to copyrighted works and by removing, altering, or providing false copyright-management information, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are independent musicians and songwriters whose livelihoods depend on licensing and recognition of their works. Kunlun is a publicly traded global internet company listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange and, directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates, owns, controls, and operates the AI music and audio platform known as "Mureka."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: 312.243.5900 Fax: 312.243.5902 Email: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com LAST BRAND: Fabrikant Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------- BEN FABRIKANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAST BRAND, INC. d/b/a QUINCE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10519 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's illegal practice of providing false and misleading reference prices comparisons. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in pervasive and misleading reference-pricing scheme in which Quince prominently advertises a strikethrough price labeled "Traditional retail" next to the actual sale price of its garments, accessories, home goods, and other consumer products sold on Quince.com. The Defendant's "Traditional retail" price does not represent the former price of the very product being sold. Instead, Quince arbitrarily selects a higher price from what it claims is a "comparable" product sold by another brand. This is not disclosed clearly or conspicuously. As a result, consumers shopping on Quince.com reasonably believe the "Traditional retail" price is a legitimate former price that the Defendant previously offered for the same product, when in reality, the product has never been sold by the Defendant, or by any retailer, at that strikethrough price. Last Brand, Inc. is a privately held e-commerce company, founded in 2018, known for operating the direct-to-consumer brand Quince.com, offering affordable luxury essentials in fashion and home goods using high-quality materials like cashmere and leather. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 300-0343 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com - and - Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com LIFERX.MD INC: Whitacre Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeRx.Md, Inc. The case is styled as Amber Whitacre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LifeRx.Md, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-18773 (D.N.J., Dec. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LifeRx.md -- https://liferx.md/ -- is a leading U.S. telehealth provider, trusted by over 100,000 patient.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com LOWE'S HOME: Faces Class Suit Over False Discount Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Lowe's Home Centers LLC. Why: The plaintiff alleges Lowe's misled consumers by advertising perpetual discounts on certain products. Where: The Lowe's class action lawsuit was removed to Washington federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Lowe's Home Centers misled consumers with false discount advertising. Plaintiff Michael Hern filed the Lowe's class action lawsuit, arguing the company engaged in a "massive and consistent” false discount advertising scheme both in its retail stores and on its website by advertising perpetual discounts on certain products. According to the class action lawsuit, these practices caused consumers to pay more than they otherwise would have paid and to purchase items they may not have bought absent the supposed discounts. Hern claims he personally purchased blinds and a refrigerator that were advertised as discounted, only to later discover the products were routinely offered at the same prices. The discounted products include Bali and Levolor blinds and shades and major appliances, such as refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, microwaves, wall ovens, cooktops, freezers, washers and dryers. Lowe's class action alleges retailer ignored pricing guidance The class action lawsuit further claims Lowe's ignored long-standing regulatory guidance on comparative price advertising. According to Hern, retailers are required to ensure reference prices reflect genuine former prices, not inflated figures designed to manufacture urgency or perceived savings. The class action lawsuit alleges Lowe's conduct violates Washington's Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce. Hern seeks restitution and disgorgement from all revenues, profits and/or unjust enrichment associated with Lowe's sale of discounted products to people in Washington since at least April 2021. Lowe's denied the allegations and removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, citing the size of the proposed class and the amount in controversy. In March, Lowes was hit with two similar class action lawsuits, both filed in North Carolina. The plaintiff is represented by Daniel M. Hattis and Paul Karl Lukacs of Hattis Lukacs & Corrington. The Lowe's class action lawsuit is Hern v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02502, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS: Nieva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as David Nieva, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC aka Macy's, Case No. 25STCV36892 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Macy's, Inc. -- https://www.macys.com/ -- is an American holding company of department stores.[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 MAMIYE BROTHERS: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Youngren, and all others similarly situated v. Mamiye Brothers, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-15259 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.littleme.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Youngren and other blind or visually-impaired individuals.. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Youngren’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant’s Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Youngren seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of baby and toddler products, including bodysuits, sleeper gowns, footies, blankets, bib and burp sets, sweaters, dresses, pajamas, outerwear, pants and legging sets, occasionwear and activewear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law MARIKA LLC: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Marika, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-15347 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://marika.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of leggings, sports bras, jackets, dresses, shirt, hoodies, sweatshirts, joggers, hoodies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beaty Says ---------------------------------------------------------- GRIFFIN BEATY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01357-ALM (E.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, criminals were able to access Marquis Software's network through its SonicWall firewall, and ultimately compromised consumers' names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and dates of birth. The Data Breach was a direct and proximate result of Marquis Software's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures. Because of Marquis Software's failures, unauthorized individuals were able to access and pilfer Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members are at substantially increased risk of future identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future, says the suit. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company offers marketing and compliance software, and other related solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean McCaffity, Esq. SOMMERMAN, MCCAFFITY, QUESADA & GEISLER, L.L.P. 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75219-4492 Telephone: (214) 720-0720 Facsimile: (214) 720-0184 Email: SMcCaffity@textrial.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: achristina@lowey.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Schott Sues Over Compromised Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK SCHOTT, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01358-ALM (E.D. Tex., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of potentially several hundred thousand individuals, including Plaintiff. According to Marquis, the breach occurred on or about August 14, 2025, however, Marquis delayed over 3 months to provide any notice to those affected by the Data Breach, including Plaintiff and Class members. The complaint asserts that the PII was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. The Defendants have also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and have not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that information. On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and, in the alternative to their contract-based claims, unjust enrichment. The remedies Plaintiff seeks include actual, nominal, and putative damages; appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief; and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Marquis Software Solutions is a digital and physical marketing and communications vendor for various financial institutions in the United States, including First National Bank of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica W. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com MAYAGUEZ, PR: Bid to Deny Class Certification Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Padua-Silva v. Municipality of Mayaguez, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01064 (D.P.R., Filed Feb. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan entered an order denying as moot motion to deny class certification. If Defendant wishes to move this Court to deny class certification, it shall refile a motion that addresses the Second Amended Complaint. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act.[CC] MEC MANUFACTURING: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEC Manufacturing LLC. The case is styled as Brian Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEC Manufacturing LLC, Case No. 25STCV36941 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." MEC -- https://www.mecinc.com/ -- supplies components for many applications for light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks as well as diesel and EV powertrain systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com MICHIGAN: O'Connor Appeals Judgment Order to 6th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS O'CONNOR is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Dennis O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rachael Eubanks, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-12837, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay just compensation under the Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On Nov. 7, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Nancy G. Edmunds granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 3, 2025. On Sept. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen class discovery. On Sept. 9, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Sept. 3 Order, which Judge Edmunds granted on Dec. 3, 2025. The Plaintiff's motion to reopen class discovery is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Dennis O'Connor v. Rachael Eubanks, et al., Case No. 25-2104, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on December 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DENNIS O'CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip Lee Ellison, Esq. P.O. Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 - and - Matthew Edwin Gronda, Esq. GRONDA 4800 Fashion Square Boulevard, Suite 200 Saginaw, MI 48604 Telephone: (989) 233-1639 Defendants-Appellees RACHAEL EUBANKS, et al. are represented by: Brian Kenneth McLaughlin, Esq. Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 335-7584 - and - James Alan Ziehmer, Esq. Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 30754 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-3203 MINERVA 2915 CORP: Antonio Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Tomas Antonio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MINERVA 2915 CORP. d/b/a NONNA'S 1977, MADJI HASSAN a/k/a MICHAEL HASSAN, and LEON LEANDROU, Case No. 1:25-cv-06930 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. The Defendants never paid Plaintiff any overtime wages – despite him regularly working overtime hours each and every week of his employment. The Defendants also failed to pay their other food service employees, namely the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, at the required minimum wage rates and/or overtime premiums for hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants knew of, and/or showed reckless disregard for, the practices by which Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages and overtime premiums. The Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wages and overtime premiums would economically injure Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and that Defendants' pay practices violated the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt food service employees to work at Nonna's. The Defendants owned and operated an Italian restaurant named Nonna's in Astoria, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: (718) 799-9111 Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com MODANI FURNITURE: Simmons Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ RANDOLPH SIMMONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODANI FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10156 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the website, www.modani.