251231.mbx

251231.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 31, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 261 Headlines AANIIIH NAKODA: Loree Sues Over High Interest Loan Rates ADOBE INC: Menora Appeals Denied Amended Complaint Bid to 2nd Cir. AON INVESTMENTS USA: Steinke Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania APTDECO INC: Nelson Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit BALLY'S MANAGEMENT: Williams Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit BANANA KING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gravini Alleges BAR SIENA: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BC BRANDS LLC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BENSON NISSAN INC: Delavega Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas BEVERLYMARK INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galo Suit Alleges BUF BUS INC: Barry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CENTERS LAB NJ: Walls Files Suit in D. New Jersey CLEVELAND, OH: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court CNHI LLC: Roy Files Suit Over Data Breach CONOPCO INC: Barrales Files Vitamin Supplement Mislabeling Suit CONTINUUM HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $3.1MM COOS COUNTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Garrett Alleges CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Florea Alleges CVB FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger With Heritage Commerce D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges DAMASCUS BAKERY: Carbine Sues Over Mislabeled Pizza Crust DANISH FOODS: Faces Landaverde Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gaboriault Says DEERA EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maynard Alleges DES MOINES: Donnelly Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit DISFRUTING TWO: Fails to Pay Proper wages, Mediza Alleges DREYER'S GRAND: Gomez Sues Over Mislabeled Frozen Fruit Bar F5 INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 17, 2026 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ingles Alleges FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Appeals Class Certification Order to 8th Cir. GOOGLE LLC: Intercepts Patients' Personal Info, McEntyre Alleges GRILL LLC: Directed to Pay $71K to Troy Law HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says INTEL CORP: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind KEVIN MURPHY: Greenfield Sues over Mislabeled Haircare Products LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit MACY'S.COM LLC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Figueroa Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over McRibs Sandwich MCKIM & CREED: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Grant Alleges MDL 3163: GLP-1 RAS Product Liability Suits Transferred to E.D. Pa MDL 3166: Roblox Child Exploitation Suits Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MIDWEST CENTER: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Coursey Says MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS: Elliot Files Suit in D. Delaware MILUM EXPRESS: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice MONSANTO CO: Court Orders Identification of Mediator in "Neddo" MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Wrongful Conduct and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Armendariz Sues Over Negligent Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Bain Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Battista Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Blanchette Sues Over Negligent Product Labeling MONSANTO COMPANY: Booher Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Brady Sues Over Wrongful Product Labeling MONSANTO COMPANY: Cantos Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Chapman Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Cook Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Currigan Sues Over Wrongful Conduct and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Edwards Sues Over Negligent Product Labeling MONSANTO COMPANY: Funk Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Geldbach Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Serrato Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Thomson-Arthur Sues Over Wrongful Labeling MONSANTO COMPANY: Vergot Sues Over Negligent Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Ward Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale NORDVPN SA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Dec. 11, 2026 OPTUM INC: Faces Hodges Suit Over Data Privacy Violations PENN ABSTRACT: Wins Dismissal of "Gahagan" PHARMAVITE LLC: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind POST CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Honey-Comb Cereal Servings POST HOLDINGS INC: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California PROVIDE A RIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Franco Alleges RK HOLDINGS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Grebbien Suit to 7th Cir. ROBERT BOSCH: Smith Files Suit Over Data Breach RPC INC: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Mills Suit Alleges SMARTE INC: Cunningham Files Suit Over Personal Info Misuse SNAP KITCHEN: Violates TCPA, Shay Suit Says SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Coburn Appeals Denied Attorneys' Fees Bid ST. CHARLES: Reiger Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. STATE FARM: Class Cert. Bid Filing in De Castro Due Dec. 11, 2026 STATE FARM: Goode Sues Over Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims SUNCOAST CREDIT: Maldonado Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info TAM SING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kalonova Alleges TARGET CORP: Settles Distribution Center Class Suit for $4.6-Mil. TATA STEEL: Faces $1.6BB Class Action Claim in Dutch Court TAYLOR MADE: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TURNING STONE: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid in Jones Suit UNITED STATES: Longworth Alleges First Amendment Rights' Violation UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Settles Class Suit for $10MM WHIRLPOOL CORP: Salas Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit YOOGI'S CLOSET: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ********* AANIIIH NAKODA: Loree Sues Over High Interest Loan Rates -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LOREE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE, LLC d/b/a BRIGHT LENDING, BORROWWORKS FINANCIAL, INC., BORROWWORKS DECISION SCIENCE, INC., BWDS, LLC, BENJAMIN E. GATZKE, JEFF FORSEY, TAYLOR MCCABE, in his individual and official capacity, and TRUEACCORD CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00369-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla., December 5, 2025) is an action brought by Plaintiff Loree against all Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, as well as against TrueAccord only for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On December 7, 2020, Bright Lending made a short-term, high-interest rate loan to Plaintiff Loree through the lending platform BrightLending.com. Bright Lending is an online payday lender offering short-term loans to consumers at annual interest rates which almost always exceed 600% -- rates that are illegal in most states, including Florida. Bright Lending claims it's an economic development of, instrumentality of, and a limited liability company wholly-owned and controlled by the Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana (the "Tribe"), which is a federally-recognized Native American tribal government. By asserting Tribal ownership, and through the use of choice-of-law and arbitration provisions designed to strip consumers of any remedies they may have under state law, Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, doing business as Bright Lending, sought to avoid state usury laws, such as Florida's. The notion that Bright Lending was operated primarily by, and for the benefit of the Tribe, is a farce, says the suit. Bright Lending, through its servicers, generally collects its loans itself; however, it assigns certain debts for collection to TrueAccord, a Debt Collector as defined by the FDCPA and the FCCPA. TrueAccord then attempts to collect these loans, despite their triple-digit interest rates, the suit added. Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC, d/b/a Bright Lending, states it is an entity formed under the laws of the Tribe. It purports to be a subsidiary of Island Mountain Development Group, also owned by the Tribe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Morgan, Esq. Thomas M. Bonan, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite A Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 567-3434 Facsimile: (855) 500-0705 E-mail: BMorgan@SeraphLegal.com TBonan@SeraphLegal.com ADOBE INC: Menora Appeals Denied Amended Complaint Bid to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint and dismissing the lawsuit entitled In re Adobe Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-09260, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a federal securities class action that the Plaintiffs bring on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Adobe between July 23, 2021 and September 15, 2022, inclusive, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. On May 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which Judge John G. Koeltl denied on Nov. 7, 2025. The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the arguments are moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied, and the action is dismissed with prejudice. On Nov. 10, 2025, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled In re Adobe Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-3120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 11, 2025. [BN] Movants-Appellants MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD., et al. are represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 - and - Joseph Russello, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Defendants-Appellees ADOBE INC., et al. are represented by: Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Kevin McDonough, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 AON INVESTMENTS USA: Steinke Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin Steinke, Louis Fantini, Emily Fantini and Daniel Reyes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AON INVESTMENTS USA INC., and AKSIA LLC, Case No. 210601197 was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07163. On September 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint in the State Court Action, a putative Third Amended Class Action Complaint (the "TAC"), generally alleging that Defendants breached fiduciary duties to participants in the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System's ("PSERS") retirement plans (collectively, the "PSERS Plan") by recommending unsuitable investments.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael K. Coran, Esq. Monica Clarke Platt, Esq. KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 569-2700 - and - Jack Yoskowitz, Esq. Malavika A. Rao, Esq. Paul B. Koepp, Esq. SEWARD & KISSEL LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 574-1200 - and - Kevin Dooley Kent, Esq. Andrew K. Garden, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC Two Commerce Square 2001 Market street, Suite 2620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 640-8500 - and - Craig C. Martin, Esq. Matt D. Basil, Esq. Amanda S. Amert, Esq. Elizabeth P. Astrup, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 North LaSalle Dr., Suite 5000 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 728-9000 APTDECO INC: Nelson Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- VONDA NELSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Vonda Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aptdeco, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10816, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. On Oct. 2, 2025, Judge Dale E. Ho entered an Order dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The appellate case is entitled Nelson v. Aptdeco, Inc., Case No. 25-3098, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VONDA NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees APTDECO, INC., et al. are represented by: Michael Craig Schmidt, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 3 World Trade Center, 55th Floor 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 BALLY'S MANAGEMENT: Williams Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRACY A. WILLIAMS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Tracy A. Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bally's Management Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00147, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. On June 9, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On Nov. 4, 2025, Judge Mary S. McElroy entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court finds that Ms. Williams lacked standing to assert her fiduciary breach claim under Count II of her Amended Complaint and also failed to state a claim for unlawful discrimination under 29 U.S.C. Section 1182. The appellate case is entitled Tracy A. Williams v. Bally's Management Group, LLC, Case No. 25-2159, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on December 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TRACY A. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kimberly Dodson, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 263−4066 (772) 783−8436 Email: kdodson@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Mark B. Morse, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK B. MORSE, LLC 420 Angell Street Providence, RI 02906 Telephone: (401) 831-0555 Facsimile: (401) 273-0937 Email: mark@morselawoffice.com Defendant-Appellee BALLY'S MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC is represented by: Geoffrey Forney, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Monument Square, Ste. 201 Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (202) 615−8315 Email: gforney@fisherphillips.com - and - Joshua D. Nadreau, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 200 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 722−0044 Email: jnadreau@fisherphillips.com BANANA KING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gravini Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- YAELL GRAVINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANANA KING GROUP LLC d/b/a IT'S WAAO; and ELIECER MONTOYA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18477 (D.N.J., Dec. 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gravini was employed by the Defendants as a cashier and manager. Banana King Group LLC operates several fast-food restaurants in New Jersey, which does business and holds its restaurants out to the public under the trade name "It's Waao". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan S. Riger, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, New York 11530 Tel: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 BAR SIENA: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAR SIENA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14979 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://barsiena.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bar Siena, LLC controls and operates Barsiena.com in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States, offering Italian cuisine and access to restaurant services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BC BRANDS LLC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BC Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BC Brands, LLC, Case No. CACE25019318 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Dec. 18, 2025). BC Brands, LLC offers luxury activewear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com BENSON NISSAN INC: Delavega Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benson Nissan, Inc. The case is styled as Christina Delavega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Benson Nissan, Inc. doing business as: Ingram Park Nissan, Case No. 5:25-cv-01796 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Benson Nissan, Inc. doing business as Ingram Park Nissan -- https://www.ingramparknissan.com/ -- is a dealer in San Antonio, Texas offers great deals on Nissan cars, trucks, SUVs & minivans for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BEVERLYMARK INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- EDIN GALO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTHUR J. ROBBINS; LISA ROBBINS; MICHAEL BARRISH; BEVERLYMARK INC. d/b/a ACU PLUS; and ABC Corp. d/b/a ACU PLUS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06808 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Galo was employed by the Defendants as a machine operator. Beverlymark Inc. d/b/a Acu Plus is a customer screen printing and embroidery company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280.4600 Facsimile: (516) 280.4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com BUF BUS INC: Barry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BUF BUS, INC., BUFFALO TRANSPORTATION, INC. and DOES 1-50, Case No. 1:25-cv-01411 (W.