260101.mbx

260101.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 1, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 1 Headlines 1300 BROOKHAVEN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Delivery Fees ADOBE INC: Lyon Files Suit Over Copyright Act Violation ALLERVIE HEALTH: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Nolan Says ALLIANCE MOBILE: Jarkasy Sues to Obtain Final Wages AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Allows Sealing of Confidential Info AMERICAN EXPRESS: Duke Seeks OK of Class Certification Bid APPLE COMMUTER: Abuladze Seeks to Certify Concierge Worker Class APPLE INC: Hughes Suit Seeks to Seal Docs Under Seal ARRIVAL SA: $11.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 17 ASPIRUS INC: Team Schierl Bid for Class Certification Tossed AVANADE INC: Class Settlement in Laird Suit Gets Initial Nod BLACK ROCK: Tafoya Suit Seeks Conditional Certification BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Dixon Suit Seeks to Certify Class CALIFORNIA: Seeks Denial of Williams Class Cert Bid CAREDX INC: Shareholder Derivate Settlement to be Heard on June 30 CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Mislabels Tequila Products, Johnson Says CONSTELLIS LLC: Hernandez Sues Over Calif. Labor Code Violation CREDIT UNION: Lucero Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement DLH CORPORATION: Grant Sues Over WARN Act Violation EOG RESOURCES: Initial Pretrial Order Entered in Wake Class Suit EXPEDIA GROUP: Mata Seeks OK of Partial Class Certification Bid EXPEDIA GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Mata EXXON MOBIL: Feb. 5 Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Clark Says FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Ruszin Files Suit Over Data Breach FINAL COAT: Does not Properly Pay Salespersons, Kassiotis Says FORD MOTOR: Recalls Nearly 272,645 Vehicles Over Safety Risk FTD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says GEN DIGITAL: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Initial Nod GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Provide Proper Vehicle Warranty, Pang Says GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Arevalo Files Suit Over Data Breach HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Nussbaum Files Suit Over Data Breach INSINKERATOR LLC: Cohen Sues Over Substandard Garbage Disposals JENNIFER CURRIE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response KRISTI NOEM: Class & Subclass in Pinchi Provisionally Certified LOS ANGELES TIMES: Class Settlement in Mirmalek Gets Initial Nod LUXURY TIME: Bowman Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MAX DAY: Hough Seeks Prelim. Approval of $222,000 Settlement META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Exclude Expert's Opinions MICHAEL'S NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Pay Workers Fairly, d'Escoto Says MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Foster Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Gragg Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Greer Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Maloy Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Mitchel-El Sues Over Negligent Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Murrell Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Powell Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Sims Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale NBT BANCORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Richey Due March 2, 2026 PEPSICO INC: Gelbspan Sues Over Price Fixing Scheme w/ Walmart PLAYTIKA HOLDING: $24.75MM Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 21 PNY BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bowman Says RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL: Custalow-Hall Files Suit Over Data Breach SMARTSHEET INC: Faces Securities Class Action in W.D. Wash. STONECO LTD: $26.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 27 TARGET CORP: Kelly Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees UNITED HEALTHCARE: More Time to File Class Cert Bids Sought UTB ENTERPRISES: Settles Unpaid Meal Break Class Suit for $3.5MM VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Court Extends Time for Class Cert Response WELLS FARGO: $85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 5 ********* 1300 BROOKHAVEN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Anna Fischer filed a class action lawsuit against 1300 Brookhaven LLC, doing business as Corkcicle. Why: Fischer claims Corkcicle charges consumers a hidden delivery fee on all orders placed on its website without their consent. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Corkcicle of charging consumers a hidden delivery fee on all orders placed on its website without their consent. Plaintiff Anna Fischer claims Corkcicle, a consumer drinkware brand, adds a "Delivery Guarantee" fee to all orders placed on its website, which is automatically added to a consumer's cart without their consent. Fischer argues Corkcicle adds the delivery fee without a consumer's consent right before a purchase is complete and does not disclose the fee until the final step in the purchasing process or, in some cases, only when it sends a confirmation email to the consumer. "Thousands of Corkcicle customers like Plaintiff have been assessed a hidden fee for which they did not bargain, and for which they derived no benefit," the Corkcicle class action says. Fischer wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who, during the maximum applicable statute of limitations period, ordered products from Corkcicle and were assessed a delivery guarantee fee or similar fee. Corkcicle delivery fee is ‘deceptively named,' class action says Fischer argues Corkcicle's delivery fee is "deceptively named and described" and does not provide any benefits to consumers that they are not already entitled to as a matter of law. "Automatically adding additional products or services to online shopping carts without explicit consumer consent is a deceptive practice," the Corkcicle class action says. Fischer claims Corkcicle is guilty of unjust enrichment and in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and consequential damages for herself and all class members. A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Vince Camuto earlier this year over claims the designer lifestyle brand automatically added a "Route Package Protection" fee to consumers' orders without their consent. The plaintiff is represented by Kevin J. Cole and W. Blair Castle of KJC Law Group, A.P.C. The Corkcicle class action lawsuit is Fischer, et al. v. 1300 Brookhaven LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10568, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] ADOBE INC: Lyon Files Suit Over Copyright Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH LYON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ADOBE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10732 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for downloading, copying, storing, processing, reproducing, and using the books of Plaintiff and members of the Class without their permission, in violation of their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. The complaint states that the Plaintiff and Class members are authors. They own registered copyrights in certain books (the "Infringed Works") that were included in the SlimPajama pre-training dataset that Adobe pirated, copied, and used to train its SlimLM models. Plaintiff and Class members never authorized Adobe to download, copy, store, and use their copyrighted works as pre-training materials. Adobe copied, and thus infringed on, these Infringed Works multiple times to train its SlimLM models. The complaint alleges that through the Defendant's acts, it has infringed on Plaintiff's copyrighted works and continues to do so by continuing to store, copy, use, and process the training datasets containing copies of Plaintiff's and the putative Class's Infringed Works. The Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have all suffered harm and damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful and wrongful conduct. The Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, and all appropriate legal and equitable relief. Plaintiff Elizabeth Lyon is an author who resides in Oregon. She does not have an Adobe account. Defendant Adobe Inc. is a computer software company that offers a wide range of programs including web design tools, PDF viewers and editors, photo manipulation, audio/video editing, and importantly AI services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 1089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Ex. 3 Facsimile: 312-275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com ALLERVIE HEALTH: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Nolan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW NOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERVIE HEALTH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01396 (E.D. Tex., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for compromising the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect the highly sensitive data: patient names, dates of birth, phone numbers, and home addresses; diagnosis codes, allergy testing results, and treatment information; insurance policy numbers and subscriber details; billing invoices, payment summaries, and financial correspondence; internal scheduling documents and clinical workflow files; and employee related information including communications and staffing data. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of obtaining services and/or being employed with Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On or around November 26, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant's inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information (the "Data Breach"). The notorious ransomware cybercriminal group Anubis claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Matthew Nolan is a resident and citizen of Jay, Florida. Defendant AllerVie Health Professional Corporation is a leading provider of high quality, patient-centric allergy care for children and adults, with locations across the country that are expertly staffed by a network of board-certified allergists and immunologists, as well as highly qualified advanced practice providers, who deliver compassionate and customized allergy care. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com ALLIANCE MOBILE: Jarkasy Sues to Obtain Final Wages --------------------------------------------------- KINAN JARKASY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE MOBILE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2585CV01736B (Super. Ct., Mass., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to maintain policies and procedures to ensure that discharged employees received their final wages, in full, on the date of their termination, in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant hired Plaintiff on August 1, 2024 to work on its Framingham, Massachusetts; Hudson, Massachusetts; and Waltham Massachusetts locations. Defendant terminated Plaintiff on June 11, 2025. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff worked as a full-time sales representative, earning $18.00 per hour. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff his final wages, including his accrued but unused vacation time, on the date of his termination. As a result of Defendant's unlawful payroll practice, or due to its failure to implement practices to ensure timely payment, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiff and the putative Class for three times the amount of the late-paid and/or unpaid final wages, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, says the suit. Plaintiff Kinan Jarkasy is a resident of Shrewsbury, Worcester County, Massachusetts. Defendant Alliance Mobile, Inc. is a national retail chain acting an authorized retailer for AT&T wireless services. It maintains over 300 store locations across the United States including approximately 25 locations in Massachusetts alone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER, McKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rguers@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Alexander Sneirson, Esq. SNEIRSON LAW FIRM 1414 Main Street, Suite 1345 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 750-8008 E-mail: alexader@sneirsonlawfirm.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Allows Sealing of Confidential Info ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Duke, v. American Express Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125-RM-LCK (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Kimmins entered an order granting stipulation to seal confidential information. Specifically, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification discusses a deposition that includes proprietary information about Defendant's business practices. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal Plaintiff's unredacted Motion for Class Certification, which is lodged at docket number 89 A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O1YTh6 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Duke Seeks OK of Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Duke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. American Express Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125-RM-LCK (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff Duke requests that the Court grant her motion, certify this action as a class action, certify the proposed class, appoint Plaintiff Duke as class representative, and appoint Plaintiff’s counsel Avi Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. as class counsel. Accordingly, the class also satisfies the requirements for a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. Issues common to the class—whether Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Practices Act (TCPA) -- predominate over any individual issues specific to any Plaintiff or putative class member. Class treatment is the superior method for adjudicating Plaintiffs' claims because separate actions by each of the class members would be repetitive, wasteful, and a burden on the courts. The Plaintiff Duke seeks certification of the following class: "All persons in the United States (1) to whom American Express placed a call (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service but not assigned to a person with an account with American Express, (3) in connection with which an artificial or prerecorded voice was used, (4) from March 13, 2019 through class certification. The Plaintiff's proposed class should be certified because it satisfies Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements. The Defendant is a national bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I2gvsG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Nathan Brown, Esq. BROWN PATENT LAW 15100 N 78th Way Suite 203 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (602) 529-3474 E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com APPLE COMMUTER: Abuladze Seeks to Certify Concierge Worker Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v. APPLE COMMUTER INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the following relief: -- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, certify a Class defined as all concierge workers of Hotel Defendants with similar compensation structures and who are or were employed by Hotel the Defendants on or after August 23, 2015; -- Appoint Natia Duduchava and Tamar Zabakhidze as Class Representatives; -- Appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and -- Directing Hotel Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs a Microsoft Excel list, in electronic format, of all Class Members' names, last known address, all known telephone numbers, dates of employment, and job titles; and authorize the mailing of the proposed Notice to all Class Members. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vano I. Haroutunian, Esq. BALLON STOLL P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 405 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 575-7900 APPLE INC: Hughes Suit Seeks to Seal Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HUGHES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting requests that the Court consider whether material quoting, referring to, or describing material designated by the Plaintiffs as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" should be filed under seal. Specifically, the Plaintiffs have designated or provisionally designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" certain materials that Apple's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Exhibits C, E, F, G, H, I, J, M, N, O, P, R, T, U, W, AA, AB, and AC to the Declaration of Tiffany Cheung quotes, refers to, or describes. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3), Plaintiffs, as the Designating Party, bear the responsibility to establish that their designated materials are sealable. All Plaintiffs' deposition transcripts were provisionally designated "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," and Plaintiffs agreed that they would be responsible for removing or downgrading any designations from materials that need not be filed under seal. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0kapTx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Y. Park, Esq. Alexandra Preece Barlow, Esq. Victor Lopez, Esq. Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Melody E. Wong, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130-3588 Telephone: (858) 720-5100 Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 E-mail: JuliePark@mofo.com ABarlow@mofo.com VLopez@mofo.com TCheung@mofo.com MelodyWong@mofo.com ARRIVAL SA: $11.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Arrival SA, et al. Securities Litigation CASE No.: 1:22-cv-00172-NRM-PK CLASS ACTION SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ALEXANDRE LIOUBININE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARRIVAL, DENIS SVERDLOV, AVINASH RUGOOBUR, MICHAEL ABLESON, TIM HOLBROW, PETER CUNEO, MICHAEL ANATOLITIS, GILLES DUSEMON, CSABA HORVATH, ALAIN KINSCH, KRISTEN O'HARA, JAE OH, ARRIVAL VAULT US, INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., AND COWEN & COMPANY LLC Defendants Index No. 651783/2022 Commercial Division Part 48 Honorable Andrea Masley NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION If you: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Arrival SA ("Arrival") and/or CIIG Merger Corp. ("CIIG", and together with Arrival, the "Company") between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive ("Class Period") and/or (2) beneficially owned and/or held common stock of CIIG, eligible to vote at CIIG's special meeting and/or to redeem their CIIG stock prior to the closing of the March 24, 2021 Business Combination you could get a payment from a class action settlement (the "Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will provide eleven million two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($11,275,000), plus any monies remaining in a two million dollar ($2,000,000) reserve fund set aside for certain defense costs (the "Settlement Fund"), gross, plus interest as it accrues, minus attorneys' fees, costs, administrative expenses, and net of any taxes on interest, to pay claims of investors who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of CIIG and/or Arrival between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive, and have suffered compensable damages thereby; and/or (2) beneficially owned and/or held common stock of CIIG, eligible to vote at CIIG's special meeting and/or to redeem their CIIG stock prior to the closing of the Business Combination. The Settlement represents an estimated average recovery of between $0.12 and $0.14 per share for the approximately 98 million Arrival and CIIG shares damaged. This is not an estimate of the actual recovery per share you should expect. Your actual recovery, if any, will depend on the aggregate losses of all Settlement Class Members, the date(s) you purchased and sold shares, the purchase and sale prices, and the total number and amount of claims filed. Lead Counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund (between $3,758,333.33 and $4,425,000.00), reimbursement of no more than $325,000 in litigation expenses, plus interest, and a total case contribution award to Plaintiffs not to exceed $30,000. Collectively, the attorneys' fees and expenses and Plaintiffs' award are estimated to average between $0.04 and $0.05 per Arrival/CIIG shares outstanding during the Class Period. Lead Counsel will allocate a portion of the attorneys' fees awarded by the Court to State Securities Plaintiff's Counsel. The portion of attorneys' fees Lead Counsel allocates to State Securities Plaintiff's Counsel is not subject to Court approval, and it will not influence the amount of attorneys' fees awarded to Lead Counsel by the Court. If approved by the Court, these amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund. The average approximate recovery, after deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court, is between $0.08 and $0.09 per Arrival/CIIG share damaged during the Class Period. This estimate is based on the assumptions set forth in the preceding paragraphs. This is not an estimate of the actual recovery per share you should expect. Your actual recovery, if any, will depend on the aggregate losses of all Settlement Class Members, the date(s) you purchased and sold the relevant shares, the purchase and sale prices, and the total number and amount of claims filed. The Settlement resolves the Actions concerning whether Settling Defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning Arrival's business and financial prospects and the March 24, 2021 de-SPAC Business Combination between CIIG and Arrival. Settling Defendants have denied and continue to deny each, any, and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage whatsoever. Settling Defendants have also denied, among other things, the allegations that Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class have suffered damages or that Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class were harmed by the conduct alleged in the Actions. Settling Defendants continue to believe the claims asserted against them in the Actions are without merit. Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or do not act. If you do not act, you may permanently forfeit your right to recover on this claim. Therefore, you should read this Notice carefully. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT Submit a Claim Form - Fill out the attached Proof of Claim and Release Form and submit it no later than February 24, 2026. This is the only way to get a payment. Exclude Yourself from the Settlement Class - Submit a request for exclusion no later than February 24, 2026. This is the only way you can ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Settling Defendants or the other Released Parties relating to the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you will receive no payment and cannot object or speak at the hearing. Object - Write to the Court no later than February 13, 2026 about why you do not like the Settlement. You can still submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form. If the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by it. Go to the Hearing - Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement at the hearing on March 17, 2026. You can still submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form. If the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by it. Do Nothing - Get no payment AND give up your right to bring your own individual action relating to the claims asserted in the Actions. The Court will hold a Settlement Fairness Hearing on March 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 11C South, Brooklyn, NY 11201. INQUIRIES Please do not contact the Court regarding this Notice. All inquiries concerning this Notice, the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), or the Settlement should be directed to: Arrival SA Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel.: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net or Sara Fuks, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 sfuks@rosenlegal.com ASPIRUS INC: Team Schierl Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEAM SCHIERL COMPANIES and HEARTLAND FARMS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ASPIRUS, INC. and ASPIRUS NETWORK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00580-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony of Jeffrey Leitzinger is granted. Leitzinger's yardstick damages model, in-sample prediction analysis, and extrapolation analysis are excluded. The dispositive motions deadline is stayed. The parties have until Jan. 5, 2026, to file a joint status report advising the court how they wish to proceed. This is a proposed class action about alleged antitrust violations in the healthcare industry. The Plaintiffs Team Schierl Companies and Heartland Farms are businesses who offer self-insured health plans to their employees and purchase healthcare services from defendants Aspirus, Inc. and Aspirus Network, Inc. Two motions are before the court. First, defendants have moved to exclude a damages model produced by plaintiffs' class certification expert Jeffrey Leitzinger, which purports to isolate the overcharges that class members paid as a result of defendants’ anti-competitive conduct. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class under Rule 23: "All Payors whose funds were used to pay Defendants and/or their Co-Conspirators for in-network outpatient professional services provided in North-Central Wisconsin, during the period Oct. 11, 2018, up to and including June 30, 2023." Excluded from the Class are (1) individuals or entities whose only payments to Defendants were co-pays, co-insurance, and/or other out-of pocket payments for out-of-network claims, and (2) individuals or entities that paid for only one claim. Also excluded from this Class are Aspirus, ANI, Aspirus Health Plan, and their officers, directors, management, employes, subsidiaries, or affiliates, judicial officers and their personnel, and all federal governmental entities. Aspirus is a healthcare provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R4yrtU at no extra charge.[CC] AVANADE INC: Class Settlement in Laird Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON LAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVANADE INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-04237-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order granting the Plaintiff Madison Laird's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Settlement states that Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $300,000.00 and that the Gross Settlement Amount will be used to pay all payments contemplated by the Settlement without exception, including, the Individual Class Payments to Participating Class Members; the Class Counsel Expenses Payment in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00; the Class Counsel Fees Payment in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $100,000.00; the Class Representative Service Payment in an amount not to exceed $7,500.00; and the Administration Expenses Payment in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00. The Class includes all current and former employees of Defendant who were hired in the United States at any time during the period from June 18, 2018, through April 27, 2025. The Class is provisionally certified, for settlement purposes only, because it appears to meet the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Class Representative appointed for this matter is Plaintiff Madison Laird, and the Class Representative Enhancement Payment, which is not to exceed $7,500.00, is preliminarily approved. Class Counsel appointed for this matter is Moon Law Group, P.C. The Class Counsel Fees Payment, which is not to exceed one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $100,000.00, and Class Counsel Expenses Payment, which is not to exceed $20,000.00, are preliminarily approved. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJxnbq at no extra charge.[CC] BLACK ROCK: Tafoya Suit Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIENNA TAFOYA, JADE ZAMBRANO, ANTHONY NGUYEN, and KEVIN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. BLACK ROCK STORE OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00940-GPG-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a Collective Action, Authorization of Collective Notice of this proceeding to prospective opt-in Plaintiffs, and Request for Equitable Tolling. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated. The gravamen of the complaint is to recover for unpaid wage compensation against their employer, Black Rock Store Operations, LLC d/b/a Black Rock Coffee Bar. The Complaint and Motion for Conditional Certification define the proposed FLSA Collective Action as follows: "All Assistant Store Leads, Store Leads, and Multi-Store Leads who were, or are, employed by Black Rock Store Operations, LLC d/b/a Black Rock Coffee Bar in the United States at any and all times within the three (3) year period immediately preceding March 24, 2025 (i.e., March 24, 2022). The Plaintiffs both worked as an ASL before being offered positions as SLs in Texas. The Plaintiff, Kevin Hernandez, was employed as an SL in Texas, and Plaintiff, Anthony Nguyen, became an SL in Oregon, and later held the positions of SL and MSL in Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AUR41V at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rand Nolen, Esq. Michael C. Engelhart, Esq. Mike O'Brien, Esq. KHERKHER GARCIA, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1560 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 333-1030 Faxcimile: (713) 333-1029 Service : SKherkher-Team@KherkherGarcia.com BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Dixon Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE DIXON, et al., v. BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00029-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify a class against the Defendants, appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MWb6cZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Mack, Esq. The Law Offices of Joseph S. Mack Baltimore, MD 21209 Telephone: (443) 423-0464 E-mail: joseph@macklawonline.com - and - Ingmar Goldson, Esq. The Goldson Law Office, LLC 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (240) 780-8829 E-mail: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com CALIFORNIA: Seeks Denial of Williams Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TALIB WILLIAMS (aka MARCELLE), et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to deny class certification. The Plaintiffs assert class claims based on their unique involvement in Operation Akili and their experience with CDCR’s highly individualized STG validation procedures. Their class, even if it were ascertainable, does not satisfy 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), or even Rules 23(a). The Plaintiffs are three incarcerated persons and one parolee with wildly dissimilar claims who seek to represent a class of "similarly situated" Black incarcerated people who were "subjected to" Operation Akili, an intelligence-gathering operation relating to the Black Guerilla Family. The Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that their class is ascertainable or meets the other requirements of Rule 23. The Court should thus order that the proposed class will not be certified and set a schedule for the Plaintiffs’ individual claims. The Plaintiffs cannot satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's class certification requirements. They do not propose injunctive relief that could uniformly provide relief for all class members, as required by Rule 23(b)(2). A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4QPNTF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Rob Bonta, Esq. Jeffrey T. Fisher, Esq. John Faulconer, Esq. John W. Nam, Esq. Gurpreet Sandhu, Esq. DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL State Bar No. 335906 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 510-3837 Facsimile: (415) 703-5843 E-mail: Gurpreet.Sandhu@doj.ca.gov CAREDX INC: Shareholder Derivate Settlement to be Heard on June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ CareDx, Inc. (Nasdaq: CDNA) provided notice of proposed settlement of derivative actions and settlement hearing. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFFREY EDELMAN, JAYSEN STEVENSON, and CHRISTIAN JACOBSEN, Derivatively on Behalf of CareDx, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGE BICKERSTAFF, FRED COHEN, CHRISTINE COURNOYER, GRACE E. COLÓN, ANKUR DHINGRA, MICHAEL D. GOLDBERG, WILLIAM HAGSTROM, PETER MAAG, REGINALD SEETO, RALPH SNYDERMAN, ARTHUR A. TORRES, and HANNAH VALANTINE, Individual Defendants, -and- CAREDX, INC., Nominal Defendant. Case No. 3:25-cv-02036-TLT (Shareholder Derivative Action) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF CAREDX, INC. ("CAREDX" OR THE "COMPANY") CURRENTLY AND AS OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2025, EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS AND ANY ENTITY IN WHICH THEY HAVE A CONTROLLING INTEREST AND OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS ("CURRENT CAREDX SHAREHOLDERS") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. This notice relates to the pendency and proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of shareholder derivative litigation captioned Edelman et al. v. Bickerstaff et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02036-TLT (N.D. Cal.) (the "Derivative Action"), and the derivative action captioned Edward W. Burns IRA v. Goldberg, et al., Case No. 2024-0282-NAC (Del. Ch.) (the "Burns Action"). If the court approves the Settlement, you will be forever barred from contesting the approval of the Settlement and from pursuing the released claims. All capitalized terms in this notice (the "Summary Notice") that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meanings provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release filed in the Derivative Action on September 26, 2025 (the "Stipulation"), by and among plaintiffs Jeffrey Edelman, Jaysen Stevenson, and Christian Jacobsen (the "Derivative Plaintiffs"), defendants George Bickerstaff, Fred Cohen, Christine Cournoyer, Grace E. Colón, Ankur Dhingra, Michael D. Goldberg, William Hagstrom, Peter Maag, Reginald Seeto, Ralph Snyderman, Arthur A. Torres, and Hannah Valentine (the "Individual Defendants"), nominal defendant CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx" or the "Company" and together with Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), and Plaintiff Edward W. Burns IRA (the "Burns Plaintiff" and together with the Derivative Plaintiffs the "Plaintiffs" and collectively with the Defendants, the "Parties"). THIS SUMMARY NOTICE PROVIDES ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE MATERIALS TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASES. For the full terms and conditions of the settlement, please review the Stipulation, which, together with its exhibits and the complete notice, is available on CareDx's investor relations website at https://investors.caredx.com/investor-relations, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. Because the Settlement involves the resolution of derivative actions, which were brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, and not individual or class actions on behalf of CareDx stockholders, the benefits from the Settlement will go to CareDx. Individual CareDx stockholders will not receive any direct payment from the Settlement. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT. STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. This Summary Notice describes the legal rights you may have in the Derivative Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement. In consideration of the Settlement and the releases provided therein, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, the Parties have agreed to the following settlement consideration for CareDx: 1. CareDx will implement the Corporate Governance Reforms described below and reflected in Exhibit A to the Stipulation, which shall remain in effect for a period of not less than four (4) years; provided, however, that the Corporate Governance Reforms shall not be binding upon any successor or acquirer of CareDx in the event of a change in control or upon any divested business. Audit Committee Enhancement: The Audit Committee shall conduct executive sessions on no less frequently than a quarterly basis with the auditor, SOX lead, and CFO to discuss any topics relevant to fulfilling its responsibilities, including, as applicable: (i) operations, enterprise risks, and compliance matters that may have a material impact on the Company's operational performance, financial health, balance of risk, stability, or liquidity; and (ii) any other matter required to be disclosed under state and federal securities laws and regulations, soliciting input, as needed, from the Disclosure Committee (defined below). Disclosure Committee: The Company shall create a management-level disclosure committee (the "Disclosure Committee") consisting of the CEO, CFO, GC, Chief Medical Officer, and VP of Corporate Communications, to provide strategic oversight of the Company's external communications, including, earnings transcripts, SEC filings, press releases, investor presentations, scientific publications, and corporate communications, to ensure alignment to strategic objectives and compliance with applicable law. The Disclosure Committee shall also meet with functional leaders that are not members of the Committee, as necessary, to establish clear communications of strategic objectives and assess strategic communications planning with respect to public reporting on matters that have a potential impact on customers, investors, media, and the general public. The Disclosure Committee shall meet not less than quarterly, and the chairman of the Disclosure Committee (or designee thereof) shall report to the full Board not less than quarterly. Compliance Review: The Company shall engage outside counsel by no later than the end of the first fiscal quarter of 2026 to provide an independent compliance assessment, focusing, in particular, on the Company's compliance with applicable health care laws, including the False Claims Act, Stark Law, and Anti-Kick Back Statute. As part of this assessment, counsel shall recommend any compliance-related reforms and enhancements. The Company shall provide a budget of $250,000 for this assessment. Following this assessment, the Company shall use its reasonable best efforts to implement these enhancements and provide for an annual budget for the fiscal years 2027 and 2028 of not less than $250,000 per year in connection with the implementation and monitoring of the enhancements and related compliance and risk mitigation initiatives. The Company shall update the full Board concerning the status of the compliance review as part of the General Counsel's Quarterly Compliance Report (discussed below). Annual Risk Assessment: The Company, with the participation of the General Counsel or his or her designee, shall, on an annual basis, conduct a risk assessment and report to the Board of Directors any material risks to the Company, including any material risks related to compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and identify actual and potential steps to mitigate material known risks. Executive Training: The Company shall require annual training for officers and directors on risk assessment, compliance with laws and regulations concerning public disclosures regarding the company, legal and regulatory updates pertinent to their responsibilities, and healthcare compliance matters (including relevant healthcare laws and regulations and best practices for sales, marketing, and billing). Quarterly Compliance Report: The General Counsel shall, on a quarterly basis, provide updates to the Board of Directors on the continued development and work of CareDx's compliance program. 2. Plaintiffs' Counsel intends to request approval of an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards, if any, for Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel in an amount not to exceed $1.2 million, subject to the Court's approval (the "Fee and Expense Application"). Defendants intend to oppose Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The amount of attorneys' fees and expenses awarded will be within the sole discretion of the Court. 3. Plaintiffs' Counsel may apply to the Court for a service award of up to $2,500 for each of the Plaintiffs, to be paid from any award of fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel approved by the Court. 4. CareDx stockholders are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses approved by the Court. Neither the Company nor any of the Individual Defendants shall be liable for any portion of any service award. 5. Upon final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiff Releasing Parties, by operation of the Settlement and to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall completely, fully, finally and forever release, relinquish, settle and discharge each and all of the Released Defendants from any and all of Plaintiffs' Released Claims. 6. Upon final approval of the Settlement, Defendant Releasing Parties, by operation of the Settlement and to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall completely, fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, settle and discharge each and all of the Released Plaintiffs from any and all of Defendants' Released Claims. The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing, to be held on June 30, 2026, at 2:00 p.m, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, California, CA 94102 (the "Settlement Hearing"). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the interests of CareDx and its stockholders; (b) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of CareDx and its stockholders; (c) determine whether the notice provided fully satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.1 and due process; (d) determine whether a judgment substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendants; (e) determine whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application should be approved; (f) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement or Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application; and (g) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Court has the right to change the hearing date or time without further notice or to hold it telephonically or via another remote process. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date and time before going to the Court. Any current CareDx stockholder may, but is not required to, appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. The Court will consider any submission made in accordance with the provisions below, even if you do not attend the Settlement Hearing. PLEASE NOTE: The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may change without further written notice to CareDx stockholders, or the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow CareDx stockholders to appear at the hearing by telephone or video, without further written notice to CareDx stockholders. Before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing, and in order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether CareDx stockholders must or may participate by telephone or video, it is important to monitor the Court's docket and the following website: https://investors.caredx.com/investor-relations. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted at https://investors.caredx.com/investor-relations. Also, if the Court requires or allows CareDx stockholders to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the information needed to access the conference will be posted at https://investors.caredx.com/investor-relations. Any current CareDx stockholder may appear and show cause, if he, she or it has any reason why the Settlement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why a judgment should not be entered thereon, or why the separately negotiated attorneys' fees and expenses should not be approved. You must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must follow these procedures. Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information: (i) your name, legal address, e-mail address, and telephone number; (ii) the case name and number; (iii) proof of current ownership of CareDx common stock, including the number of shares and documentary evidence of when such stock ownership was acquired, with such ownership having existed on or before September 26, 2025; (iv) the date(s) you acquired your CareDx shares; (v) a written detailed statement of each objection being made that states with specificity the grounds for the objection, including any legal and evidentiary support you wish to bring to the Court's attention; (vi) notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (you are not required to appear); and (vii) copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely filed with the Court. If you intend to appear by counsel or on your own behalf, you must file a Notice of Intention to Appear by no later than June 9, 2026. All written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to: Office of the Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 OR by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN June 9, 2026. Your written objection and notice of appearance must also be mailed and e-mailed to the following individuals and received no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing: Plaintiffs' Counsel: Correy A. Suk Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 csuk@zlk.com Erica L. Stone The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: estone@rosenlegal.com Melissa A. Fortunato Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. 580 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 568-2124 Email: fortunato@bespc.com Defendants' Counsel: Charles D. Cording Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8000 ccording@willkie.com Unless the Court orders otherwise, any person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement as incorporated in the Stipulation or otherwise to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding, and shall be bound by the Final Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given. This Summary Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the events of the derivative litigation or the Settlement contained in the Stipulation. If you have any questions about matters in this Summary Notice you may contact: Correy A. Suk Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 csuk@zlk.com Erica L. Stone The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: estone@rosenlegal.com Melissa A. Fortunato Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. 580 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 568-2124 Email: fortunato@bespc.com Dated: December 18, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Mislabels Tequila Products, Johnson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GAVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S. OPERATIONS, INC., a New York corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-25926-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to provide accurate information on its bottles of agave spirits in interstate commerce, in violation of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Casa Noble brand carries no less than four agave spirits that Defendants categorize as "100% AGAVE AZUL" on the face of the bottles: Blanco, Reposado, Anejo, and Marques De Casa Noble Anejo. The Products are sold nationwide. All of the Products begin with the initial distillation of Casa Noble Blanco, which serves as the foundation for the entire line of Casa Noble Tequilas. The complaint relates that on December 1, 2025, Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Casa Noble Blanco Tequila from Gopuff Liquor & More in Florida. The Plaintiff, at all times believed, as a result of Defendants' representations both online and on the packaging of the Products he purchased, that the tequila he purchased was premium and pure tequila made of 100% Blue Weber agave. Had Plaintiff known the Products were not 100% Blue Weber agave, he would not have purchased the Products or would have paid less than he did. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Florida Subclass, seeks an injunction to prohibit Defendants from continuing to engage in the false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and marketing practices. Plaintiff Gavin Johnson is a resident and citizen of Florida and has purchased Products from establishments authorized to sell the Products in Florida. Defendant Constellation Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York that manufactures and markets tequila under its Casa Noble Tequila brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Maland, Esq. Robert M. Stein, Esq. Sandra E. Mejia, Esq. Catherine L. Wachtell, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Miami Tower, Suite 2900 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-4177 E-mail: servicedanielmaland@rvmrlaw.com servicerobertstein@rvmrlaw.com servicesandramejia@rvmrlaw.com servicecatherinewachtell@rvmrlaw.com dmaland@rvmrlaw.com rstein@rvmrlaw.com smejia@rvmrlaw.com cwachtell@rvmrlaw.com CONSTELLIS LLC: Hernandez Sues Over Calif. Labor Code Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. CONSTELLIS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; OMNIPLEX WORLD SERVICES CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV36658 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint relates that the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee from approximately January 2024 to September 2024. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked off the clock during meal and rest periods for which they were not compensated. Plaintiff's and the similarly situated employees' uncompensated hours worked include regular and overtime hours, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Ruben Hernandez worked for Defendants as a security personnel at an aerospace facility in the County of Los Angeles. Defendant CONSTELLIS, LLC is an American private security company. Defendant OMNIPLEX WORLD SERVICES CORPORATION is a Virginia corporation that provides security solutions. DOES 1 through 100 are the partners, agents, joint venturers, owners, shareholders, managers, or employees of CONSTELLIS, LLC and OMNIPLEX WORLD SERVICES CORPORATION and were acting on behalf of these defendants at all relevant times.