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff attempted to use Defendant's website from his home in Bronx County, New York to browse and purchase household furniture, including a sofa and dining table, on three separate occasions: November 20, 2025; November 25, 2025; and December 1, 2025. Each attempt was made on his personal computer with NVDA enabled, for the purpose of browsing specific products and completing purchases. However, persistent accessibility barriers -- including missing alternative text, empty links, broken ARIA references, low-contrast elements, and unlabeled form controls documented in SortSite audits -- prevented him from navigating or transacting on the Website without assistance, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to adopt, implement, and maintain accessible web design practices consistent with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1. Modani Furniture, Inc. operates a consumer-facing retail business through its interactive e-commerce website which offers a wide range of household furniture and decor, including sofas, beds, dining tables, and accessories, with product listings, specifications, and online purchasing features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 MODERN CLEANING: Santos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. MODERN CLEANING SYSTEMS CORP. and BRIAN DELUCA, Case 2:25-cv-06917 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to remedy violations of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law Article 19 and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours each week but was not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked after 40 hours per week. In order to circumvent their obligation to Plaintiff premium overtime pay for the hours that she worked after 40 hours in a single workweek, Defendants issued Plaintiff multiple paychecks each pay period and paid Plaintiff at her regular hourly rate for all hours worked, including those hours that Plaintiff worked after 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective premium overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective at the required overtime rate was willful. Defendants failed to post required notices regarding payment of minimum wages and overtime as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a custodial worker cleaning commercial buildings from February 2016 until October 2025. The Defendants are engaged in the building maintenance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- John Austin, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-431 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Bartlett Sues Over Negligent Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Bartlett, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-412 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Becker Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tamara Becker on behalf of the estate of Dennis Moritz, Sr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-546 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 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 Tamara Becker is a natural person and is the Representative of Dennis Moritz, Sr., deceased, who 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: Collins Sues Over Negligent Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Betty Collins, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-427 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Ehlers Sues Over Wrongful Advertising ------------------------------------------------------- John Ehlers, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-429 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Gholi Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Hassan Gholi, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-432 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Heinle Sues Over Negligent Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Heinle, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-288 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: Irwin Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Irwin, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-281 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: Morgan Sues Over Negligent Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Morgan, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-289 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: Mullins Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Buford Mullins, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-285 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: Nelson Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Wilford Nelson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-286 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: Owens Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Owens, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-291 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: Porter Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Porter, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-415 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Purnell Sues Over Wrongful Sale and Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Purnell, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-430 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Quist-Natter Sues Over Negligent Advertising -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanne Quist-Natter, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-433 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Reynolds Sues Over Negligent Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Reynolds, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-411 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 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: Rundquist Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Rundquist, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-540 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 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: Webber Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- David Webber on behalf of the estate of Ximena Webber, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-561 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 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 David Webber is a natural person and is the Representative of Ximena Webber, deceased, who 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: Woolbert Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Woolbert, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-537 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 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 MORTGAGE ONE INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgage One, Inc. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mortgage One, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03648-CAB-DDL (S.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Mortgage One, Inc. -- https://www.mortgageonehomeloans.com/ -- specialize in helping first-time buyers find their dream home, we also help home buyers of all types.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Phone: (562) 500-0600 Fax: (888) 570-2021 Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc McEntire, Karen McEntire, and others similarly situated v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Peco Foods, Inc., House of Raeford Farms, Inc., House of Raeford Farms of Louisiana, LLC, George's Inc., George's Chicken, LLC, Ozark Mountaain Poultry, Inc., George's Foods, LLC, George's Processing, Inc., Foster Farms LLC, Amick Farms, LLC, Case Foods, Inc., Case Farms Processing, Inc., Fielddale Farms Corp., Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry, LLC, Mar-Jac Holdings, Inc., O.K. Foods, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Allen Harim Foods LLC, Harrison Poultry, Inc., Claxton Poultry Farms doing business as: Fries Farms, Norman W. Fries, Inc. doing business as: Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-00217 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01134-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Mountaire Farms -- https://mountaire.com/ -- is a fast growing agricultural food processing company.[BN] NETFLIX INC: Fendelander Sues Over Proposed Netflix Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE FENDELANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10521 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2025) is an antitrust lawsuit brought under the Clayton Act to enjoin the merger between Defendant Netflix Inc. and Warner Bros. Discovery. According to the complaint, the proposed merger of the Defendant and Warner Bros would increase the Herfindahl-Hirschman index in the U.S. Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) Market market by more than 500 points, from an already moderately concentrated baseline -- a massive increase that is presumptively anticompetitive under Department of Justice Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Based on the characteristics of the U.S. SVOD Market and of the merging entities -- including the Content and Subscriber Barrier to Entry (CSBE) and the content libraries and SVOD subscriber bases of the Netflix and Warner Bros, respectively -- the Guidelines presumption of anticompetitiveness is powerfully borne out by the specific facts here. If allowed to consummate, the Netflix-Warner Bros merger will substantially decrease competition in the U.S. SVOD Market, harming consumers in that market through increased prices, reduced service quality, and decreased output (including reduced consumer choice). The merger will fortify the CSBE, preventing competitive entry and expansion at the same time the SVOD Market is massively and perhaps irreversibly concentrated, says the suit. Netflix, Inc. operates as a subscription streaming service and production company. The Company offers a wide variety of TV shows, movies, anime, and documentaries on internet-connected devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. Priscilla Ghita, Esq. Bryce W. Talbot, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (332) 322-8835 Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com pghita@bathaeedunne.com btalbot@bathaeedunne.com - and - Allison Watson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 3420 Bristol Street Suite 600 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 Email: awatson@bathaeedunne.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. Kathryn J. Johnson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com kjohnson@bathaeedunne.com NURA PLLC: Gilchrist Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nura, PLLC, et al. The case is styled as Courtney Gilchrist, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nura, PLLC, Nura Surgical Center, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-25-22055 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Dec. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Nura -- https://www.nuraclinics.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Edina, Minnesota that specializes in Pain Medicine and Physician Assistant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhett McSweeney, Esq. MCSWEENEY/LANGEVIN LLC 2116 2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: (612) 746-4646 Fax: (612) 454-2678 Email: ram@westrikeback.com NUZEST USA INC: Hunthausen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuzest USA, Inc. The case is styled as Drew Hunthausen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nuzest USA, Inc. a Wyoming corporation, d/b/a WWW.NUZEST.COM, Case No. 25STCV37049 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2025). Nuzest USA, Inc. -- https://www.nuzest.com/ -- offers top-quality nutrition and dietary supplements for health and wellness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com OPTUMRX INC: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $1.86MM --------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that OptumRx has agreed to a $1,860,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the pharmacy sent prerecorded voice messages to consumers' cell phones and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) lines in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TPCA). The OptumRx TCPA class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 22, 2025 and covers any United States resident who is not or was not an OptumRx customer or account holder but received a clinical adherence call from OptumRx (not in connection to prescription reminders or COVID-19 vaccines) that used an artificial or prerecorded voice sent to their cell phone or VoIP line between April 20, 2020 and October 22, 2025. Per court documents, approximately 155,244 unique telephone numbers are potentially covered by the OptumRx settlement. The court-approved website for the OptumRx class action settlement can be found at OptumRxTCPAClassActionSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, OptumRx settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment estimated to be between $72 and $135. The final amount each eligible class member receives will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed and the remaining amount in the settlement fund after the payment of settlement administration expenses, attorneys' fees and lead plaintiff service awards, the agreement notes. Importantly, the settlement agreement adds that class members may submit only one claim form, regardless of how many times they were called or how many prerecorded messages were left. To submit an OptumRx settlement claim form, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form from the settlement website to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator listed on the first page. All OptumRx TCPA settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 4, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the OptumRx settlement at a hearing on March 31, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The OptumRx TCPA class action lawsuit alleged that the pharmaceutical