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") seeking damages for unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' practices of failing to pay Drivers for overtime hours worked; failing to pay Drivers at or above the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked; failing to provide Drivers with accurate wage statements; and, on information and belief, failing to provide Drivers with accurate wage notices at the time of hire, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a Driver for Buffalo Transportation from March 31, 2025, to November 14, 2025. Buf Bus is a New York State company in the business of, or related to the business of, providing non-emergency medical transportation for people to and from destinations in Western New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON 3959 N. Buffalo Road, No. 29 Orchard Park, NY 14127 Phone: (716) 242-1234 Email: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com CENTERS LAB NJ: Walls Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centers Lab NJ LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Walls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centers Lab NJ LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-18774 (D.N.J., Dec. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Centers Lab NJ LLC -- https://centerslab.com/ -- is a medical laboratory in Hanover, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com CLEVELAND, OH: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO filed on December 10, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-677, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dated June 9, 2025, in the case captioned City of Cleveland, Ohio, Petitioner vs. Albert Pickett, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Case No. 24-3395. Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO is represented by: Thomas Henderson Dupree Jr., Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1700 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Email: tdupree@gibsondunn.com CNHI LLC: Roy Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------- NANCY ROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00980 (M.D. Ala., December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant or its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and other government issued identification numbers, and financial account information (the "Private Information") from hackers. According to the complaint, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its computer systems between April 27, 2025 and May 17, 2025. Based on public cyber-threat reporting and monitoring of ransomware leak sites, the "Play" ransomware group has publicly claimed responsibility for attacking CNHI and threatening to publish data taken from its systems. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have been denied access to crucial details like the root cause of the Data Breach, the specific vulnerabilities exploited, the identity of any threat actor as acknowledged by Defendant, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these critical facts have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff and Class Members by Defendant, who retain a vested interest in ensuring that their Private Information is protected. The delay in determining PII involvement (until November 19, 2025) and sending notices (beginning December 8, 2025) exacerbated the risks, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of future fraud, identity theft, and misuse posed by her Private Information being placed in the hands of criminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Nancy J. Roy is a resident of Methuen, Massachusetts, and a former employee of CNHI (North of Boston Media Group and related newspaper operations). Defendant CNHI, LLC is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, and owns and operates local news, information, and advertising solutions businesses across the United States, including newspaper and media operations in Massachusetts and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Andrews, Esq. Keith B. Franklin, Esq. E.J. SAAD LAW FIRM 6207 Cottage Hill Road, Suite G Mobile, AL 36609 Telephone: (251) 660-0888 E-mail: mandrews@ejsaadlaw.com k.franklin@ejsaadlaw - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 E-mail: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com CONOPCO INC: Barrales Files Vitamin Supplement Mislabeling Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- TINAMARIE BARRALES and LATONYA WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-10390 (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for damages and equitable relief. The complaint relates that under the SmartyPants brand, the Defendant sells a variety of vitamin supplements designed "to help fill the average nutrient gaps in American diets." The Defendant markets SmartyPants Kids Multi & Fiber vitamins and SmartyPants Fiber & Veggies vitamins for kids as having the same fiber content as various fruits and vegetables, thus branding them as the answer to the picky-eater conundrum. But the statements are false and intentionally misleading, asserts the complaint. As a result of Defendant's concealments and misrepresentations, consumers paid a price premium for the Vitamins. The Vitamins are worth far less because they do not contain the same amount of fiber as fruits or vegetables. Plaintiffs and Class members suffered real economic harm by purchasing the Vitamins. Defendant's omissions and misrepresentations deprived consumers of the ability to make informed decisions and induced them to pay a price premium for a product that is, in fact, worth significantly less, it adds. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant under New York General Business Law ("GBL") on behalf of a proposed New York Class and Nationwide Class as well as under California consumer protection laws on behalf of a proposed California Class. Plaintiff Tinamarie Barrales is a resident of Huntington Park, California. She purchased Defendant's Kids Multi & Fiber vitamins because the bottle claimed that they contained as much fiber as two cups of broccoli. Plaintiff Latonya Wright is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. She purchased Defendant's Fiber & Veggies vitamins specifically because the bottle claimed that they contained as much fiber as three cups of kale. Defendant Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever is incorporated in New York, New York and headquartered in Englewood Cliff, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. Max Ian Fiest, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law max@janove.law CONTINUUM HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $3.1MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that United States residents who received a notice stating the Continuum Health Alliance or Consensus Medical Group data breach affected their private information may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. Continuum Health Alliance LLC and Consensus Medical Group LLC agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging they failed to adequately protect private information during a cybersecurity incident that occurred Oct. 18-19, 2023. The data breach compromised the personal and protected health information of an estimated 380,000 individuals. Who can file a data breach claim? Class members are individuals residing in the United States who received a notice indicating the Continuum Health data breach impacted their personal and protected health information. How much is the class action settlement payout? Class members have the following claim options: -- Cash payment A -- Documented losses: Class members can claim up to $5,000 in documented out-of-pocket losses traceable to the data breach. -- Cash payment B -- Alternate cash payment: Class members who do not submit a documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive an estimated $75 cash payment. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of valid claims filed. -- Medical data monitoring: All class members can elect to receive two years of CyEx medical data monitoring, which includes real-time one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web scanning, security freezing assistance, $1,000,000 in identity theft insurance with no deductible and access to fraud resolution agents. How to claim a data breach class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Settlement Administrator -- 83317, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 225391. New York, NY 10150-5391 Class members must submit their claim online or postmark it by March 2, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- To submit a claim either online or by mail, claimants must provide the class member ID from the settlement notice they received. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, bills and bank or credit card statements showing monetary losses related to the data breach. Payout options -- Electronic payment -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $3.1 million Continuum Health settlement fund The $3,100,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,033,333 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be submitted to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each -- Medical monitoring services: Cost determined by number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Feb. 17, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: March 2, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 16, 2026 When is the Continuum Health data breach payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments and medical data monitoring codes to eligible class members approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Continuum Health Alliance and Consensus Medical Group failed to adequately protect private information during a cybersecurity incident in October 2023. The companies deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 plus medical monitoring Deadline: March 2, 2026 [GN] COOS COUNTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Garrett Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH GARRETT; and HOWARD SANBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COOS COUNTY FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00516 (D.N.H., Dec. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPPA"). The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding its patients' sensitive personal data—including names, dates of birth, contact information, Social Security numbers, medical identification numbers, (collectively "personally identifying information" or "PII") and medical information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with Private Information, "Private Information"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Data Breach was a direct consequence of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. Coos County Family Health Services, Inc. is a community-based organization providing innovative, personalized, comprehensive health care and social services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin T. King, Esq. DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C. 14 South Street, Suite 5 Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-1988 Email: benjamin@nhlawoffice.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Florea Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE FLOREA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03343 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Florea was employed by the Defendant as a dealer. The Cornwell Quality Tools Company offers hand tools, power tools, tool storage products, specialty tools, automotive diagnostics, and shop equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Jordan Belcastro, Esq. Andrew J. Kubik, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org akubik@nicholaslaw.org CVB FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger With Heritage Commerce ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating CVB Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: CVBF) related to its merger with Heritage Commerce Corp. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CVB shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cvb-financial-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORP.; DB GROUP LLC; SCC INDUSTRIES CORP.; SUBTECH SERVICES, LLC; DOES NO. 1 through NO. 20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10245 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a driver. D'onofrio General Contractors Corp. provides construction services. The Company offers to build marine and harbor structures, roofing, building restoration. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Alexandra Aguilar, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 DAMASCUS BAKERY: Carbine Sues Over Mislabeled Pizza Crust --------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CARBINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAMASCUS BAKERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11707 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2025) is an action alleging that the Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells mislabeled Brooklyn Bred brand pizza crust Products (the "Products" or "Brooklyn Bred Products"). According to the complaint, the packaging of the Product prominently displays on the back of the label the claim that it contain "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives" (the "No Artificial Preservatives" claim). This statement is false. The products are made with ascorbic acid—an artificial preservative ingredient used in food products. The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium product that is free from artificial preservatives. Damascus Bakery, Inc. provides artisanal flat breads. The Company offers lahvash wraps, panini, pitas, and roll ups. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com DANISH FOODS: Faces Landaverde Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- DAYSI MARILYN MARTINEZ LANDAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANISH FOODS 1 INC., and HUSAIN SULTAN ALI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06722 (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which her wages were earned, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure for furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a cook, cleaner and server while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from March 2025 through the present. Danish Foods 1 Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gaboriault Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA GABORIAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00515 (D.N.H., Dec. 10, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' names, Social Security numbers, and financial account information (the "Private Information") from hackers ("The Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to implement proper data security practices of its computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had the Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of the Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. Trustees of Dartmouth College operates as an education company. The Company provides programs in business, engineering, medicine, arts, and sciences, as well as offers library, research, training, and other education services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 Facsimile: (504) 708-4512 Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com DEERA EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maynard Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JY'TAVIUS MAYNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERA EXPRESS INC.; and RAMESH BIKKANI, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00394-RWS (N.D. Ga., Dec. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Maynard was employed by the Defendants as a driver. Deera Express Inc. is in the business of arranging of transportation of freight and cargo. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John L. Mays, Esq. James D. Dean, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1355 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Email: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com jdean@pcwlawfirm.com DES MOINES: Donnelly Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS DONNELLY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Dennis Donnelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Des Moines Register and Tribune Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00150-RGE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the District Court for Polk County, Iowa, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, is brought against the Defendants for alleged intentional misrepresentation and consumer fraud under the Iowa Consumer Fraud statute. On June 16, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger granted on Nov. 6, 2025. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Dennis Donnelly v. Des Moines Register and Tribune Co., et al., Case No. 25-3451, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 11, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on January 20, 2026; -- Appellant's Brief is due on January 20, 2026; and -- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DENNIS DONNELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Richard Anderson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT R. ANDERSON 1001 E. Sixth Street P.O. Box 4 Atlantic, IA 50022 Telephone: (515) 382-1278 - and - Daniel Robert Suhr, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE & LIBERTY 747 N. Jackson Street, Suite 210 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (414) 588-1658 Defendants-Appellees DES MOINES REGISTER AND TRIBUNE COMPANY, INC., et al. are represented by: Robert Corn-Revere, Esq. Conor T. Fitzpatrick, Esq. FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Suite 340 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 973-4200 (215) 717-3473 - and - Nicholas A. Klinefeldt, Esq. David Yoshimura, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 - and - Greg Harold Greubel, Esq. Adam Blair Steinbaugh, Esq. FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION 510 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (267) 838-8083 (215) 717-3473 - and - Matthew A. McGuire, Esq. NYEMASTER & GOODE 700 Walnut Street, Suite 1300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 283-3100 DISFRUTING TWO: Fails to Pay Proper wages, Mediza Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- NAHUEL MEDIZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISFRUTING TWO LLC (D/B/A ALISON ST. MARK'S); GROUP GEM LLC (D/B/A BRICK WINE BAR); ENRIQUE LERMA; FERNANDO HERNANDEZ; GEORGE MERCADO; and ANDREW KELLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10266 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Mediza was employed by the Defendants as a server. Disfruting Two LLC owns, operates, or controls an American bistro/restaurant, located at New York, NY under the name "Alison St. Mark's. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DREYER'S GRAND: Gomez Sues Over Mislabeled Frozen Fruit Bar ----------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10549-RMI (N.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Violation of California's False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased Outshine frozen fruit bars (collectively, the "Products"). Defendant markets the Products as "Fruit Bars" that are "Made with Real Fruit" and "Plant Based" which "tastes like biting into a piece of ripe fruit" making it the "snack that refreshed you from the inside out." In addition, Defendant states that the Products are a "good source of vitamin c," "Fat free" and containing "No high fructose corn syrup" and "No artificial colors or flavors" (collectively, the "Representations"). Despite those representations, however, the Products are (1) unhealthy due to the high amount of added sugar; (2) comprised of ingredients not found in real fruit; (3) nutritionally distinct from real fruits; (4) contain synthetic ingredients; and (5) contain artificial flavors, says the suit. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. operates as a dairy product company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com F5 INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 17, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired F5, Inc. (NASDAQ: FFIV) securities between October 28, 2024 and October 27, 2025. F5 is global multicloud application security and delivery company that enables customers use to deploy, secure, and operate applications on-premises or via public cloud. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that F5, Inc. (FFIV) Misled Investors Regarding the Financial Impact of its Security Breach According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that it was not truly equipped to safely secure data for its clients as F5 itself was experiencing a significant security breach of some of its key offerings and, further, that the revelation of this breach would significantly impact F5's potential to capitalize on the security market. Plaintiff alleges that on October 15, 2025, F5 announced a "long-term, persistent" breach to its systems, during which the Company's BIG-IP product development and engineering knowledge management platforms were compromised, including the BIG-IP source code. On this news, the price of F5's common stock declined from $343.17 per share on October 14, 2025 to $295.35 per share on October 16, 2025, a decline of about 13.9% in the span of just two days. The complaint further alleges that on October 27, 2025, F5 announced their fourth quarter fiscal year 2025 results, providing significantly below-market growth expectations for fiscal 2026 due in significant part to the security breach as the Company announced expected reductions to sales and renewals, elongated sales cycles, terminated projections, and increased expenses attributed to ongoing remediation efforts. Defendants also disclosed that BIG-IP, the product that was the subject of the security breach, is the company's highest revenue product, elevating the scope of the impact from the original disclosure as F5 does not otherwise provide revenue contributions by product line. On this news, the price of F5's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $290.41 per share on October 27, 2025, F5's stock price fell to $258.76 per share on October 28, 2025, a decline of an additional 10.9% in the span of two days. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against F5, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by February 17, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ingles Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK INGLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25-CV-4582 (D. Minn., Dec. 10, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid back straight time wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Ingles was employed by the Defendants as a package handler. Federal Express Corporation provides courier delivery services. The Company focuses on supply chain transportation, logistics, packaging, and ancillary clearance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Newville, Esq. Paul M. Schinner, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 80 S 8th St, 1650 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Email: newville@halunenlaw.com schinner@halunenlaw.com - and - Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE 750 Main St., Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Email: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Appeals Class Certification Order to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit entitled Brittney Hallman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00222-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted on Nov. 7, 2025. This action is certified as an FLSA collective class action consisting of: "All people employed as servers/bartenders by Flagship Restaurant Group since June 14, 2021." On Nov. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal regarding Order on motion to certify class, which Judge Bataillon granted on Dec. 2, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Brittney Hallman v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 25-3331, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent BRITTNEY HALLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin A. Todd, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer, III, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS, LLP 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 754 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 875-3332 Defendant-Petitioner FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC is represented by: John Patrick Barrett, Esq. Margaret C. Hershiser, Esq. Patrice D. Ott, Esq. KOLEY & JESSEN 800 One Pacific Place 1125 S. 103rd Street Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (320) 654-4100 GOOGLE LLC: Intercepts Patients' Personal Info, McEntyre Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALETTA MCENTYRE and GAYLA SCHNITZER, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC and ALBANY MED HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-10483 (N.D. Cal., December 5, 2025) is a class action to enjoin Google's interception, and Albany Med's disclosure and communication of Plaintiffs and other patients' personally identifying information and protected health information without their consent. Albany Med is a private, nonprofit health system serving a 25-county area in upstate New York. Through its website, AlbanyMed.org, patients can search for doctors and schedule appointments according to their medical conditions, thereby communicating to Albany Med protected health information. Unbeknownst to them, however -- and constituting a significant violation of their privacy -- Albany Med, without patient consent, allows Google to intercept, read, and utilize for commercial gain patients' personally identifying information and PHI, gleaned from their use of AlbanyMed.org, says the suit. Google LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc, is a provider of search and advertising services on the Internet.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel E. Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com GRILL LLC: Directed to Pay $71K to Troy Law ------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez, Janet Gutierrez individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 156-40 Grill LLC d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria Karras-Pollatos, Michael Siderakis, and Konstantinos Siklas, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-05081 (CBA) (LGD) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York addressed a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst regarding plaintiffs' counsel Troy Law PLLC's motion to award attorneys' fees and costs incurred defending an appeal and to enter an amended judgment. Plaintiffs prevailed in a suit against Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Troy Law was granted attorneys' fees in the amount of $57,669.50 and costs in the amount of $3,151.80 for their work on that suit. Defendant Michael Siderakis appealed the outcome of the underlying suit, challenging the finding that he was Plaintiffs' employer for FLSA and NYLL purposes and how the Court structured the damages awarded against him. The Second Circuit affirmed the finding on the former but partially vacated the latter. On remand, the Court revisited the matter. Judge Amon observed that no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has also passed, therefore the court adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted Troy Law's motion for attorneys' fees and costs incurred both during the underlying FLSA and NYLL suit and those incurred defending the subsequent appeal. . The court also ordered the Clerk of the Court to Amend the judgment entered on April 1, 2025 to include the $57,669.50 in attorneys' fees and $3,151.80 in costs previously awarded for the trial, Add $10,335.00 in attorneys' fees for the appeal consistent with this Order (for a total of $71,156.30 in fees and costs) and close the case. A copy of the Court's order dated December 19th is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d4k9ei from PacerMonitor.com HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04040-SAG (D. Md., Dec. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII" stored within the Defendant's information network. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI and PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI and PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Healthcare Interactive, Inc. designs and develops technology solutions for healthcare administration and insurance. The Company offers solutions that enable executives to measure and manage healthcare costs by using real-time data to increase transparency, foster engagement, and facilitate decisions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #15018 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com INTEL CORP: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10193 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.intel.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer components and related products. The Company major products include microprocessors, chipsets, embedded processors and microcontrollers, flash memory, graphic, network and communication, systems management software, conferencing, and digital imaging products. [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 KEVIN MURPHY: Greenfield Sues over Mislabeled Haircare Products --------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA GREENFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEVIN MURPHY USA, INC.; KEVIN MURPHY BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; and KEVIN MURPHY USA HOLDINGS PTY. LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11742 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant unlawfully labeled their haircare products, with the designation and representation that the products were made and manufactured in the USA without clear and adequate qualification of the foreign ingredients and components contained therein, as required by federal rules and California laws. Contrary to the Defendants' express representations and its failure to clearly and adequately qualify those representations, the product purchased by the Plaintiff is substantially and materially composed of indispensable foreign ingredients. Kevin Murphy USA, Inc. is a privately-held company that operates in the consumer products industry, specializing in haircare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims -------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA COVINGTON, f/k/a BRENDA RICE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 3:25-cv-01099-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., Dec. 9, 2025) is action alleging the Defendant's practice of refusing to pay reasonably necessary "Actual Cash Value" in total loss claims under comprehensive and collision coverages. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were insureds under a Liberty automobile policy issued for private passenger auto physical damage, pursuant to which Defendant was required to pay the cost to repair or replace an insured vehicle up to the "Actual Cash Value" of the vehicle. However, Liberty systematically and uniformly underpaid the Plaintiff and thousands of other putative Class Members amounts owed to its insureds who suffered the total loss of a vehicle insured with comprehensive and collision coverage. Insureds, such as the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, pay a premium in exchange for Liberty's promise to repair any damage to an insured vehicle caused by a covered peril. However, Liberty's obligation to repair damage is not limitless; rather, it is limited, or capped, to the ACV of the insured vehicle, says the suit. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company offer auto, vehicles, properties, life, and small business insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Soren E. Gisleson, Esq. HERMAN KATZ GISLESON & CAIN 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1860 New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: soren@hkgclaw.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: christopher.hudon@normandpllc.com ed@normandpllc.com ean@normandpllc.com LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hall Benefits Law reports that a federal district court judge in Tennessee has denied LifePoint Health's motion to dismiss a proposed class action accusing the company of mismanaging its 401(k) plan. As a result of the ruling, current and former LifePoint employees can proceed with their claims that the company and its fiduciaries violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by charging excessive fees and improperly using forfeited 401(k) contributions. LifePoint Health, a Tennessee company, operates over 300 hospitals and healthcare facilities across the nation. An estimated 41,000–55,000 employees participate in the LifePoint Health Retirement Plan, which has assets exceeding $1 billion. Due to the number of participants and amount of its assets, the LifePoint plan is one of the largest defined contribution plans in the United States. Six former and current employees filed suit against LifePoint on behalf of all individuals who participated in the plan since August 15, 2018. The proposed class members allege that Lifepoint, its Board of Directors, the Retirement Committee, and other fiduciaries breached their duties of prudence and loyalty under ERISA, as well as failed to monitor the plan properly. One of the central claims in the lawsuit focuses on allegedly excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees. Between 2018 and 2021, each worker paid an average of $48.57 per year in fees, which is almost double the $25.58 per year that participants in comparable plans with similar services paid. During this timeframe, the plan used recordkeepers from Wells Fargo, Prudential, and Vanguard, which the workers allege ran up fees totaling $2.6 million in 2020. The workers also claimed that LifePoint failed to engage in regular competitive bidding for administrative plan services through the request for proposal (RFP) process. Instead, fees remained the same from 2016 to 2020, while other employers with large 401(k) plans reduced fees by 30% or more through reviews and bidding. The second major claim involves the alleged misuse of forfeited 401(k) funds. When employees leave before their employer's matching funds are fully vested, they forfeit those funds back to the plan. Forfeited funds can amount to millions of dollars annually. The plan documents stated that the funds were to be used to reduce future company contributions or pay administrative expenses. However, LifePoint consistently used the forfeited funds to reduce its matching contributions to employee accounts, but not to defray high administrative fees. Furthermore, after 2021, the plan summary omitted language allowing forfeited funds to be used to cover administrative expenses. LifePoint filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the workers failed to show the administrative fees were unreasonable. The company also alleged that the valuable customized services the plan offered justified the higher fees. The judge denied Lifepoint's motion to dismiss and rejected its arguments in favor of dismissal. The judge's order pointed to the detailed, plan-specific evidence that the workers produced to state a valid legal claim. The judge further stated that the combination of high administrative fees, lack of competitive bidding, consistent pricing, and specific forfeiture practices was sufficient to allege plausible breaches of fiduciary duty. Likewise, the judge refused to dismiss the workers' claims, alleging failure to monitor the plan. This case is indicative of an increasing number of ERISA claims targeting larger 401(k) plans for excessive administrative fees and forfeiture practices. Courts are overwhelmingly allowing cases with sufficient documentation backing up their allegations to overcome early motions to dismiss. The court's refusal to dismiss this case paves the way for discovery, which can reveal internal emails, vendor contracts, and other records documenting decision-making. If the workers prevail and the court certifies the proposed claim, LifePoint could face significant liability. For other companies maintaining large retirement plans, the LifePoint case serves as a reminder that, as fiduciaries, they should use their bargaining power to diligently review contracts, fee structures, and the use of plan assets. These duties are legal obligations under ERISA, and failure to fulfill them can result in severe financial consequences. HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007. [GN] MACY'S.COM LLC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04573 (D. Minn., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.macys.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Macy's.com, LLC is an omnichannel retail organization operating stores. The Company sells wide range of merchandise, including apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home furnishings, and other consumer goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Figueroa Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEANNETTE FIGUEROA is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Jeannette Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mayflower International Hotel Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-4729, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for hostile work environment and adverse actions, including discriminatory acts that the Plaintiff faced at the hands of the Defendants due to her gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On Oct. 27, 2025, Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. It is ordered and adjudged that the jury found in favor of the Plaintiff for $1,650,000,000 compensatory damages and $2,000,000 punitive damages for a total sum of $3,625,000. The appellate case is entitled Figueroa v. Mayflower International Hotel Group, Inc., Case No. 25-3045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEANNETTE FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Defendants-Appellees MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP, INC., et al. are represented by: Bo Chen, Esq. 79-11 146th Street Flushing, NY 11367 MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over McRibs Sandwich ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPC LAND reports that McDonald's faces a federal class action lawsuit filed December 23, 2025, alleging the company systematically deceived consumers by marketing its McRib sandwich as containing actual pork rib meat when the product contains none. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, names four plaintiffs seeking to represent millions of consumers who purchased the limited-time offering under what they claim was a false impression. The lawsuit centers on a straightforward allegation. Despite its name and distinctive rib-shaped patty, the McRib contains no actual pork rib meat whatsoever, according to the 45-page complaint filed by Peter Le, Charles Lynch, Dorien Baker, and Derrick Wilson. Instead, the sandwich uses "reconstructed" meat from lower-grade pork products including pork shoulder, heart, tripe, and scalded stomach. The complaint alleges this marketing creates what it calls "a deliberate sleight of hand." By including the word "Rib" in the product name and shaping the patty to resemble pork ribs, McDonald's knowingly markets the sandwich in ways that deceive reasonable consumers who mistakenly believe the product contains meaningful quantities of actual pork rib meat, the filing states. McDonald's has sold the McRib periodically since 1981 using consistent naming and presentation across all franchise locations. The company reported selling over 30 million McRib sandwiches in a single year, according to archived Maxim reporting from 2009 cited in the complaint. Same-store sales metrics consistently spike during McRib availability periods, according to Sherwood Media reporting from November 2024. The lawsuit identifies what it characterizes as systematic concealment. McDonald's exclusively possesses knowledge about the McRib's actual composition but never clearly disclosed to customers that the sandwich contains no pork rib meat, according to the complaint. The company had "ample opportunity" to disclose this material fact through advertising, promotional materials, or menu listings but instead "intentionally chose not to do so," the filing alleges. Consumer confusion extends beyond the product name. The complaint notes that the McRib's limited-time availability creates urgency that discourages scrutiny of actual ingredients. Some consumers theorize the sandwich returns only when pork prices drop sufficiently, reasonably but mistakenly believing McDonald's uses actual spare ribs or baby back ribs when economically viable. Others view the McRib as a "loss leader" -- a premium product McDonald's offers strategically to drive sales of other items. The legal filing brings 16 causes of action spanning fraud, breach of warranty, contract violations, and state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek class certification for a nationwide consumer class covering all U.S. residents who purchased a McRib during the four years before the complaint filing. Additional sub-classes target consumers in California, New York, Illinois, and the District of Columbia. California plaintiff Peter Le purchased a McRib around November 15, 2024, in Baldwin Park. New York plaintiff Charles Lynch made multiple McRib purchases including his most recent in December 2024 in Poughkeepsie. Illinois plaintiff Dorien Baker purchased the sandwich several times in Chicago during December 2024. District of Columbia plaintiff Derrick Wilson bought one McRib around November 28, 2024. Each plaintiff claims they would not have purchased the sandwich -- or would only have paid substantially less -- had they known it contained no actual pork rib meat. The lawsuit alleges violations of multiple state consumer protection statutes. California claims cite the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False and Misleading Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. New York allegations invoke General Business Law sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts and false advertising. Illinois claims cite the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. District of Columbia allegations reference the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. McDonald's pricing strategy becomes central to damage calculations. The complaint alleges consumers paid premium prices for what they reasonably believed was a higher-quality pork rib product but instead received a lower-quality restructured meat product. This price premium, multiplied across millions of purchases over multiple years, could generate substantial damage awards if plaintiffs prevail. The case arrives amid broader scrutiny of food industry marketing practices. Kentucky filed suit against Temu in July 2025 over allegations of false reference pricing and consumer deception, seeking up to $2,000 per willful violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The FTC settled with e-commerce scheme operators in August 2025 over false earnings claims and deceptive business practices. These cases reflect increased regulatory attention to consumer protection across industries. Food labeling disputes carry particular sensitivity for quick-service restaurants. Consumers purchasing food products from restaurants rely heavily on representations about composition when making purchasing decisions, the complaint notes. This reliance intensifies when consumers purchase from well-known nationwide brands like McDonald's, which benefit from established trust and recognition. The lawsuit addresses McDonald's franchise structure directly. As franchisor, McDonald's controls product composition, pricing, and marketing, according to the complaint. Franchisee locations serve as agents of McDonald's to the public. Reasonable consumers purchasing McRib sandwiches at any McDonald's franchise location reasonably believe they enter purchase agreements with the McDonald's corporation, the filing states. Consumer expectations matter significantly in food advertising cases. The complaint alleges reasonable consumers purchasing a product named "McRib" with a patty shaped like pork ribs naturally expect the sandwich contains at least some actual pork rib meat. These expectations become reasonable because the sandwich name explicitly includes "Rib," and McDonald's deliberately crafted the patty to resemble cooked pork ribs, according to the filing. McDonald's has not publicly responded to the lawsuit. The company maintained its headquarters at 110 North Carpenter Street in Chicago. The lawsuit demands jury trial on all claims. Plaintiffs seek multiple forms of relief. Monetary demands include compensatory damages, restitution, punitive damages, and statutory penalties under various state consumer protection laws. Injunctive relief requests ask courts to prohibit McDonald's from continuing what plaintiffs characterize as deceptive naming and marketing practices for the McRib. Additional requests include attorney's fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The case highlights tensions between marketing creativity and consumer protection standards. Food companies frequently use creative naming and visual presentation to make products appealing. The lawsuit questions where McDonald's crossed from creative marketing into material misrepresentation territory. Industry observers note the limited-time availability strategy amplifies consumer confusion. The McRib's periodic disappearance from menus creates anticipation and urgency that may reduce consumer scrutiny of product details. This scarcity marketing, combined with premium pricing, reinforces consumer impressions that the sandwich represents a special, higher-quality offering. The complaint emphasizes material facts about meat composition. Pork rib meat -- whether spare ribs from the bottom rib cage or baby back ribs from the top portion -- constitutes premium cuts commanding higher prices. The USDA categorizes these cuts separately from lower-quality options like loin or butt, reflecting market recognition of quality differences. Consumer survey methodology supports plaintiffs' materiality arguments. By presenting actual McDonald's menu advertisements to survey participants without additional prompting, the surveys attempted to measure organic consumer expectations. The 72% expectation rate for rib meat content and 67% importance rating for that content establish what plaintiffs characterize as widespread material reliance. McDonald's marketing materials consistently emphasize the sandwich's visual appeal. Advertising images prominently feature the patty's distinctive ridged shape. A November 20, 2024 corporate press release celebrated the McRib's return with promotional campaigns described as "getting saucy this holiday season." Social media campaigns used phrases like "McRib szn is here," leveraging seasonal shorthand to drive engagement. The December 3, 2024 nationwide release followed McDonald's established pattern of periodic McRib availability. Restaurants across participating locations stocked the sandwich for limited-time purchase. Geographic availability varied, with some markets receiving earlier or extended access compared to others. Legal precedent for food labeling disputes provides mixed guidance. Courts evaluate whether reasonable consumers would be deceived by challenged marketing. Product names, visual presentations, and contextual marketing materials all factor into reasonable consumer expectation analyses. The McRib case tests whether a product name incorporating a specific meat type creates enforceable consumer expectations about actual ingredient composition. The Uniform Commercial Code provisions cited in the lawsuit address warranty law. Express warranty claims allege McDonald's made affirmations of fact about the McRib's composition through its naming and presentation. Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose claims allege McDonald's knew consumers expected actual rib meat and failed to deliver products fit for that purpose. Fraud-based claims require proof of intent to deceive. The complaint alleges McDonald's knowingly created consumer confusion by naming and shaping the product to suggest rib meat content while simultaneously concealing the absence of actual rib meat. This combination of affirmative misrepresentation and material omission forms the basis for common-law fraud allegations. Breach of contract claims rest on different legal foundations. These allegations characterize each McRib purchase as a contract formation event where McDonald's offered sandwiches containing implied promises about composition, and consumers accepted by paying. Breach occurred when delivered products failed to match promised characteristics. Unjust enrichment claims, pled in the alternative to contract-based theories, allege McDonald's inequitably benefited at consumer expense through deceptive practices. These quasi-contractual remedies seek return of benefits McDonald's obtained through wrongful conduct, even absent formal contract relationships. State consumer protection statutes provide varying remedies. California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act requires pre-suit notice, which plaintiffs provided contemporaneously with complaint filing. New York's General Business Law sections allow for actual damages or $50 per class member (whichever is greater), plus treble damages and punitive damages. Illinois's Consumer Fraud Act provides for compensatory and punitive damages with attorney's fees. The District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act similarly permits compensatory and punitive damages. Class certification requirements under Federal Rule 23 demand numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The complaint alleges class members number in the millions, making joinder impractical. Common questions about the McRib's composition, McDonald's knowledge, and consumer reasonable expectations predominate over individual issues. Plaintiffs' claims typify class member experiences, and retained counsel possesses substantial class action experience. The case number 1:25-cv-15609 was assigned in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Venue selection reflects plaintiff Baker's Chicago residence and McDonald's Chicago headquarters location. The federal court obtained jurisdiction through the Class Action Fairness Act, which provides federal jurisdiction when aggregate damages exceed $5 million and parties satisfy diversity requirements. McDonald's faced previous legal challenges over various operational and marketing practices, though this lawsuit specifically targets the McRib product naming and composition. The company operates thousands of franchise locations across the United States, generating billions in annual revenue from menu sales including limited-time offerings like the McRib. The complaint excludes McDonald's itself, its officers, directors, legal representatives, and controlling entities from the proposed classes. The judge and court personnel plus their immediate families also face exclusion under standard class action practice. These exclusions prevent conflicts while maintaining focus on consumer purchaser claims. Discovery processes, if the case proceeds, would likely examine McDonald's internal communications about McRib marketing, consumer research conducted before product launches, supplier contracts detailing pork product specifications, and pricing strategies for limited-time offerings. Plaintiffs may seek testimony from marketing executives, product development staff, and franchisee operators about product positioning and consumer communications. The lawsuit characterizes McDonald's conduct as knowing and intentional rather than inadvertent. The complaint alleges McDonald's understood reasonable consumers would interpret "McRib" as containing rib meat but deliberately chose not to correct this misimpression because it drove sales and profits. This knowledge allegation supports enhanced damages claims under various statutes permitting punitive awards for willful violations. Consumer protection in food marketing involves balancing competing interests. Companies seek creative freedom to develop appealing product names and presentations. Consumers deserve accurate information to make informed purchasing decisions. Regulators and courts mediate these tensions through evolving standards about what constitutes material misrepresentation versus permissible marketing. The December 23, 2025 filing timing positions the case for potential resolution during 2026, though complex class action litigation typically extends across multiple years. Early proceedings will address motion practice on pleading sufficiency, followed by potential class certification briefing, discovery disputes, and eventual summary judgment or trial proceedings if the case survives initial challenges. Timeline -- 1981 - McDonald's begins offering McRib sandwich on periodic, limited-time basis across United States locations -- November 17, 2025 - USDA National Daily Pork Report values pork "rib" meat at $152.32 per 100 pounds, compared to $108.84 for pork "butt" and $85.90 for pork "loin" -- November 15, 2024 - Plaintiff Peter Le purchases McRib in Baldwin Park, California -- November 20, 2024 - McDonald's issues press release announcing McRib return: "The wait is finally over" -- November 28, 2024 - Plaintiff Derrick Wilson purchases McRib in Washington, D.C. -- December 2024 - Plaintiffs Charles Lynch and Dorien Baker make multiple McRib purchases in New York and Illinois -- December 3, 2024 - McRib returns to participating McDonald's restaurants nationwide with prices averaging $5.63, reaching up to $7.89 at some locations -- December 23, 2025 - Class action lawsuit filed in Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division (Case No. 1:25-cv-15609) alleging McDonald's deceived consumers about McRib composition -- July 27, 2025 - Kentucky files lawsuit against Temu over consumer protection violations including false pricing and deceptive practices -- August 25, 2025 - FTC settles with e-commerce scheme operators over false earnings claims and business opportunity fraud Summary Who: Four consumers -- Peter Le (California), Charles Lynch (New York), Dorien Baker (Illinois), and Derrick Wilson (District of Columbia) -- filed a class action lawsuit against McDonald's Corporation seeking to represent millions of McRib purchasers nationwide. What: The lawsuit alleges McDonald's systematically deceived consumers by naming and marketing the McRib sandwich as containing actual pork rib meat when the product contains no rib meat whatsoever, only restructured meat from lower-grade pork products including shoulder, heart, tripe, and scalded stomach. When: The complaint was filed December 23, 2025, in federal court, covering purchases made during the four years before filing. The named plaintiffs made their purchases between November 2024 and December 2024, when McDonald's sold the McRib at premium prices averaging $5.63 per sandwich. Where: The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, where McDonald's maintains its corporate headquarters at 110 North Carpenter Street in Chicago. Why: Plaintiffs allege they paid premium prices for what they reasonably believed was a higher-quality sandwich containing actual pork rib meat -- which commands 40% to 77% price premiums over other pork cuts -- but instead received a product made from lower-grade pork products, resulting in material financial harm and denial of the benefit of their bargains. [GN] MCKIM & CREED: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Grant Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKIM & CREED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00802-M (N.D.N.C., Dec. 10, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information of its current and former employees, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed between December 15, 2023 and February 11, 2024. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. Not only did cybercriminals gain unauthorized access to this Private Information, but they stole that information and published it on the dark web, making it available for download. As a result the stolen Private Information could be used at any moment to commit fraud or identity theft against Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit. McKim & Creed Inc. provides engineering services. The Company offers civil, environmental, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering services. McKim & Creed serves water, energy, transportation, federal government, land development, buildings, health care, and educational markets in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 Email: Jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MDL 3163: GLP-1 RAS Product Liability Suits Transferred to E.D. Pa ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers 18 actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, two from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one from the Northern District of Texas, all to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Judge Karen S. Marston for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAS) Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3163. Plaintiffs allege that their use of Eli Lilly's or Novo Nordisk's GLP-1 RA drugs (specifically, Ozempic, Wegovy, Saxenda, and Trulicity) caused them to suffer from non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The actions involve common questions of fact concerning the development, manufacture, testing, regulatory history, promotion, and labeling of the products, as well as their capacity to cause NAION. Plaintiffs bring substantially identical claims for failure to warn, design defect, and breach of warranties. The Panel rules that centralization will eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings on preemption, expert admissibility, and other issues, and will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and conserve party and judicial resources. All parties agree that centralization is appropriate. The Panel further notes that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation as product liability litigations arising from the same drugs is pending in that district before Judge Marston in MDL No. 3094. Although the injury alleged here is different from the gastrointestinal injuries at issue in MDL No. 3094, there will be substantial overlap between pretrial proceedings in these litigations. In addition, certain plaintiffs allege that they suffer from both the gastrointestinal injuries at issue in MDL No. 3094 and NAION. Further, the NAION litigation involves the same defendants and largely the same counsel as MDL No. 3094. Judge Marston thus is uniquely well-positioned to advance this litigation efficiently. The panel declined Eli Lilly's suggestion that the NAION litigation be incorporated into MDL No. 3094 as creation of a separate NAION MDL will allow Judge Marston to determine the appropriate level of coordination between the litigations, make tracking of cases easier, and facilitate orderly docketing in each MDL. Creating a new MDL also is consistent with past handling of actions alleging a second injury arising from the same drug involved in a previous MDL. The panel also denied the motion for centralization as to the case captioned GARCIA v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:25−04537. A full-text copy of the court's December 15, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3163-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MDL 3166: Roblox Child Exploitation Suits Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers 31 actions pending in 12 districts, all to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Richard Seeborg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Roblox Corporation Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation," MDL No. 3166. The actions allege that minor children were sexually exploited and, in some cases, assaulted by child predators who targeted and groomed them through the highly popular Roblox gaming platform. Plaintiffs contend that, having established a connection with the minor plaintiffs on Roblox, the predators then persuaded the minors to continue their interactions, and often to exchange sexually explicit images, on a second platform such as Discord, Snapchat, or Instagram, or via texting or video-calling on a cellular phone. Plaintiffs assert substantially identical claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, and design defect. In opposing centralization, defendants argue that any common issues of fact will be overwhelmed by factual variations among the cases. They contend that the platforms at issue, the specifics of the incidents of sexual exploitation, and the statements regarding the platforms' safety allegedly relied upon by plaintiffs vary from case to case. In addition, defendants state that they will move to compel arbitration in many, if not all, cases; that the terms of their arbitration provisions have been amended multiple times over the years; and that the enforceability of the provisions will depend on case-specific considerations such as the nature and date of the sexual exploitation and the manner in which plaintiffs assented to the arbitration terms. These variations, they argue, will require that the arbitration motions by resolved on a case-by-case basis. They also suggest that informal coordination is both feasible and preferable to centralization. The panel opines that although defendants' platforms have distinct features and controls, it is not uncommon for product liability MDLs, including those involving video games and social media platforms, to involve a number of different defendants and products. Moreover, that many of the actions involve more than one defendant and platform does not weigh against centralization, particularly given that plaintiffs assert an indivisible injury resulting from the use of defendants' products. Absent an MDL, the complexities of managing such multi-defendant, multi-product actions would not be avoided, but instead would be spread among multiple courts in multiple districts. Centralization thus will conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The transferee court can address differences among the platforms by establishing separate discovery and motion tracks as it deems appropriate. The panel adds that centralization also will allow coordinated handling of pretrial motions on several crosscutting issues. Defendants likely will raise overlapping defenses in all or most actions, such as whether plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Communications Decency Act or the First Amendment, whether defendants have a duty to protect users from the actions of third-party predators, and whether the acts of such third parties are superseding causes of plaintiffs' injuries. "And despite defendants' contention that motions to compel arbitration will not be susceptible to coordinated handling, efficiencies likely can be gained by having a single court preside over all such motions," adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3166-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MIDWEST CENTER: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Coursey Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK COURSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST CENTER FOR DERMATOLOGY & PATHOLOGY, PLLC, and DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES, LLC d/b/a DOCS DERMATOLOGY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14042-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security procedures and practices, resulting in a data breach in or around December 2025 (the "Data Breach") in which unauthorized third parties accessed and/or exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personal information, including but not limited to: names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, patient and/or medical record numbers, health insurance information, clinical and diagnostic information related to dermatology treatment and pathology services, and other personal and medical information defined as "personal information," "medical information," and/or "protected health information" under applicable federal and state law (collectively, "PII/PHI" or "Personal Information"). According to the complaint, DOCS lists Midwest Center among its Michigan affiliate practices and centralizes certain patient-facing functions such as online bill pay, forms, and portal access. However, the Defendants' failure to ensure that their servers and systems were adequately secure jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the hands of criminals, and they now face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, says the suit. Plaintiff Mark Coursey is a Michigan resident who has paid for and received medical treatment and services numerous times at Midwest Center. Defendant Midwest Center for Dermatology & Pathology, PLLC is a multi-location medical practice providing medical, surgical, and cosmetic dermatology services in multiple locations in Southeast Michigan. Defendant Dermatologists of Central States, LLC d/b/a DOCS Dermatology Group ("DOCS"), operates more than 85 dermatology locations and over 190 providers across multiple states, including Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS: Elliot Files Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Millcreek Pediatrics. The case is styled as Jamal Elliot, on behalf of himself individually, and his minor children J.E. and A.E., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Millcreek Pediatrics, Case No. 1:25-cv-01534-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable. Millcreek Pediatrics -- http://www.millcreekpediatrics.com/-- is a pediatric healthcare provider in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 274-2180 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com MILUM EXPRESS: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice --------------------------------------------------------- ERIN HUNNICUT; DENSYS TORRES; and MAIKEL JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILUM EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03359 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, seeking to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Milum Express, LLC is a logistics company, specializing in transportation services for businesses and individuals. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Barack, Esq. Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq. KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC 304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C Clearwater, Florida 33765 Telephone: (727) 441-4947 Facsimile: (727) 447-3158 Email: rbarack@employeerights.com Jackie@employeerights.com mnadeau@employeerights.com Jackie@employeerights.com MONSANTO CO: Court Orders Identification of Mediator in "Neddo" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as AMBER NEDDO, as guardian and next friend to Z.N., C.B., and A.B., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA INC.,and PHARMACIA LLC, Judge Geoffrey Crawford ordered as follows: * Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint concerning alleged dates of exposure not later than January 6, 2025. Alternatively, the parties may file a stipulation concerning attendance and alleged exposure of plaintiff's children, also by January 6, 2025. * Defendant may file a supplemental memorandum concerning the pending motion to dismiss not later than January 9, 2026. Any reply shall be filed not later than January 9, 2026. Any reply shall be filed not later than January 16, 2026. Both memos shall not exceed ten pages. * The parties shall commence discovery at this time despite the pending motion to dismiss. * The court commits to releasing a ruling on the motion to dismiss not later than mid-February 2026. The parties shall use March 1, 2026 as a start date to set deadlines for the following events: Completion of fact discovery Disclosure of expert witnesses Science Day Daubert motions Motion for class certification Summary judgment deadline The court said that it intends to set a hearing on the motion for class certification -- if the case is not dismissed -- in December 2026. The parties shall submit a proposed pre-trial order setting out the various deadlines not later than January 30, 2026. The court will table for now the issue of whether putative class members exposed prior to July 1, 2022, have a medical monitoring remedy under Vermont common law. The parties shall identify a mediator not later than January 30, 2026. The Court added that if they are unable to agree on a mediator, the court will appoint one after notice to the parties before the end of February 2026 and that once the mediator is identified the Court will appoint the mediator as the court's settlement master. The parties will share the cost of the settlement master evenly. A Copy of the Court's decision dated December 19 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3tCwST from PacerMonitor.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Anderson, on behalf of the estate of James Anderson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-558 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 Marilyn Anderson is a natural person and is the Representative of James Anderson, 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: Anderson Sues Over Wrongful Conduct and Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Anderson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-417 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: Armendariz Sues Over Negligent Sale ----------------------------------------------------- Martin Armendariz, Jr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-275 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: Bain Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Lynn Bain, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-550 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: Battista Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Battista, on behalf of the estate of John Battista, Jr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-552 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 Teresa Battista is a natural person and is the Representative of John Battista, Jr., 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: Blanchette Sues Over Negligent Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Blanchette, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-283 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: Booher Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Belia Luna Booher on behalf of the estate of Aaron Villarreal, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-555 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 Belia Luna Booher is a natural person and is the Representative of Aaron Villarreal, 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: Brady Sues Over Wrongful Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- Colten Brady, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-294 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: Cantos Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Molly Cantos, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-419 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: Chapman Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Chapman, Sr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-538 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: Cook Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Molly Corrina Cook on behalf of the estate of Christopher Cook, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-559 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 Molly Corrina Cook is a natural person and is the Representative of Christopher Cook, 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: Currigan Sues Over Wrongful Conduct and Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Currigan, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-284 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: Edwards Sues Over Negligent Product Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- James Edwards, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-302 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: Funk Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Leslie Funk, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-293 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: Geldbach Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Geldbach on behalf of the estate of Frederick Geldbach, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-544 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 Erik Geldbach is a natural person and is the Representative of Frederick Geldbach, 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: Serrato Sues Over Negligent Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Jill Serrato, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-409 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: Thomson-Arthur Sues Over Wrongful Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ Myleah Thomson-Arthur, on behalf of the estate of Stephen Morgan, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-551 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 Myleah Thomson-Arthur is a natural person and is the Representative of Stephen Morgan, 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: Vergot Sues Over Negligent Sale ------------------------------------------------- Richard Vergot, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-425 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: Walker Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy James Walker on behalf of the estate of Elizabeth Walker, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-556 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 Timothy James Walker is a natural person and is the Representative of Elizabeth Walker, 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: Ward Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Ward, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-549 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 NORDVPN SA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Dec. 11, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peterson v. Nordvpn S.A., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03218 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order as follows: -- Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings deadline is Jan. 2, 2026. -- Fact Discovery Cutoff deadline is July 6, 2026. -- Opening Expert Reports deadline is July 31, 2026. -- Rebuttal Expert Reports deadline is Sept. 4, 2026. -- Expert Discovery Cutoff deadline is October 30, 2026. -- Motion for Class Certification deadline is Dec. 11, 2026. -- Opposition to Motion for Class Certification deadline is Jan. 15, 2027. -- Reply in Support of Class Certification deadline is Feb. 12, 2027. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] OPTUM INC: Faces Hodges Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- GIL HODGES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTUM INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03325 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the The Federal Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class had their personally identifiable information and protected health information improperly intercepted by or otherwise disclosed to third party Adobe Inc. , as a result of using the Optum website (available at optum.com, hereinafter, the "Website"), which is owned, operated, and controlled by Defendant. The Defendant aids, employs, agrees with, and otherwise enables Adobe to intercept Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications while using the Website, including communications containing PII and PHI. The Plaintiff never consented, agreed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Defendant to disclose and enable interception of his PII, PHI, and other communications. Moreover, the Plaintiff was never provided with the required notice that Defendant disclosed the PHI and PII of users of the Website, nor was he provided any means of opting out of such disclosures. Defendant nonetheless knowingly disclosed Plaintiff's PHI and PII to Adobe, says the suit. Optum, Inc. provides supply chain solutions. The Company designs software that enables, coordinates, and optimizes business processes across multi-tier supply chain networks by generating data from business operations to aid management in decision making. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: idiaz@bursor.com PENN ABSTRACT: Wins Dismissal of "Gahagan" ------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as MELISSA GAHAGAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated vs. Penn Abstract and Land Services, LLC, et al.,(M.D. P.A) Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the Middle District of Pennsylvania Ordered that Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and dismissed the Plaintiff's amended complaint and ordered the clerk to close the case. A copy of the court's Decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZHZEi from PacerMonitor.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHARMAVITE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10253 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.naturemade.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pharmavite LLC manufactures and distributes dietary supplement products. The Company offers tablets, capsules, softgels, vitamins, minerals, herbs, supplements, and nutrition bars. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal POST CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Honey-Comb Cereal Servings --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Lori Sciarabba filed a class action lawsuit against Post Consumer Brands LLC. Why: Sciarabba claims Post misleads consumers by labeling its Honey-Comb cereal as family size when it actually contains even fewer servings than advertised. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. Post Consumer Brands misleads consumers by labeling its Honey-Comb cereal as family size when it actually contains even fewer servings than advertised, according to a new class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Lori Sciarabba claims the serving size information on the back label of Post's Honey-Comb cereal states it contains about 13 servings when, in reality, independent scientific testing shows it contains at most only about 12 servings. Sciarabba argues this discrepancy misleads consumers and results in them paying a premium price for a product that does not deliver its promised value. "Consumers pay a price premium for the products bearing the family size representation based on the advertised number of additional servings and are denied the benefit of their bargain," the Honey-Comb cereal class action lawsuit says. Sciarabba wants to represent a class of consumers who, within the past four years, bought one or more boxes of the allegedly mislabeled cereal in the state of New York for personal, family or household purposes. Post aware Honey-Comb cereal is mislabeled, class action says Sciarabba claims Post is aware that its Honey-Comb cereal is mislabeled but has failed to correct it. "Defendant, through its extensive history as a manufacturer of these and other similar products, was aware that the number of servings depicted on the products' labeling was material to the plaintiff and reasonable consumers," the Honey-Comb cereal class action lawsuit says. Sciarabba further argues that the prominent "Family Size" labeling on the cereal is intended to entice consumers to purchase the product by way of leading them to believe they are getting more servings than they actually are. Post is accused of unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty and of violating the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests injunctive and declaratory relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Post earlier this year over claims its Fruity Pebbles cereal is mislabeled as "Family Size" when it contains fewer servings than advertised. The plaintiff is represented by Frederick J. Klorczyk III of KamberLaw LLC and Naomi B. Spector of KamberLaw LLP. The Honey-Comb cereal class action lawsuit is Sciarabba v. Post Consumer Brands LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-09315, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] POST HOLDINGS INC: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Dotson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. POST HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a BOB EVANS FARMS, LLC, Case No. 25STCV33161 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. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11993. The Plaintiff alleges he and a putative class are entitled to relief in connection with Post Holdings' sale and marketing of certain macaroni-and-cheese products under the Bob Evans brand name (referred to by Plaintiff as the "Products"). More specifically, Plaintiff claims the "no artificial preservatives" statement on the Products' labels is false or misleading because the Products contain sodium phosphate and lactic acid. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and other relief from Post Holdings asserting the following causes of action: violation of California's False Advertising Act ("FAL"); and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr. Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Phone: +1 312-558-5600 Email: RRothste@winston.com - and - Jared R. Kessler, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: +1 305-910-0500 Email: JRKessler@winston.com - and - Shawn Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213-615-1763 Email: sobi@winston.com PROVIDE A RIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Franco Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- NIURKIS E. FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROVIDE A RIDE; LH'S PROVIDE A RIDE, LLC; and TJ'S PROVIDE A RIDE AND SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02687 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Franco was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Provide A Ride specializes in non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) and public transit solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., LLC 250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com RK HOLDINGS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Grebbien Suit to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- RK HOLDINGS LLP, d/b/a Rural King, is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Seth Grebbien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RK Holdings LLP, d/b/a Rural King, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01296-JEH-RLH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. On Mar. 20, 2025, Seth Grebbien filed a class action complaint in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, claiming that Rural King violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class. On July 18, 2025, Rural King filed a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. On Nov. 10, 2025, Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an Order denying Rural King's petition to compel arbitration as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. On Nov. 12, 2025, judgment is entered and the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled RK Holdings LLP v. Seth Grebbien, Case No. 25-3226, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 10, 2025. [BN] Respondent-Appellee SETH GREBBIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James M. LaMarca, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 314-0515 Petitioner-Appellant RK HOLDINGS LLP, d/b/a Rural King, is represented by: Christopher Sean Hennessy, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 474-4493 ROBERT BOSCH: Smith Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- DONALD SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT BOSCH, LLC d/b/a BOSCH USA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-14017-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich, December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") of 55,000 of its current and former employees, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed by cybercriminals. According to the complaint, Bosch offers a welfare benefit program, the Bosch Choice Welfare Benefit Plan, designed to give eligible employees flexibility in selecting health and insurance options. As a condition of receiving services through the Bosch Choice Welfare Benefit Plan, Plaintiff and the Class Members were required by Bosch to provide their sensitive and confidential Private Information. However, Bosch failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, including failing to implement industry standards for data security, and failing to properly train employees on cybersecurity protocols, resulting in the Data Breach that occurred on Oct. 31, 2025. The breach involved sensitive PII connected to the Bosch Choice Welfare Benefit Plan, which may have included: names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security of tax ID numbers, Government-issued ID numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. The Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate his injuries, says the suit. Plaintiff Donald Smith is a former employee of Defendant, having worked for Defendant between March 2022 and October 2025. Defendant Robert Bosch, LLC is a technology manufacturer based in Germany, with a North American presence that employs over 41,000 associates. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 3500 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com RPC INC: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Mills Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DUANE MILLS, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the RPC, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. RPC, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01524 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant invested the RPC, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") in higher cost share classes and higher cost fund structures without need. The Defendant breached its fiduciary duty to monitor and control fees during the period that Defendants saddled the Plan with these extra fees. Excess fees due to the Defendant's share class and fund structure selections were not limited to the default funds. Defendant's failure to invest in the lowest cost version of Plan investments affected the other pooled investment fund offerings as well. The Defendant's imprudence resulted in losses to the Plan. The Plan participants paid excessive fees from their accounts. Then, Plan participants could not generate investment earnings on the excessive fees withdrawn from their accounts, says the suit. RPC, Inc. operates as an oil and gas company. The Company provides a broad range of specialized oilfield services and equipment to independent and major oilfield companies engaged in the exploration, production and development of oil and gas properties throughout the United States and in selected international markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 Email: medelman@forthepeople.com - and - Charles Gokey, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Email: cgokey@engstromlee.com SMARTE INC: Cunningham Files Suit Over Personal Info Misuse ----------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL CUNNINGHAM, ISABEL SIPPO-STOCKMAN, SRUTI BHAUMIK, and KUAWANDA RAGLAND, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. SMARTE INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2025LA001588 (Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., Ill., December 12, 2025) is a class action seeking statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief from SMARTe for violations of their right of publicity as protected by statutes in Illinois, California, and Alabama. According to the complaint, SMARTe utilizes the limited free access to the profiles it provides to market its subscription services. Plaintiffs and putative Class Members have no relationship with SMARTe and have never subscribed to or used SMARTe's platform. More importantly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members never provided SMARTe with consent, written or otherwise, to use their identities to advertise subscriptions to SMARTe's platform. Despite failing to obtain written consent from Plaintiffs and the Classes, SMARTe nevertheless utilized their personal identifying information for the purpose of enticing users to enter into paid subscriptions for additional access to personal information contained in its database. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint seeking an order (i) declaring that SMARTe's conduct violates the aforementioned state statutes, (ii) requiring that SMARTe cease the unlawful activities and enjoining SMARTe from committing such unlawful activities in the future, (iii) awarding Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes statutory damages in amounts prescribed by the respective statutes per violation or an amount equal to actual damages/profits, whichever is greater, and (iv) an award for punitive damages, if warranted, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Randall Cunningham and Isabel Sippo-Stockman are citizens of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff Sruti Bhaumik is a citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff Kuawanda Ragland is a citizen of the State of Alabama. SMARTe Inc. provides an internet-based business search platform to help visitors to its website connect with prospective business-to-business ("B2B") clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA DuPage County Firm # 11575 3701 W. Algonquin Rd. Ste 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com psolberg@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com SNAP KITCHEN: Violates TCPA, Shay Suit Says ------------------------------------------- DANIEL SHAY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. SNAP KITCHEN INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25 CV3570 BTM KSC (S.D. Cal., December 12, 2025) is a putative class action against the Defendant for sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to phone numbers on the Do-Not-Call list, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint states that to promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages to phone numbers on the Do-Not-Call list. Many years ago, Plaintiff registered his cell phone number to the Do-Not-Call List, which forbids calls and texts messages without prior authorization. On December 10, 2020, Plaintiff subscribed to Defendant's services. On January 11, 2021, approximately one month later, Plaintiff cancelled his subscription to Defendants services. Plaintiff has not inquired into Defendant's products of services since cancelling his subscription to Defendants products or services. On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff received a marketing text from Defendant who used the number 855-676-1142. The purpose of the message Defendant sent was to advertise, promote, and/or market Defendant's property, goods, and/or services. The Plaintiff did not provide consent at any point to receive marketing text messages, adds the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct toward him and the Class Members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Daniel Shay is citizen and resident of San Diego, California. Snap Kitchen Investments, LLC is a food and beverage company, with a registered office street address at 9330 United Drive, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78758.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Coburn Appeals Denied Attorneys' Fees Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- ROYAL B. COBURN, JR. is taking an appeal from a court order denying the Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the lawsuit entitled Royal B. Coburn, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Patrick M. Shanahan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2025-0029-MTZ, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants alleging breach of their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose certain information regarding the merger of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., The Boeing Company and Sphere Acquisition Corp., and requests an order compelling additional disclosures and damages, among other relief. On Sept. 23, 2025, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's claims as moot and retaining jurisdiction solely to hear the Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On Dec. 10, 2025, the Court entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The appellate case is entitled Royal B. Coburn, Jr. v. Patrick M. Shanahan, et al., Case No. 497,2025, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on December 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROYAL B. COBURN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, PA 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 - and - Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Defendants-Appellees PATRICK M. SHANAHAN, et al. are represented by: Edward B. Micheletti, Esq. Arthur R. Bookout, Esq. Lauren N. Rosenello, Esq. Taylor Jo Brocka, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Rodney Square P.O. Box 636 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 651-3000 Email: Edward.Micheletti@skadden.com Art.Bookout@skadden.com Lauren.Rosenello@skadden.com Taylor.Brocka@skadden.com ST. CHARLES: Reiger Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINE REIGER is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Kristine Reiger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. St. Charles Health System, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00334-MC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On Aug. 4, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Michael J. McShane granted on Nov. 17, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's claim is precluded and she failed to meet her burden to show a genuine issue for trial. The appellate case is entitled Reiger v. St. Charles Health System, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-7822, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 12, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 17, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on December 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on January 26, 2026; and -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTINE REIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. SUGERMAN DAHAB 101 SW Main Street, Suite 910 Portland, OR 97204 - and - Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Defendant-Appellee ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. is represented by: Alexandra Choi Giza, Esq. Misha Isaak, Esq. Thomas R. Johnson, Esq. STOEL RIVES, LLP 760 SW 9th Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 STATE FARM: Class Cert. Bid Filing in De Castro Due Dec. 11, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as De Castro, et al., v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00535 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 19, 2025), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting the joint motion for extension of case deadlines as follows: -- Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings deadline is Jan. 2, 2026. -- Fact Discovery Cutoff deadline is July 6, 2026. -- Opening Expert Reports deadline is July 31, 2026. -- Rebuttal Expert Reports deadline is Sept. 4, 2026. -- Expert Discovery Cutoff deadline is October 30, 2026. -- Motion for Class Certification deadline is Dec. 11, 2026. -- Opposition to Motion for Class Certification deadline is Jan. 15, 2027. -- Reply in Support of Class Certification deadline is Feb. 12, 2027. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. The Defendant offers homeowners, renters, and business property insurance.[CC] STATE FARM: Goode Sues Over Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES GOODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02102-LCB (N.D. Ala., Dec. 9, 2025) is an action seeking compensatory damages and other appropriate remedies resulting from State Farm's systematic and uniform practice of artificially reducing the retail cost of comparable vehicles used in the calculation of total loss claim payments, which resulted in State Farm avoiding payment of the full and correct amount for his vehicle total loss claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's vehicle total loss claims were paid by State Farm using a CCC One Market Valuation Report ("CCC One Report"). Instead of using the retail cost, State Farm uses a total loss valuation methodology, which systematically reduces the retail cost of comparable vehicles to arrive at a "Base Value" of the total loss vehicle. By reducing the amount of the comparable vehicles by deducting an amount for an unexplained "condition," State Farm started with an incorrect "Base Vehicle Value" amount and as a result, the Plaintiff James Goode's total loss claim was illegally reduced, says the suit. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 Email: jay@aughtmanlaw.com - and - Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. Kelly A. Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C. 5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 Email: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com SUNCOAST CREDIT: Maldonado Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE MALDONADO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant Suncoast Credit Union on August 14, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept there. While Defendant Suncoast Credit Union claims to have discovered the breach as early as August 14, 2025, Defendant Suncoast Credit Union did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until November 26, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred, says the suit. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Suncoast Credit Union is a not-for-profit credit union with a principal place of business located in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Freeman, Esq. Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: mtf@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com TAM SING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kalonova Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- MANEEKARN KALONOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAM SING INC.; and MARCHARVADEEE PREMWONGSIRI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10263 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kalonova was employed by the Defendants as a server. Tam Sing Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com TARGET CORP: Settles Distribution Center Class Suit for $4.6-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Target has agreed to pay $4.6 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it failed to pay employees for all the time they worked at its New Jersey distribution centers. The settlement benefits individuals who worked for Target at its New Jersey distribution centers since Aug. 6, 2019. According to the Target class action lawsuit, the retailer failed to pay its New Jersey distribution center employees for all the time they worked, including time spent walking before and after their shifts. As a result, employees were allegedly denied wages they were owed. Target is a national retailer with locations across the country. The company also operates distribution centers to supply its stores with products. Target has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.6 million settlement to resolve the wage-and-hour class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Target settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on their estimated share of the net settlement fund. No payment estimates are available on the settlement website. Payments will be subject to wage withholding and will result in a W-2 tax form. Class members may also receive a 1099 tax form for the non-wage portion of their payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 13, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Target settlement is scheduled for Feb. 24, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Target employees who worked as progression team members at Target's New Jersey distribution centers since Aug. 6, 2019. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion and Objection Deadline 02/13/2026 Case Name Sadler v. Target Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-CPO-SAK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Final Hearing 02/24/2026 Settlement Website NJDistributionCenterSettlement.com Claims Administrator Sadler v. Target Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2715 Portland, OR 97208-2715 (888) 840-4265 Class Counsel Charles J. Kocher Tyler J. Burrell Gaetano J. DiPersia MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER P.C. Defense Counsel Patrick F. Hulla OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART P.C. [GN] TATA STEEL: Faces $1.6BB Class Action Claim in Dutch Court ---------------------------------------------------------- The Economic Times reports that Tata Steel's Dutch arm faces a $1.6 billion collective action lawsuit filed by a Dutch NGO over alleged environmental and health impacts near its IJmuiden operations. The NGO claims damages for increased health risks and reduced home values due to emissions. Tata Steel denies the claims, calling them speculative, and is prepared to defend itself. Tata Steel on Thursday, December 25, informed the exchanges that a collective action has been filed by a Dutch NGO against its Netherlands arm, which is seeking compensation of about $1.6 billion over alleged environmental and health impacts near its IJmuiden operations. The case has been filed by Stichting Frisse Wind before the District Court of North Holland, Haarlem, and targets Tata Steel Nederland B.V. and Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V. The company said Stichting Frisse Wind.nu (SFW) served a writ of summons on December 19, 2025, under the Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (WAMCA). SFW claims it is acting on behalf of residents living near Tata Steel's Velsen-Noord operations and has alleged damage linked to emissions of hazardous or harmful substances. According to Tata Steel, the claim seeks compensation for increased susceptibility to health issues and loss of enjoyment of homes, arguing that average home values in the region lag behind comparable areas. Tata Steel said SFW has not provided supporting evidence and described the claims as speculative and without basis. Tata Steel shares opened at Rs 169.87 on Friday and were trading at Rs 168.55, down 0.89% as on 1 PM. Notably, the company's Netherlands website noted that this is the next step in the process in which the NGO previously, in August 2023, held Tata Steel liable for damage caused by emissions of hazardous and/or harmful substances. Further informing the Indian exchanges, the steelmaker said it is fully prepared to defend the case and believes SFW faces significant challenges on both admissibility and merits. While exhibits from SFW are yet to be received, Tata Steel said it has already identified strong grounds for defence. The company noted that WAMCA proceedings take place in two phases, admissibility and merits, each expected to take two to three years. As a result, discussions on compensation amounts are not expected in the near term. Tata Steel also highlighted ongoing investments to improve environmental performance and community health around IJmuiden. It further said it has made progress through its Roadmap+ programme and continues work under the Green Steel Plan agreed with the Dutch government, focusing on reducing emissions, particulate matter, noise and other environmental impacts. [GN] TAYLOR MADE: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAYLOR MADE GOLF COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10216 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.taylormadegolf.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. manufactures sporting and athletic goods. The Company offers golf clubs, balls, and wears. Taylor [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TURNING STONE: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid in Jones Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- TURNING STONE ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled David Jones, et al., individually and on behalf of Oneida Nations Enterprises LLC 401(k) Plan and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Turning Stone Enterprises, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01596, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On Mar. 7, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which Judge Glenn T. Suddaby denied on Dec. 9, 2025. The Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because ERISA contains a clear abrogation of sovereign immunity and the information presented in the Plaintiffs' complaint and on this motion suggests that the Plan is subject to ERISA. The appellate case is entitled Jones v. Turning Stone Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 25-3131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID JONES, et al., individually and on behalf of Oneida Nations Enterprises LLC 401(k) Plan and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Defendants-Appellants TURNING STONE ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. are represented by: Rene E. Thorne, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 208-1755 - and - Michael R. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 2100 L. Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 - and - Meghan Murphy Beakman, Esq. ONEIDA NATION LEGAL DEPARTMENT 5218 Patrick Road Verona, NY 13478 Telephone: (315) 361-7937 UNITED STATES: Longworth Alleges First Amendment Rights' Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHLOE LONGWORTH and ANNA LARDNER, Plaintiffs v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in her official capacity; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02268-AA (D. Ore., December 5, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, to challenge recently issued unconstitutional federal regulations, and to stop Defendants' pattern and practice of violating First Amendment rights and attempting to chill Plaintiffs and others from protesting outside of the Eugene ICE building. The Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have for months been assembling and exercising their free speech rights outside the Eugene office of the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is within a one-block federal building located between 6th and 7th Avenues and Pearl and High Streets in Eugene. The building is surrounded by City of Eugene-owned public sidewalks, and contains a plaza area, both of which have been consistently used as traditional public fora. According to the complaint, both Plaintiffs protest at the Eugene ICE building every Tuesday, and often multiple days a week; and have been subjected to arrest, detention, citation, and warnings of the same, due to their vocal protests. By fall 2025, nationwide opposition and protest to ICE kidnappings and actions resulted in regular protests at ICE buildings and detention centers. In response, the Trump regime fast-tracked new rules greatly expanding the prior regulations governing conduct on federal property. Those revisions were originally set to take effect in January 2026, but were expedited and instead took effect on November 5, 2025. The Defendants and their agents have recently begun unlawfully threatening, detaining, arresting, and charging Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, in violation of the U.S. and Oregon constitutions and in retaliation against them for vocally protesting against Defendants' immigration policies and practices. The Defendants' conduct is part of an officially-condoned pattern of retaliating against people who protest the Trump administration's cruel immigration policies and practices, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants. The Defendants must be enjoined from detaining, arresting, and charging Plaintiffs and others similarly situated; and the newly issued regulations must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined. Donald Trump is sued in his official capacity as the current President of the United States since January 20, 2025.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Regan, Esq. Marianne Dugan, Esq. CIVIL LIBERTIES DEFENSE CENTER 1711 Willamette Street, Ste 301 # 359 Eugene, OR 97402 Telephone: (541) 687-9180 E-mail: lregan@cldc.org mdugan@cldc.org UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Settles Class Suit for $10MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that The University of Southern California (USC) agreed to a $10 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it overcharged students for tuition during the spring 2020 semester when classes were moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The University of Southern California settlement benefits students who paid or were obligated to pay tuition, fees or other costs to USC for the spring 2020 academic term. According to the class action lawsuit, USC promised to provide high-quality in-person instruction and services for the spring 2020 semester but failed to do so when classes were moved online due to the pandemic. The plaintiffs in the case argue that they are entitled to a refund because the value of remote instruction is less than that of in-person USC tuition. The University of Southern California is a private university in Los Angeles, California. USC has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the University of Southern California settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the net settlement fund after deductions for fees and costs. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the USC tuition settlement is scheduled for March 27, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members may visit the settlement website to complete an election form by Feb. 20, 2026, indicating that they would prefer to receive their cash award by Venmo or PayPal or to provide an updated mailing address. Class members who do not update their information on the settlement website will receive their settlement payment at the address USC has on file. Who's Eligible Students who were enrolled at the University of Southern California and paid tuition, fees or other costs for the spring 2020 semester. Potential Award TBD 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 02/20/2026 Case Name In re University of Southern California Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation, Case No. CV 20-4066-DMG (PVCx), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 03/27/2026 Settlement Website USCRemoteLearningLawsuit.com Claims Administrator In re University of Southern California COVID-19 Tuition and Fee Litigation 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@USCRemoteLearningLawsuit.com (833) 658-5333 Class Counsel E. Michelle Drake Ariana Kiener BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. Steve W. Berman Daniel J. Kurowski Whitney K. Siehl HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Roy A. Katriel THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Vineet Bhatia Stephen Morrissey Amanda Bonn SUSMAN GODFREY LLP [GN] WHIRLPOOL CORP: Salas Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORLANDO SALAS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Orlando Salas, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01549-AB-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged contract violation. On June 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 29, 2024. On Oct. 30, 2025, Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On Nov. 12, 2025, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. The appellate case is entitled Salas, et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-7832, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 12, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 17, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 21, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ORLANDO SALAS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Evan E. Sumer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF EVAN SUMER 145 Corte Madera Town Center, #464 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Defendants-Appellees WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Galen D. Bellamy, Esq. Andrew M. Unthank, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 - and - Martin F. Hirshland, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSET, PLLC 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq. Kaitlin H. Owen, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 YOOGI'S CLOSET: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOOGI'S CLOSET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14919 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://yoogiscloset.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Yoogi's Closet, Inc. is a seller of pre-owned designer handbags and other luxury items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law ********* 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 ***