services company left prerecorded voice messages on consumers' cell phones or VoIP services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. These messages, the complaint claimed, regarded clinical dosage adherences and were sent to consumers who did not have an OptumRx account. [GN] ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bennett Says ------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION; COX ENTERPRISES, INC.; EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.; and WP COMPANY LLC d/b/a THE WASHINGTON POST, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02006 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants' systems because the Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. As a result, Plaintiff was injured by Defendants' Data Breach, says the suit. Oracle Corporation supplies software for enterprise information management. The Company offers databases and relational servers, application development and decision support tools, and enterprise business applications. Oracle's software runs on network computers, personal digital assistants, set-top devices, PCs, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes, and massively parallel computers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: bresch@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenamalad.com ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Blount Says ------------------------------------------------------ PATTY BLOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION; and CANON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02003 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants' systems because the Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. As a result, Plaintiff was injured by Defendants' Data Breach. Oracle Corporation supplies software for enterprise information management. The Company offers databases and relational servers, application development and decision support tools, and enterprise business applications. Oracle's software runs on network computers, personal digital assistants, set-top devices, PCs, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes, and massively parallel computers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwella@stranchlaw.com P.D.K.N. P-7 LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. P.D.K.N. P-7, LLC, d/b/a CATCH & CUT, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 0:25-cv-62620-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 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://catchandcut.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 sells to the public its food products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food products that are made in and also sold in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurant. 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. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls an auto-dealership selling cars, car parts, and accessories.[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 M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com PARTS AUTHORITY METRO: Ornelas Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joline Ornelas, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PARTS AUTHORITY METRO LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PAI HOLDCO, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2532265 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernadino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11967. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendants on behalf of a putative class: violation of Labor Code for alleged unpaid minimum wages; violation of Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime; violation of Labor Code for alleged unpaid meal period premiums; violation of Labor Code for alleged unpaid rest period premiums; violation of Labor Code for allegedly untimely final wages; violation of Labor Code for alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements; violation of Bus. & Prof. Code for alleged unfair competition; violation of Labor Code and 2802 for alleged failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Jesse Edelman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Jesse.Edelman@jacksonlewis.com - and - Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-8131 Email: Jennell.Shannon@jacksonlewis.com PARTS AUTHORITY: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Carmelo Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-10525 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to the misclassification of non-exempt employees as exempt; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff's worked for a total of 40 hours per week. However, Plaintiff worked in excess of his scheduled shifts, but without additional compensation. The Plaintiff's fixed salary was based on a weekly schedule of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant required Plaintiff to work over 70 hours per week. As a result, Plaintiff was shorted overtime hours for every workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a store manager at "Total Automotive," located in Yonkers, New York. The Defendant is a national distributor of automotive and truck parts, tools, equipment, and transmissions, with customers in both commercial and e-commerce channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 PENNSYLVANIA: Court Rejects "Heilner" SORNA Class Action Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Eric Heilner, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 1:25-CV-01043 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed four plaintiffs from the action, granted in forma pauperis status to one plaintiff, dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, and denied the request for class certification. On June 10, 2025, the court received and docketed a complaint from seven plaintiffs: (1) Eric Heilner; (2) Joseph Bryan Dantzler Harris; (3) Darrell Jesse Rivera; (4) Aaron Cunagin; (5) Joey Hoffman; (6) Dustin Zernicke; and (7) Joseph Settle. All plaintiffs are self-represented individuals housed at the Dauphin County Prison. The complaint named eight defendants: (1) Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (2) Pennsylvania General Assembly; (3) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (4) Attorney General of the United States; (5) United States Department of Justice; (6) United States Congress; (7) Verizon and any other companies; and (8) Pennsylvania State Policy. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of 34 U.S.C. Section 20901, 18 U.S.C. Section 2250, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4915.2, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9799.16, 18 Pa. Section 7512, and 18 Pa. Section 6312, collectively referred to as the federal and Pennsylvania SORNA statutes. The plaintiffs stated that these statutes violate the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. As relief, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief and class certification to bring this action on behalf of other similarly-situated individuals. On June 10, 2025, the court entered an administrative order requiring all plaintiffs to pay the outstanding filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court gave the plaintiffs thirty days to return the properly executed forms and warned that their failure to do so would result in the dismissal of their action without prejudice. Currently, only plaintiffs Hoffman, Rivera, and Heilner filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the court received the prisoner trust fund account for Rivera only. The court determined that Dantzler-Harris, Cunagin, Zernicke, and Settle neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As these four plaintiffs have neither paid the fee, nor requested an extension of time to pay the filing fee, nor submitted the required form, the court dismissed the claims they raise without prejudice. The court granted Rivera's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Hoffman and Heilner filed only motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and Heilner's motion is not the form forwarded to him by the court and is missing the required authorization. These are insufficient under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). The court did not dismiss these plaintiffs as parties at this time, but sent an additional administrative order to Dauphin County Prison for the prisoner trust account statements for Heilner and Hoffman. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and applied the legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The complaint stated that all plaintiffs who bring forth this suit are either currently being prosecuted or have previously been prosecuted and convicted under one or more of the named statutes, are subject to an unconstitutional registry under state and federal SORNA laws and continue to be deprived of their right to reputation, privacy, protection from cruel and unusual punishments and protection under The Ex Post Facto Clauses of both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. The court found that the allegations of standing in this complaint are simply too general. One infirmity is that there are no alleged underlying criminal convictions or indictments demonstrating that any of the six identified statutes applies to each plaintiff. Without more specific allegations, the three named plaintiffs proceeding in this action do not have Article III standing. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to cure the pleading defects. The plaintiffs requested class certification. The Third Circuit has held that it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for class certification. The court dismissed four of the seven plaintiffs for not paying the requisite filing fee or filing motions to proceed in forma pauperis and granted in forma pauperis status to Rivera. The court sent an additional administrative order to Dauphin County Prison for the prisoner trust account statements for Heilner and Hoffman. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. The request for class certification was denied. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that cures the pleading defects. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=46xdgf from PacerMonitor.com PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Food Manufacturing reports that a lawsuit has accused PepsiCo and Walmart of working together to artificially inflate the costs of PepsiCo soft drinks at other retailers over the past decade. The proposed class action lawsuit was filed Monday, December 15, in a federal court in New York, Reuters reported. The complaint alleged that the food and beverage giant offered the retail titan preferential wholesale pricing and other incentives -- while raising wholesale prices for rival retailers. The moves, in effect, eliminated price competition and violated antitrust law. The proposed class action reportedly seeks to cover all U.S. consumers who purchased Pepsi soft drinks from other retailers since the beginning of 2015 -- potentially millions of people. The new filing follows the recent unsealing of a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission during the Biden administration that accused Pepsi alone of violating federal law on price discrimination. The lawsuit was dropped under the Trump administration in May. PepsiCo told Reuters in a statement that the company operates "in compliance with applicable laws" and is committed to "fair, competitive and non-discriminatory pricing." Walmart said in its statement that it was "committed to negotiating on behalf of our customers so we can deliver value and everyday low prices." [GN] PIER SIXTY: Songun Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Efe Songun, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PIER SIXTY LLC d/b/a PIER 60, d/b/a THE LIGHTHOUSE, d/b/a CURRENT, and PAUL GALLEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-10524 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, due to time shaving, unpaid wages, due to tip retention, unpaid wages, due to a failure to reimburse uniform expenses, including uniform maintenance expenses, liquidated damages, statutory penalties due to WTPA violations, economic damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, damages for egregious emotional distress due to discrimination based on Plaintiff's sexual orientation, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was compensated as working 58.5 hours for the week ending on May 18, 2025. However, due to Defendants' time shaving policy, Plaintiff worked in excess of his compensated hours, and this excess time went unpaid. the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members were not compensated for all hours worked, due to Defendants' unlawful time shaving policy. The Defendants failed to pay all tips owed to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Tipped Subclass Members, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Banquet Server at Defendants' "The Pier Sixty Collection" in April 2023. PIER SIXTY LLC does business as an event venue, hosting weddings, bar and bat mitzvahs, fundraising benefit galas, holiday parties, and proms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 PIERRE FABRE: Faces Class Suit Over Skincare Products' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Ivy-Karina Vales filed a class action lawsuit against Pierre Fabre USA Inc. and Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA Inc. Why: Vales claims the companies falsely advertise that their Avene skincare products are preservative-free. Where: The Piere Fabre class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Pierre Fabre USA falsely advertises that its Avene skincare products are preservative-free. Plaintiff Ivy-Karina Vales filed the class action complaint against Pierre Fabre USA and Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA on Dec. 8 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, the companies falsely advertise their Avene skincare products as preservative-free despite containing a well-known preservative. Vales claims the companies mislead consumers into paying a premium for products they believe are preservative-free, causing financial harm to consumers who prefer such products. As a result, Vales says she and other consumers are entitled to compensation for the price premium they paid for the products. She also seeks injunctive relief to prevent Pierre Fabre from continuing to market the products as preservative-free. Avene skincare products contain citric acid, lawsuit claims According to the class action lawsuit, Pierre Fabre's Avene skincare products are marketed as preservative-free, leading consumers to believe they are purchasing premium products. "Defendants falsely and deceptively advertise the products as 'preservative-free' and/or '0% preservative,'" Vales says. "However, contrary to the products' Challenged Representations, the products actually contain citric acid -- a well-defined artificial preservative ingredient commonly used in cosmetic products." Vales claims Pierre Fabre's advertising exploits consumers' desire for preservative-free products, allowing the company to charge higher prices. She says she and other consumers relied on the company's advertising when purchasing the products, believing they were free of preservatives. If consumers had known the products contained preservatives, they would not have purchased them or would have paid less, she alleges. Recently, various lawsuits have targeted the use of citric acid in "all natural" or "preservative free" claims. Frito-Lay is facing class action allegations over the use of citric acid in its Poppables snack, while Big Heart Pet Brands is accused of falsely advertising its Milk-Bone Dipped dog biscuits for the same reason. The plaintiff is represented by Valter Malkhasyan and Erik Pogosyan of Malk & Pogo Law Group LLP. The Avene Fabre class action lawsuit is Vales v. Pierre Fabre USA Inc., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-10523, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] PILOT CORP: Simmons Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- RANDOLPH SIMMONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10157-GBD (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2025) is a civil action brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.pilotpen.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff attempted to use Defendant's website from his home in Bronx County, New York, on three separate occasions: November 20, 2025; November 25, 2025; and December 1, 2025. Each attempt was made on his personal computer with NVDA enabled, for the purpose of browsing specific Pilot Pen products and completing purchases for his licensed vending business. The Plaintiff asserts that he encountered specific barriers on specific dates while attempting to buy identified products, was unable to complete transactions, and has a time-bound intent to return and purchase once accessibility is restored. He alleges that Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to adopt, implement, and maintain accessible web design practices consistent with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, Level AA. Pilot Corporation of America operates the website that offers a wide range of writing instruments and accessories, including pens, markers, refills, and promotional products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 1300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 PLANTATION SALES: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLANTATION SALES, INC., d/b/a WESTON VOLVO, a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-62601-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.westonvolvocars.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant’s physical auto-dealership. Defendant also sells to the public its products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant’s products also sold in, from, and through Defendant’s physical auto-dealership. 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. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls an auto-dealership selling cars, car parts, and accessories.[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 M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com PLATINUM CORRAL: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Mitchell Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARBELIS MITCHELL and ERICA KHISHIGMAA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLATINUM CORRAL, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 7:25cv00922 (W.D. Va., December 16, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid regular wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and other applicable damages brought pursuant to federal and state wage laws. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are non-exempt restaurant employees that were (and continue to be) paid by the hour. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members' primary duty is to perform server duties at Golden Corral restaurants, for which they were paid an hourly wage (typically less than minimum wage) and received tips. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were also directed to perform other unrelated duties, including creating floor plans, food preparation, including making cotton candy, rolling silverware, restocking, and extensive cleaning. All Plaintiffs were directed to work "off-the-clock" for significant portions of their work weeks when they were not actively serving customers. These foregoing uncompensated hours resulted in uncompensated regular/minimum wage compensation and/or uncompensated overtime compensation, as applicable each week, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have, hence, suffered damages and continue to suffer damages as a result of the Defendant's acts or omissions, says the suit. Plaintiffs Marbelis Mitchell ("Mitchell") and Erica Khishigmaa are hourly employees of Defendant. Defendant Platinum Corral, L.L.C. is a limited liability company owns 5 Virginia and 7 North Carolina Golden Corral franchisee locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. HADDOX LAW 1203 Texas Street Salem, VA 24153 Telephone: 540-765-4284 Facsimile: 540-380-0065 E-mail: brittany@haddox.law - and - Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 Email: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com PORVEN REAL ESTATE: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. PORVEN REAL ESTATE, INC. and PORVEN, LTD. IN FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25735 (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Porven Real Estate, Inc. owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property subject to this action, including the property's general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial business located within the property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial business has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The complaint asserts that Defendants have discriminated against the 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Kaneff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prosper Marketplace, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Kaneff, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc., Case No. 25STCV36807 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Prosper Marketplace, Inc. -- https://www.prosper.com/ -- provides online peer-to-peer lending marketplace services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com PUPCULTURE 149: Faces Montiel Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ OBDULIA CUATE MONTIEL, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. PUPCULTURE 149 PLYMOUTH LLC d/b/a PUPCULTURE DUMBO, PUPCULTURE 21 MURRAY LLC d/b/a PUPCULTURE FIDI, PUPCULTURE 170 HUDSON LLC d/b/a PUPCULTURE TRIBECA, PUPCULTURE 645 WEST 57 LLC d/b/a PUPCULTURE WEST 57, PUPCULTURE 521 BROOME LLC d/b/a PUPCULTURE SOHO, JOHN DOE SUCCESSOR and IBRAHIM ALIMIMEH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10177 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that she and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, due to a fixed salary; (2) unpaid overtime wages, due to a fixed salary payment without any pay for hours worked over forty (40); (3) statutory penalties; (4) liquidated damages; and (5) attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants and worked for a single week as a Kennel Attendant at Pupculture Tribeca Facility in New York in 2019. In or around May 2021, the Plaintiff was re-hired by Defendants to work as a Kennel Attendant at Defendants' Pupculture SoHo Facility. He worked in this position at this location until June 2024. Pupculture 149 Plymouth LLC is a dog day care center in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 RAIN BIRD CORPORATION: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rain Bird Corporation. The case is styled as Doris Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rain Bird Corporation, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00699-RM (S.D. Ariz., Dec. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Contract. Rain Bird -- https://www.rainbird.com/ -- is a leading global manufacturer and provider of irrigation products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: anasuya@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1760 Market St., Ste. 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 609-6910 Fax: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com RAYUS RADIOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Rayus Radiology agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it disclosed patient information to third parties without consent. The Rayus Radiology class action settlement benefits Rayus Radiology patients who had a patient portal account and visited the Rayus website at least once between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2023. According to the class action lawsuit, Rayus Radiology violated the law by disclosing patient information to third parties without consent. Plaintiffs in the case say they never would have used Rayus' services if they knew their information would be shared without their consent. Rayus Radiology is a national radiology company with more than 50 locations. Rayus hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Rayus class action settlement, class members can receive a $25 payment. Class members can also enroll in a free Privacy Shield Pro product, which includes a 14-day free trial of the full product. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 1, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Rayus Radiology class action settlement is scheduled for Dec. 18, 2025. To receive Rayus class action settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 29, 2026. Who's Eligible Patients of RAYUS Radiology (including those entities formerly known as Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Insight Imaging and/or Diagnostic Centers of America) who had a patient portal account with RAYUS Radiology between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2023, and visited the RAYUS Radiology website at least once during that same time period. Potential Award $25 cash payment Proof of Purchase N/A 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 01/29/2026 Case Name Fleece v. Diagnostic Services Holdings Inc. d/b/a RAYUS Radiology, et al., Case No. 49D01-2305-PL-019711, in the Indiana Superior Court for Marion County; Christensen, et al. v. Diagnostic Services Holdings Inc. d/b/a RAYUS Radiology, et al., Case No. 0:23-cv-02272, in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota Final Hearing 12/18/2025 Settlement Website RayusSettlement.com Claims Administrator The Rayus Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@RayusSettlement.com (833) 417-4920 Class Counsel Lynn A. Toops Amina A. Thomas COHEN MALAD LLP J. Gerard Stranch IV Andrew E. Mize STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Samuel J. Strauss Raina Borelli STRAUSS BORRELLI LLP Defense Counsel John C. Babione CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP [GN] RED CLASSIC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------- Maurice Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED CLASSIC TRANSIT, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-04142-TJS (D. Md., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought alleges that the Defendant violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL") by failing to pay its drivers wages for a mandatory on-boarding orientation and by subsequently deducting orientation pay from their initial paycheck(s). The Defendant promised to provide Plaintiff with a $300 Comcheck payment (a type of instant funds transfer) as compensation for orientation. The Plaintiff did, in fact, receive $300 upon completing orientation in Charlotte, North Carolina, but this amount was subsequently deducted from Plaintiff’s earnings in his initial paycheck. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, and undisclosed in the offer letter, was the fact Red Classic intended to treat the $300 as an "advance" on wages, not wages earned for the approximately 30 hours he spent in orientation, at the direction and control of the Defendant. By failing to pay Plaintiff any wages at all for orientation, the Defendant has violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Maurice Smith worked as a driver for Red Classic from October 2024 through September 2025. Red Classic is a trucking company authorized by the U.S. Department of Transportation to operate as a for-hire motor carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 665-9529 Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Rachel Smit, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 607-3260 Fax: (617) 488-2261 Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com rachel@fairworklaw.com REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Gilmore Files Verification Under Delaware Law ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dena A. Gilmore filed a verification pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23 in connection with the filing of her complaint captioned as DENA A. GILMORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARK J. FOLEY, Defendant, Case No. 2025-1415 (Del. Ch., December 5, 2025). The class action complaint was filed by the Plaintiff in connection with the now consummated acquisition of Revance Therapeutics, Inc. by Crown Laboratories, Inc. She beneficially owned shares of Revance common stock continuously since prior to the announcement of the original Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 11, 2024, through the closing of the Transaction on February 6, 2025. The Plaintiff has read and authorized the filing of the complaint against the Defendants in this action and noted that allegations as to her and her own actions are true and correct and all other allegations are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. In accordance with Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23, she has not received, been promised or offered, and will not accept, any form of compensation, directly or indirectly, for prosecuting or serving as a representative party in this class action, except for: (1) such damages or other relief as the Court may award her as a member of the class; (11) such fees, costs, or other payments as the Court expressly approves to be paid to or on her behalf; or (iii) reimbursement, paid by my attorneys, of actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures incurred directly in connection with the prosecution of this Action. Revance Therapeutics, Inc. produces biopharmaceutical products. The Company develops drug delivery and treatments for dermatology and aesthetic medicine.[BN] RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Reed Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richmond Behavioral Health Authority. The case is styled as Shanequa Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Richmond Behavioral Health Authority, Case No. 3:25-cv-01037 (E.D. Va., Dec. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury/ Motor Vehicle. Richmond Behavioral Health Authority (RBHA) -- https://www.rbha.org/ -- is the statutorily established public entity responsible for providing mental health, intellectual disabilities, substance abuse and prevention services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 999-9999 Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com RIDGE WALLET: Benson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ridge Wallet, LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Benson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Ridge Wallet, LLC, Case No. 826157/2025E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Dec. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other (Statutory Tort of Discrimination). Ridge -- https://ridge.com/ -- is a wallet and accessories manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com RIVERGATE KW: Jackson Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEIGH JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERGATE KW MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-018686 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Dec. 8, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Rivergate KW Management LLC is a multifamily and commercial property management firm specializing in enhancing property values and providing exceptional living environments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC 1000 Brickell Ave, Suite 715 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 843-1933 Email: mtp@lawforconsumers.com ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Data Breach Suit Deal Final Hearing Set Jan. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology Associates (RMG) has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a data breach that occurred in September 2024. The RMG settlement benefits individuals whose private information may have been accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party as a result of the data breach reported experienced by Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology in September 2024. Plaintiffs in the RMG data breach class action lawsuit accused Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology of failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect their information. As a result, the plaintiffs say, their information was compromised in a data breach. Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology is a medical practice that specializes in digestive health. Rocky Mountain has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the RMG data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the RMG settlement, class members can receive up to $1,000 for documented losses related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed expenses, identity theft losses, fraud and more. Claimants must provide documentation of these losses in order to receive reimbursement. All class members are eligible for two years of free credit and medical identity monitoring services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 2, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology class action settlement is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 2, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals residing in the United States whose private information was potentially compromised as a result of the data incident in September 2024. Potential Award Up to $1,000 for documented losses Proof of Purchase Receipts, bank statements, credit card statements, invoices, bills or other documentation. 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 02/02/2026 Case Name Davis, et al. v. Rocky Mountain Gastroenterology Associates PLLC, Case No. 2024CV31831, in the District Court for Jefferson County, in the State Of Colorado Final Hearing 01/23/2026 Settlement Website RockyMountainSettlement.com Claims Administrator RMG Data Incident c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Info@RockyMountainSettlement.com (833) 417-4917 Class Counsel MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC MASON LLP Defense Counsel Unpublished [GN] RUSSIA: Messaging App Users Sue Over Media Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------- The Moscow Times reports that a group of WhatsApp and Telegram users in Russia has filed a class-action lawsuit against state media regulator Roskomnadzor and the Digital Development Ministry over call restrictions on both messaging apps, Russian media reported Tuesday, November 23. The 42 plaintiffs argue that the restrictions violate their constitutional rights, including freedom of information and the secrecy of communications. In August, Roskomnadzor began restricting voice and video calls on WhatsApp and Telegram as part of what it described as an anti-fraud initiative, a move both companies criticized. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs cite Russian Central Bank data showing that mobile phone calls and text messages -- rather than messaging apps -- remain the primary channels used for fraud. Neither Roskomnadzor nor the Digital Development Ministry has commented on the lawsuit, which was filed with Moscow's Tagansky District Court. Meta-owned WhatsApp accused Roskomnadzor of attempting to deprive more than 100 million Russians of private communication ahead of the holiday season. "We're committed to fighting for our users because forcing people onto less secure and government-mandated apps can only lead to less safety for Russian people," WhatsApp was quoted as saying by Reuters. The company appeared to refer to Russia's efforts to steer users toward Max, a government-backed messaging app launched earlier in 2025 that has been criticized for security flaws. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Judge Authorizes Range Fire Hazard Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Lofaro, writing for CTV News, reports that a Quebec judge has approved a class-action lawsuit for owners of certain Samsung ranges. The lawsuit alleges the stovetops are too easy to turn on and are a fire hazard. It also claims people and pets can bump the control panel and accidentally turn on the burners. Quebec Superior Court Justice Martin F. Sheehan authorized the lawsuit on Dec. 17, allowing the legal action to proceed. It would apply to any consumer in Quebec who, since 2013, purchased at least one of the 300,000 Samsung electric ranges that were recalled by Health Canada with front-mounted knobs. The lead plaintiff is Pascal Desmedt, a Montreal-area man who purchased one of the affected Samsung ranges from a Rona in Mascouche, Que. on Jan. 19, 2024, for $2,305.91. "In June 2024, the Applicant left an oatmeal box on his Range and returned home to the smell of fire burning. He didn't understand how this could have happened as he had not turned his Range on. He suspects the Range was inadvertently turned on when he brushed against it while placing his groceries on his kitchen counter," the class-action claims. The lawsuit cites news articles about fires related to the ranges, and that Samsung has received more than 300 reports of accidental activations by pets or humans since 2013, resulting in about 250 fires. Samsung recalled the stoves but also argued in court they were not being used properly. Desmedt said he says he's so worried about his range that he cuts the power so it can't be turned on accidentally. "What we do is, basically, I shut off the breaker at night when we leave the house, the breaker is off. We can't take the chance … even if there's nothing on the range," he said in an interview. "There's the cat that goes on the stove because cats, they want to go high, so they jump everywhere. So we can't take the chance of hurting our animals because the ranges went on and we're not there." The lawsuit is seeking refunds for consumers as well as $2,000 in damages. [GN] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Settlement in Anderson Wins Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, Defendants, and SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ryu entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement as modified: 1. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(3), Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI VII, XII, XIII and XIV ("the Class Claims") that the Court previously certified on behalf of the Class and the Subclasses by Order dated June 18, 2025 is finally certified for settlement purposes and defined as follows: a. Counts I, II, III, VI, and VII of the Complaint are certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the Class defined as follows: "All current and former employees of the City and County of San Francisco who took a leave or an absence from their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the Settlement Class Period (i.e. Oct. 10, 2024 to June 18, 2025)" b. Count IV of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of a "Pension Subclass," which is defined as follows: "All members of the Class who (a) took a leave or absence from their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the Settlement Class Period while they were members of the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System Pension Plan, and (b) requested reemployment by the City after the period of military leave." c. Count V of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of an "Pension Interest Subclass," which is a subclass of the Pension Subclass, and is defined as follows: "All members of the Pension Class who purchased service credit for a period of military service." d. Count XII of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a "Pension Pickup Subclass," which is a subclass of the Pension Subclass, and is defined as follows: "All members of the Pension Subclass who, under the Memorandum of Understanding between their union and the City that applied during the period of military leave, were entitled to have the City 'pick-up' all or part of the employee contribution to the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System Pension Plan on behalf of the employee." e. Counts XIII and XIV of the Complaint are certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a "Long- Term Leave Subclass," which is defined as follows: "All current and former City employees who took leave or absence for a period greater than 30 days from their employment at the City to engage in qualified active-duty military service pursuant to the Annual Salary Ordinance during the Settlement Class Period." 2. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4) and 23(g), the Court confirms its prior appointment of (a) Plaintiffs Devon Anderson and Beverly Sweeney as Class Representatives and R. Joseph Barton of The Barton Firm LLP and Michael Scimone of Outten Golden LLP, as Co-Lead Class Counsel. 3. The deadline for all Class Members to submit claims or challenges will be extended until February 19, 2026. 4. Plaintiffs request service awards of $15,000 to each, to be paid separately by the City, which are less than those approved in other cases in this district. Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. C-06-4068 MMC, 2007 WL 221862, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) (approving $25,000 service awards), aff'd, 331 F. App’x 452 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs’ declarations in support of their service awards, meanwhile, put forward an impressive record of advocacy leading up to and continuing throughout this litigation and settlement process. Both Plaintiffs attended multiple mediation sessions with Judge Corley, which attests to their commitment to the litigation and their service on behalf of the Class. The Court therefore finds that the service awards are reasonable and approves their payment to the Plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Court awards a total amount of $1,418,229.85 to be paid by the City for attorney's fees and expenses through November 30, 2025 as follows: (a) The City will pay Plaintiffs' counsel $1,336,456.85 in attorney's fees. (b) The City will pay $81,773.85 as reimbursement of expenses. (c) By Jan. 30, 2026, the City will pay the $1,418,229.85 (comprising all amounts described in subparts (a) and (b) above) as directed by the Plaintiff's counsel by check to an account or accounts specified by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Plaintiffs' counsel will provide the City with any W-9(s) and any payment instructions by no later than January 16, 2026. So long as Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided the W-9s and any payment instructions by January 16, 2026, if the City fails to deliver any portion of this payment after Jan. 30, 2026, the City will pay interest on the unpaid portion at a rate of 10% per annum and Plaintiffs' counsel will be entitled to enforce this Order in this Court. San Francisco is a commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GPHCLz at no extra charge.[CC] SAX LLP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Sax data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Sax data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Sax Security Incident: What Happened? Sax, LLP identified suspicious activity on August 7, 2024, upon which the company initiated an investigation with cybersecurity experts. This investigation uncovered that some information might have been accessed without authorization. A third-party review confirmed certain personal data could have been compromised. After locating contact information, Sax, LLP arranged for notification of potentially affected individuals. By December 1, 2025, efforts were underway to inform those impacted by the data breach. A letter submitted to the Maine Attorney General's Office stated that the data breach potentially exposed dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport numbers and driver's license/state ID numbers, varying by individual. The Sax LLP data breach reportedly impacted 228,876 individuals. Sax LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients and is part of the Sax brand name, which also includes Sax Advisory Group, LLC. What You Can Do After the Sax Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Sax data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Sax to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] SE2 LLC: Zehren FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Janna Zehren, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SE2, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01465 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Dec. 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-04121-KHV-ADM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. SE2, an Eldridge Industries business, is a technology-driven third-party administration company for the US life and annuity insurance industry.[BN] SEB MANAGEMENT: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SEB MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 0:25-cv-62625-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.sleepevenbetter.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 sells to the public its food products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food products that are made in and also sold in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurant. 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. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls retail stores selling mattresses, bedding products, and accessories.[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 M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com SIGNATURE SENIOR: Lackey Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Signature Senior Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Lackey, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Signature Senior Solutions LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-03461 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Signature Senior Care -- https://signaturesenior.solutions/ -- provides the services elderly adults require to stay in their own homes for as long as possible.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com SK BATTERY AMERICA: Britton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- O'Brian Britton and Gwendolyn Fortson, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SK BATTERY AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00406-RWS (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant required Plaintiffs to work more than forty hours in a workweek but failed to pay them for all overtime wages due. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at no less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant. The Defendant is a business that manufactures electric batteries for vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Phone: 877-443-0999 Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com SLM CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that the Portnoy Law Firm advises SLM Corporation a/k/a Sallie Mae, ("SLM" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SLM, SLMBP) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between July 25, 2025 and August 14, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). SLM investors have until February 17, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/SLM-corporation. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. The SLM class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SLM was experiencing a significant increase in early stage delinquencies; and (ii) accordingly, defendants overstated the effectiveness of SLM's loss mitigation and/or loan modification programs, as well as the overall stability of SLM's PEL delinquency rates. The SLM investor class action further alleges that on August 14, 2025, investment bank TD Cowen issued a report addressing SLM, flagging that, "[o]verall, July [2025] delinquencies were up 49 bp m/m, higher (worse) than the seasonal (+10 bps) performance for July, driven by a 45 bps increase in early stage delinquencies." Notably, TD Cowen's findings directly contradicted assurances made by SLM's CFO, defendant Peter M. Graham -- made late in the month of July 2025 -- that defendants were observing delinquency rates that "really are following the normal seasonal trends we would expect in the business," the complaint alleges. Following this news, the price of SLM's stock fell by approximately 8%, the SLM shareholder class action claims. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA, NY and TX Bar (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] SPRING ENERGY: Court Refuses to Consolidate "Nock" -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Robert Nock, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC, d/b/a Spring Power & Gas, RRH Energy Services, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-25-2809 (D. Md.), United States Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate as it was inconsistent with Rule 42(a)'s purposes of judicial efficiency and fairness. This putative consumer-protection class action concerned unsolicited spam telemarketing calls allegedly made by or on behalf of the Defendant energy companies. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and corresponding Maryland law, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Sections 14-301 to 14-302. The pending matter was the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate this case with Nock v. PalmCo Administration, LLC, et al. (RDB-24-662) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Plaintiff, a Maryland citizen, alleged that the Defendant, energy companies licensed to do business in Maryland, contracted to have a call center in Pakistan conduct telemarketing campaigns. He claimed that each set of defendants used the same call center within one week of each other in 2021. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant hired said call center for a period of March 29, 2021, to May 11, 2021, while the Indra Energy defendants hired the same center from May 17, 2021, to June 13, 2021. The Plaintiff alleged that he and the other putative class members received unsolicited and deceptive telemarketing calls in violation of the TCPA and corresponding Maryland law. On February 8, 2023, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant, originally bringing his claims in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Fact discovery closed in this case on November 15, 2024, twenty-one months after filing. On February 5, 2025, almost exactly two years after the Plaintiff sued, the Defendant moved for summary judgment. That Motion has been fully briefed since May 7, 2025. On March 5, 2024, more than a year after the Plaintiff filed this suit, he filed in this Court a parallel case against the Indra Energy defendants, a different set of energy companies licensed to do business in Maryland. Since that case began in March 2024, the parties have litigated multiple discovery motions and a motion to dismiss. Since February 25, 2025, the parties have been engaged in discovery. On May 9, 2025, just two days after the Defendant in this case filed their Reply to their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate. At the time, this case was still pending in the Southern District of New York. On July 22, 2025, Judge Lehrburger issued a Decision and Order transferring this case to this Court. The Court applied the three-factor consolidation analysis. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: if actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions, consolidate the actions, or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The critical question was whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. The Court found that these cases were many months, if not years, apart in their progress. In this case, the parties had concluded fact discovery by November 15, 2024. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on February 5, 2025, and that Motion has been fully briefed since May 7, 2025. In Indra Energy, by contrast, the parties were still in discovery, with discovery disputes currently pending. The Court explained that consolidating the cases would mean unnecessary delay and cost to the Defendant. The Court regularly denies consolidation when cases are at quite different stages of litigation. Considering that the Defendant had already waited seven months for a decision on summary judgment, consolidation would mean unnecessary delay and cost. Though the Plaintiff would willingly bear the burden of any possible delay resulting from consolidation, such a delay would be fair to neither the Defendant here nor the Indra Energy defendants. Consolidation would not further judicial economy but only cause delay and unnecessary cost. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PpiGLK from PacerMonitor.com ST. MARY'S HEALTHCARE: Burton Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTEN BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. MARY'S HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01706-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. St. Mary's Healthcare provides medical and surgical hospital services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins MO 61434 SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com ST. MARY'S HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Job Offers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Onyon, writing for Daily Gazette, reports that a woman who received a job offer from St. Mary's Healthcare that was later rescinded has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking class action status against the organization alleging it improperly uses consumer reports in its hiring and employment process. Christen Burton, a state resident, filed the lawsuit against St. Mary's in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York this month. She is represented by attorney Jayson Watkins, of Siri & Glimstad LLP. [GN] STELLANTIS NV: CPM Investigates Jeep and Gladiator's Fire Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is investigating the fact that the Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator, have become the subject of a federal investigation due to the potential for fires to erupt even when the vehicles are off, according to filings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. More than 781,000 2021–2023 Jeep Wranglers and Gladiators are included in the federal probe, which was spurred on by numerous reports of under hood fires. Specifically, NHTSA says that it has received nine reports of fires, one injury report, and one linked death as a result of these engine-born blazes. Documents from NHTSA state that the fires can be ignited even when the ignition of the vehicle has not been turned on. If you own a 2021 to 2023 Jeep Wrangler or Gladiator SUV, please fill out the form below to make sure your rights are protected, and Stellantis, the owner of the brands Jeep and Gladiator is held to account for its alleged failure to sell safe cars. [GN] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motions to certify class in the lawsuits entitled Joseph Amato, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16118, and Ricardo Aquino, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00990, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case concerns alleged engine defects in Subaru's 2009 through and including 2018 model year Impreza WRX and WRX STi (class vehicles or class vehicle). On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Karen M. Williams granted in part and denied in part on Nov. 24, 2025. The Court certifies four statewide subclasses (New York, Arizona, Indiana, Michigan) as to the statutory consumer protection claims; and the negligent misrepresentation claims for the New York, Arizona, and Indiana subclasses only. The Court denies certification of the negligent misrepresentation claim for the MI subclass. The appellate case is entitled Joseph Amato, et al. v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al., and Ricardo Aquino, et al. v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-8041, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JOSEPH AMATO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and RICARDO AQUINO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gary Graifman, Esq. Krantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, PC 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Defendants-Petitioners SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al. are represented by: Neal Walters, Esq. Casey Watkins, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 700 East Gate Drive, Suite 330 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 761-2400 Facsimile: (856) 761-1020 Email: waltersn@ballardspahr.com watkinsc@ballardspahr.com SUKH BROTHERS: Orozco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Esdras Orozco, and similarly situated v. SUKH BROTHERS CORP., SUKH BROTHERS II CORP., TUVSHIN BATSUK, individually, and PUREVDORJ SUKHBAATAR, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-15274 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 16, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendants’ failure to pay overtime wages at a premium rate of one- and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked over 40. The Plaintiff typically worked between 42-48 hours per week. the Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at a premium rate of one- and one-half times his regular rate. The Defendants failed to keep any time keeping system to track the number of hours Plaintiff worked. The Defendants paid Plaintiff but failed to provide him documentation of the number of hours he worked during that pay period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendants in March 2024 and his last day of employment was November 26, 2025. The Defendants operate restaurants in Chicago and Northfield, Illinois under the name Blowfish.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312)957-9005 Facsimile: (888)826-5848 Email: cbecerra@becerralawgroup.com SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Center Concepts, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marleny Elizabeth Figueroa De Mejia, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Super Center Concepts, Inc., Super Center Concepts Holdings, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV37045 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2025). Super Center Concepts, Inc., doing business as Superior Grocers -- https://superiorgrocers.com/ -- retails food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Karczewski, Esq. Natalie McGuire, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222 Fax: (213) 382-2230 Email: jkarczewski@ejlglaw.com nmcGuire@ejlglaw.com SUPERPLAY LTD: Operates Illegal Online Gambling Game, Morrow Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TONI MORROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERPLAY LTD., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06101 (W.D. Wash., December 8, 2025) seeks to enjoin and obtain redress for Defendant's operation of an illegal gambling game and unfair competition in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the primary gameplay in Defendant's Dice Dreams game is the rolling of a three six-sided dice. Depending on the roll of the dice, whose outcome is determined by chance, players either lose their roll or win additional rolls, gold coins and/or the opportunity to play additional games of chance for rolls or coins. The virtual gold coins are used to access other game features. Though the dice games in Dice Dreams look different from games found on a traditional casino floor, they are nonetheless games of chance in which users can win or lose these things of value, notes the complaint. In addition to providing games of chance wherein users can win or lose things of value, the Defendant seek to maximize the amount of money each user spends in Dice Dreams by advertising bundles that Defendant misleadingly states are on sale for a limited time. In reality, the sale offers are not actually limited in time, says the complaint. By operating Dice Dreams, the Defendant has violated Washington and other states' laws and illegally profited from thousands of consumers, the suit asserts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit to recover their losses. Superplay Ltd. is a mobile gaming company founded in 2019 with offices in Israel, Ukraine and Romania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Salik, Esq. CARTER ARNETT PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 550-8183 E-mail: osalik@carterarnett.com TALBOTS LLC: Porcuna Sues Over Misleading "Limited-Time" Sales -------------------------------------------------------------- MARISSA PORCUNA, KAREN SCHREIMAN, ROMY EDGE, and CELESTINA BENN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TALBOTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10522 (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices. The Defendant advertises that these supposed discounts are limited in time, for example "Ends Sunday," "Limited Time," or "Last Day!" In addition to these discounts, the Defendant designates some of its Products as being marked down. Markdown Products are shown in the "Sale" section of Defendant's website. Far from being time-limited, however, Defendant's discounts -- both the ones that apply to Non-Markdown Products and the ones that apply to Markdown Products -- are routinely available, says the suit. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. For Defendant's Non-Markdown Products, the list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's Products are consistently available for less than that; and the purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, the suit asserts. The Talbots LLC makes, sells, and markets clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com TEAM COMPANIES: Brockmeyer Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The TEAM Companies, LLC. The case is styled as James Brockmeyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The TEAM Companies, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11956 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The TEAM Companies is a leading payroll, business affairs and technology provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Su Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeff Su, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership; RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation doing business as TERMINIX, WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY, TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, AMBIUS, and PRATT PEST MANAGEMENT; SHANE THOMPSON, an individual; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-35833-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02615. The Complaint purports to seek relief related to "underpaying and failing to pay commission earned by employees." Specifically, the Complaint seeks the following relief: class certification, compensatory damages, including unpaid wages, in amounts to be proven at trial, exemplary damages, attorney fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, leave to amend, and any additional relief. The Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations, except those facts necessary to establish federal jurisdiction and removal of this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Catharine M. Morisset, Esq. Kylene Slocum, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Email: cmoriset@fisherphillips.com kslocum@fisherphillips.com TRACKI INC: Appeals Approved Pseudonym Bid in Doe Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRACKI, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tracki, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-6577, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants, correcting Defendants' practice of releasing unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the harms associated therewith, and facilitating the unwanted and unconsented to location tracking of the Plaintiff and Class Members. On Aug. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed under pseudonym, which Judge Analisa Torres granted on Nov. 18, 2025. The Court finds that this litigation involves matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature. Courts have routinely found that allegations of sexual assault or harassment involve "highly sensitive" matters of a "personal nature," weighing in favor of anonymity. The appellate case is entitled Doe v. Tracki, Inc., Case No. 25-3079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edwin John Kilpela, Jr., Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Defendants-Appellants TRACKI, INC., et al. are represented by: Serge Krimnus, Esq. BOCHNER PLLC 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 15th Floor New York, NY 10018 TYSON FOODS INC: Lucien Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Cesar Lucien on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09075 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other (Statutory Tort of Discrimination). Tyson Foods, Inc. -- https://www.tysonfoods.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas that operates in the food industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com ULTA SALON: Ade-Fosudo Suit Removed to D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Oluwakemi Ade-Fosudo, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Case No. C-13-CV-25-000960 was removed from the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04188-SAG. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that commercial emails to Maryland residents sent by Ulta violated Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA"), because they allegedly contain false or misleading information in their subject lines.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Edward Buxbaum, Esq. Aaron Nichols, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 2700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 951-5871 Fax: (410) 951-5879 Email: Edward.Buxbaum@icemiller.com Aaron.Nichols@icemiller.com UNITED AIRLINES: Ahdoot Probes Fiduciary Breaches in 401K Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC is investigating potential fiduciary breaches in the management of the United Airlines Pilot Retirement Account Plan (the "Plan"), a 401(k) plan with approximately $11.8 billion in assets. According to our investigation, the Plan's Large Cap Growth Equity Fund -- and particularly its Sands Capital component -- has consistently underperformed its benchmark over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods. Despite this prolonged underperformance and the availability of superior alternative investments, Plan fiduciaries allegedly failed to remove or replace the fund, resulting in potentially millions of dollars in losses to participants' retirement savings. ERISA requires plan fiduciaries to act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person would use in managing retirement investments. Fiduciaries must also continuously monitor investment options and remove imprudent ones. We are analyzing the Plan fiduciaries' actions to determine whether they failed to comply with ERISA. Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC is interested in speaking with current and former participants in the United Airlines Pilot Retirement Account Plan who had assets invested in the Large Cap Fund. If you are a current or former participant in the United Airlines Pilot 401(k) Plan, we encourage you to contact our attorneys to discuss your rights and this ongoing investigation. Please fill out the form below, and one of our attorneys will contact you. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Court Certifies "Malone" Workers Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michael Malone, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.),Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification. The Court certified the action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for the following class: All hourly-paid Warehouse Workers who UPS employed at a Plissken PA Facility at any time since August 16, 2018, through the date of class certification and who worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek, excluding those individuals for whom UPS has a record of their having acknowledged UPS's arbitration agreement. Warehouse Workers means employees who work inside a UPS warehouse and are not Full-Time or Part-Time Specialists. The Court appointed the law firms of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, and Willig, Williams, & Davidson as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). The Court ordered the Parties to meet and confer to reach an agreed-upon form and plan of notice for the class on or before January 16, 2026, submitting either a joint proposal or competing proposals with an accompanying memorandum not to exceed 7 pages. The Parties were further ordered to meet and confer about additional steps necessary in the case, including expert discovery and a proposed schedule through summary judgment, submitting a joint letter on or before January 30, 2026. The Court scheduled a telephonic status conference on February 5, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. ET. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IVYEu6 from PacerMonitor.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Blue Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Blue, Jr. and Ronell Conner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-07108 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, challenging its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' highly sensitive, personally-identifiable information including: memos about Penn donors and their families, receipts of bank transactions, spreadsheets containing records of wire and ACH transactions of donations made by individuals, donors' addresses, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, and demographic information (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiffs' and the Class members' Private Information, Defendant had a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard any Private Information it collected and stored against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard, the Private Information in its possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to its information systems and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein around October 31, 2025 (the "UPenn Data Breach"). The UPenn Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately-protected network servers and accessed the Private Information stored there. After Defendant discovered the UPenn Data Breach and as part of its investigation, it determined that some PII may have been acquired on October 31, 2025. The Defendant maintained the PII of Plaintiffs and the Class members in a negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiffs' and the Class members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are students, alumni, donors, customers, and hospital patients of Defendant who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information to complete donations, purchases, or payments, The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-873-4836 Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-233-1550 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com US FOODS INC: Moreno Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ismael Negrete Moreno, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. US FOODS, INC., dba U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, US FOODS CULINARY EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ROB WEST, an individual, RENNIE DEPRUE, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV154854 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the 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-10818. The Complaint asserts causes of action on a putative class-wide basis for: Failure to pay minimum wages; Failure to furnish wage and hour statements; Failure to maintain payroll records; Failure to provide meal and rest period compensations; Failure to pay overtime compensation; Failure to pay wages in a timely manner; Waiting time penalties; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park CA 94025 Phone: +1 650 614 7400 Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401 Email: jliburt@orrick.com - and - Katie E. Briscoe, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Phone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 Email: kbriscoe@orrick.com - and - Annie H. Chen, Esq. Lauren R. Leibovitch, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 629 2020 Facsimile: +1 213 612 2499 Email: annie.chen@orrick.com lleibovitch@orrick.com VISTASITE EYE CARE: Plasari Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against VistaSite Eye Care, Inc. The case is styled as Klajdi Plasari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VistaSite Eye Care, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10516 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. VistaSite Eye Care -- https://www.vistasiteeyecare.com/ -- offer comprehensive eye exams for children, adults, and seniors, they also treat chronic eye diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com VITAS HOSPICE SERVICES: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VITAS Hospice Services, LLC. The case is styled as Fernando Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VITAS Hospice Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25935-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. VITAS -- https://www.vitas.com/ -- can help patients and their families seeking hospice and palliative care in the face of terminal illness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Anthony Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: NickC@lcllp.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Hike Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Hike, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES INC.; and Does 1-20, Case No. 25CV027473 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01789. The Complaint also sets forth the following seven causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Due at Separation; Violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; and Failure to Reimburse for Business Related Expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter B. Maretz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Peter.Maretz@jacksonlewis.com WILDERMUTH FUND: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Wildermuth Fund (WESFX, WEFCX, WEIFX), its auditor, investment adviser and several of the Fund's senior officers and trustees after significant declines in the Fund's NAV resulting from potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Wildermuth Fund, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/wildermuth-fund-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until December 29, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Sections 36(b) and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The case is brought on behalf of investors in the Wildermuth Fund's Class A (WESFX), Class C (WEFCX), and/or Class I (WEIFX) shares. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is captioned Cramer v. WithumSmith+Brown, PC, et al., No. 3:25-cv-17032. Why Was Wildermuth Fund Sued Under the Federal Securities Laws? The Wildermuth Fund is a closed-end mutual fund that sought to provide capital appreciation to investors by investing in a diversified portfolio of asset classes, including private equity. The Fund told investors it was investing in "high quality assets" in the private market sector. The Fund was also required to publicly report its NAV and to accurately value its investment assets. In truth, as alleged, the Fund did not invest in high quality assets and inflated its NAV. The Fund's portfolio companies were in steady, persistent decline throughout the relevant period, several of which were reportedly propped-up with monthly cash infusions by the Fund's adviser and owners. Wildermuth Fund's NAV Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On June 29, 2023, the Fund's Board approved a plan to liquidate the Fund, based upon the recommendation of its adviser, due to a purported "decline in assets under management" and "market conditions, including liquidity." On November 1, 2023, Wildermuth Advisory was replaced as the Fund's investment adviser and several of the Fund's owners resigned. On December 19, 2023, the Fund's new adviser concluded that the fair value of the Fund's investments in private equity as of September 30, 2023, was approximately 29% lower than determined by Wildermuth Advisory mere months earlier. Compared with reported values in March 2022, by October 2024, the value of the Fund's investments had dropped by 63.6% and its NAV had declined by 73.7%. By 2024, the Fund's NAV was revised to less than $2.00 per share, an 80% reduction in NAV per share during the relevant period. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/wildermuth-fund-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Wildermuth Fund you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. [GN] WING QUARTER INC: Mckensie Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Mckensie and Dawna Robinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WING QUARTER, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-06114 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought against the Defendant who has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by: failing to properly compensate Service Employees with the minimum wage by failing to pay them for all hours worked including training hours and wrongfully withholding Service Employees' tips. The Defendant has violated the provisions of the FLSA, resulting in damages to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to Plaintiffs, in the form of unpaid minimum wages, wrongfully withheld tips, incurred and incurring costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. As a result of failure to pay wages in accordance with the FLSA, Plaintiffs, as well as those similarly situated to Plaintiffs, have suffered monetary damages by failing to receive the lawful minimum wage for all hours worked and failing to receive their lawfully owed tips during their tenure of employment with Defendant. In addition, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are also entitled to an additional amount equal to their backpay as liquidated damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as tipped, hourly-paid Bartenders. Wing Quarter, Inc. owns and operates Wing Quarter Daiquiris & Creole Kitchen, a restaurant located in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matt Bachop, Esq. DEATS, DURST & OWEN, P.L.L.C. 2901 Bee Caves Rd., Suite L Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 474-6200 x1005 Fax: (512) 474-7896 Email: mbachop@ddollaw.com - and - David Ricksecker, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. Callie E. Dydo, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com ced@mselaborlaw.com WOOD PERSONNEL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Wood Personnel Services data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Wood Personnel Services data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Wood Personnel Services Security Incident: What Happened? Wood Personnel Services, a staffing and recruiting firm in Tennessee, has alerted individuals about a potential compromise of personal information due to unauthorized access to the company's computer network. On September 12, 2025, unusual activity was detected on the network, prompting an investigation with third-party experts and a review of the affected files. According to a report provided to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, the Wood Personnel Services data breach may have exposed Social Security numbers, financial account information and driver's licenses. Wood Personnel Services is now sending direct notice to individuals whose information may have been compromised. What You Can Do After the Wood Personnel Services Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Wood Personnel Services data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Wood Personnel Services to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Faces Class Action Over Data Sharing to Meta ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jeanette McFarlane filed a class action lawsuit against Zappos.com LLC. Why: McFarlane claims Zappos allowed Meta to intercept shoppers' private communications and personal data despite promising to keep that information confidential. Where: The Zappos class action lawsuit was filed in the California federal court. Zappos is accused of secretly allowing Meta to eavesdrop on customers' online shopping activity through tracking technology embedded on its website, according to a new class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Jeanette McFarlane alleges Zappos violated federal and California privacy laws by permitting Meta to intercept customers' electronic communications without their knowledge or consent. She claims this conduct occurred even though Zappos explicitly represented to consumers that their personal information would not be used or shared for interest-based advertising. According to the class action lawsuit, Zappos embedded Meta's tracking technologies on its website, including the Meta Pixel, which allegedly intercepted shoppers' communications in real time as they browsed products, added items to their carts and completed purchases. The lawsuit claims Meta received customers' names, email addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses, location data and purchase details during these interactions. Lawsuit: Zappos enabled Meta to wiretap shoppers' online activity McFarlane claims she visited Zappos' website in December 2023 to buy shoes and provided personal and payment information during checkout. Despite Zappos' assurances of privacy, she alleges Meta intercepted her communications and associated that data with her identity for advertising and analytics purposes. The class action lawsuit says neither Zappos nor Meta obtained her consent before the interception occurred. The complaint further alleges Zappos' privacy policies and advertising disclosures misled consumers by stating the company does not use identifying information, such as names or email addresses, for targeted advertising. McFarlane claims these representations were false because Zappos allegedly disclosed identifiable customer data to Meta throughout the shopping and checkout process. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who made purchases on Zappos' website during the proposed class period as well as a California subclass. McFarlane alleges Zappos violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and multiple provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by aiding and permitting Meta's interception of confidential communications. The lawsuit also asserts violations of California's computer fraud statute and the state constitution's right to privacy. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and a jury trial. Meanwhile, a California federal judge recently denied Adidas' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by installing and using tracking pixels on its website. McFarlane is represented by Sarah N. Westcot of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Zappos data privacy class action lawsuit is McFarlane v. Zappos.com LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-10547, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ********* 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 ***