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Karen L. Wallace, Esq. Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. Carson M. Turner, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (213) 674-6080 Facsimile: (213) 674-6081 E-mail: rbae@AequitasLegalGroup.com kwallace@AequitasLegalGroup.com oscharrer@AequitasLegalGroup.com cturner@AequitasLegalGroup.com CREDIT UNION: Lucero Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLANS, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: -- granting the Plaintiffs' second renewed unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, -- granting class certification for settlement purposes, -- approving form and manner of settlement notice, -- preliminarily approving plan of allocation, and -- scheduling a date for a fairness hearing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8plS4X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com DLH CORPORATION: Grant Sues Over WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------- ALICIA GRANT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DLH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03430 (N.D. Tex., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to provide its affected employees with Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") notices and other benefits. According to the complaint, the Defendant abruptly terminated at least 298 employees, including the Plaintiff, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff. The Plaintiff, who worked at a worksite located in Lancaster, Texas, along with other similarly situated former employees of the Defendant, was terminated as part of a foreseeable mass layoff or plant closing ordered by the Defendant on November 29, 2025, or within 90 days thereafter, without being provided the required 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations, as required by the WARN Act. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Alicia Grant is a resident of Texas and was employed, full time, by Defendant for over two years at the time of termination. Defendant DLH Corporation is a Texas Corporation with a principal place of business at 2962 S. Longhorn Dr. Lancaster, TX 75146.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-744-3000 Facsimile: 214-744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: 872-263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com EOG RESOURCES: Initial Pretrial Order Entered in Wake Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAKE ENERGY LLC, v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00129-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Klosterman entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Deadline Motion to amend pleadings: March 13, 2026 Discovery cutoff: Aug. 7, 2026 The Plaintiff's class certification briefing: Sept. 11, 2026 The Defendant's responsive class Oct. 9, 2026 certification briefing: The Plaintiff's rebuttal class Nov. 13, 2026 certification briefing: ADR deadline: Jan. 11, 2027 A Class Certification Hearing has been scheduled in this matter for 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 20, 2027, at the Joseph C. O’Mahoney Federal Center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, before the Honorable Kelly H. Rankin. On December 16, 2025, a class certification scheduling conference was held in this matter before the Honorable Scott P. Klosterman, Chief Magistrate Judge for the District of Wyoming. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16; U.S.D.C.L.R. 16.1. Participants included the following: Harry S. Jordan IV, Randy C. Smith, and Scranton Gregory Thomas for Plaintiff and Caitlyn Skavdahl, Lindsay Ann Woznick, and Mistee Lyn Elliott for Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action on behalf of itself and others similarly situated related to Defendant's alleged failure to properly report the required information on check stubs in violation of WYO. STAT. section 30-5-305(b), which has damaged the Class. The Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and/or members of the putative class cannot meet the requirements to certify a class, and this action is not otherwise suitable for resolution on a class-wide basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkL8ls at no extra charge.[CC] EXPEDIA GROUP: Mata Seeks OK of Partial Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARICELA MATA, BIBIANA HERNANDEZ, JOSE RAMON LOPEZ REGUEIRO, MARIO ECHEVARRÍA, AURELIANO A. ECHEVARRIA and MARIA ECHEVARRÍA OCHOA v. EXPEDIA GROUP INC., EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, ORBITZ, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22529-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for partial class certification: The Owners request that the Court certify the proposed issues Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4), approve the Owners' proposed Notice Plan, and appoint their undersigned attorneys as Class Counsel. In short, the case warrants partial certification of core liability issues, including the Defendants' trafficking, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). Rule 23(c)(4) authorizes an action to be maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues when doing so would materially advance the litigation as a whole. An Issues Class here will resolve overarching class-wide liability issues in an economically efficient manner, conserve judicial and party resources, and promote judicial economy. The Owners propose the following issues class definition: "All U.S. nationals (as defined at 22 U.S.C. Section 6023(15)) who, on or before March 12, 1996, acquired a claim to real property in Cuba that, was confiscated by the Cuban government prior to that date, and whose confiscated property was used by defendants in connection with the sale, reservation, marketing, or booking of hotel stays at Melia hotels now located in that property." The Owners and Class members are similarly situated U.S. nationals who own claims to real property that was confiscated by Fidel Castro's communist regime after it seized power in 1959. The Plaintiff Mata, holds a claim to a 50% interest in the San Carlos Hotel through intestate succession, as set forth in the Third Amended Complaint. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=39g7KZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres Rivero, Esq. Jorge A. Mestre, Esq. Ana C. Malave, Esq. Alan Rolnick, Esq. Sylmarie Trujillo, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com arolnick@riveromestre.com amalave@riveromestre.com strujillo@riveromestre.com - and - MANUEL VAZQUEZ, P.A. 2332 Galiano St., Second Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2344 Facsimile: (305) 445-4404 E-mail: mvaz@mvazlaw.com EXPEDIA GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Mata --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maricela Mata, Bibiana Hernandez, Jose Ramon López Regueiro, Mario Echevarría, Aureliano A. Echevarria, and Maria Echevarría Ochoa, v. Expedia Group, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, LLC, and Orbitz, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22529-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. There is good cause to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification from January 9, 2026, to January 14, 2026. The requested extension is necessary to allow Defendants adequate time to prepare their response in light of Echevarría’s forthcoming deposition transcript and any documents produced by non-party Raoul Cantero pursuant to Magistrate Judge Reid’s forthcoming order. Granting the extension will not prejudice Plaintiffs or cause any delay in the schedule. Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court grant their motion and any other relief to which they are entitled. Defendants Expedia Group, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, LLC, and Orbitz, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) request that the Court extend the deadline to respond to plaintiffs Maricela Mata, Jose Ramon López Regueiro, and Mario Echevarría’s (collectively, “Plain tiffs”) Motion for Class Certification from January 9, 2026, to January 14, 2026— which would have been the deadline for Defendants’ response had Plaintiffs filed their motion on the December 24, 2025 deadline. The Defendants require this extension to allow sufficient time to obtain and analyze the transcript from plaintiff Mario Echevarría’s deposition—which occurred near the end of the class discovery period to accommodate his schedule. The extension is also needed to al low Magistrate Judge Reid time to rule on a pending class-related discovery dispute, to allow Plain tiffs and the relevant non-party time to comply with that ruling, and to allow Defendants time to analyze any materials produced as a result of that ruling. In short, absent this extension, Defendants will be unable to adequately prepare their response to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. And because Defendants seek to extend their response deadline to the date it would have been had Plain tiffs filed on the deadline for filing their motion, the extension will not prejudice Plaintiffs or otherwise delay this case. Plaintiffs do not oppose the request Granting Defendants’ request to extend their response deadline until January 14, 2026, will cure the prejudice to Defendants without prejudicing Plaintiffs or delaying the schedule in any way. Had Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the December 24, 2025, deadline, Defendants' response would have been due on January 14, 2026. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Dec. 19, 2025. Under the Court's previous order extending the Defendants' response period to 21-days, the Defendants' response is currently due on Jan. 9, 2025. The putative class alleged in the Plaintiffs' live complaint includes "U.S. nationals who (1) ac quired a claim to real property in Cuba before March 12, 1996; that (2) was confiscated by the Cu ban government before March 12, 1996; and (3) houses a Meliá-operated hotel for which Defend ants offered or sold reservations after September 11, 2017." A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LMqT7J at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David D. Shank, Esq. Cheryl Joseph, Esq. Jane Webre, Esq. Lauren Ditty, Esq. Rebecca Jahnke, Esq. SCOTT DOUGLASS &MCCONNICO LLP 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-6300 Facsimile: (512) 495-6399 E-mail: dshank@scottdoug.com cjoseph@scottdoug.com jwebre@scottdoug.com lditty@scottdoug.com bjahnke@scottdoug.com - and - Lorayne Perez, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 349-4656 E-mail: lorayne.perez@akerman.com EXXON MOBIL: Feb. 5 Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the ExxonMobil Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION PEDRO RAMIREZ, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-03111-K CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 24, 2016, AND OCTOBER 28, 2016, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Court") that a class action lawsuit is now pending in the Court under the above caption (the "Action") in which the following persons are or were named as defendants: Exxon Mobil Corporation ("ExxonMobil" or the "Company"), Rex W. Tillerson, Andrew P. Swiger, Jeffrey J. Woodbury, and David S. Rosenthal (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court certified a Class (as that term is defined below) for certain of Lead Plaintiff's claims. THIS NOTICE IS NOT A SETTLEMENT NOTICE AND YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM AT THIS TIME. NO ACTION ON YOUR PART IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. This is a securities class action in which Defendants are or were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in certain public statements during the Class Period. Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the Action and deny any liability whatsoever to any members of the Class. By an order dated August 21, 2023, granting in part and denying in part Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court certified the following class (the "Class"): All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Exxon Mobil Corporation common stock between February 24, 2016, and October 28, 2016, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. ECF 178. Certain individuals and entities are excluded from the Class. Id. A full Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") is available at www.ExxonMobilSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you believe you may be a member of the Class and you would like a printed copy of the Notice, you may request one from: ExxonMobil Securities Litigation Notice Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a Class Member. If you want to remain a Class Member, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in ExxonMobil common stock. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your new address. As a member of the Class you will be represented by Class Counsel, who are listed below. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Scott H. Saham 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 gregw@rgrdlaw.com If you would like to remain part of the Class but be represented separately, you may hire your own attorney at your expense. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment of this Court in this Action; however, you will not be eligible to receive a share of any funds that might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked or received no later than February 5, 2026, to ExxonMobil Securities Litigation, EXCLUSIONS, Notice Administrator, c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Further information regarding this matter may be obtained by writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: December 8, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Clark Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA CLARK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-6778 (W.D.N.Y., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII")stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving health care services from Fieldtex, Plaintiff Jessica Clark was required to provide her Private Information to Defendant, including her name, social security number, and full health and financial information. At the time of the Data Breach, Defendant retained Plaintiff's Private Information in its system. She is very careful about sharing her sensitive Private Information. She stores any documents containing her Private Information in a safe and secure location. She has never knowingly transmitted unencrypted sensitive Private Information over the internet or any other unsecured source. She would not have entrusted her Private Information to Defendant had she known of Defendant's lax data security policies. Plaintiff Jessica Clark received the Notice Letter, by U.S. mail, directly from Defendant, dated November 20, 2025. According to the Notice Letter, Plaintiff's Private Information was improperly accessed and obtained by unauthorized third parties, including her full name, gender, date of birth, address, insurance identification number, plan name, and effective terms. As a result of the Data Breach, and at the direction of Defendant's Notice Letter, Plaintiff Jessica Clark made reasonable efforts to mitigate the impact of the Data Breach, including researching and verifying the legitimacy of the Data Breach upon receiving the Notice Letter, changing passwords and resecuring her own computer network, and contacting companies regarding suspicious activity on her accounts. Plaintiff Jessica Clark further suffered actual injury in the form of experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails, says the suit. Plaintiff Jessica Clark is a former patient of Defendant and resident of North Carolina. Defendant Fieldtex Products, Inc. is a medical supply fulfillment company with a principal place of business located at 2921 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road in Rochester, New York 14623.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N Camden Dr, Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Ruszin Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- ROBERT RUSZIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-6768 (W.D.N.Y., December 15, 2025) is a class action seeking to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for a class of individuals ("Class" or "Class Members") who are similarly situated and have received notices of a data breach from Defendant. The complaint relates that in order to deliver its services, Fieldtex received certain protected health information from the members health plans. The Defendant discovered and later confirmed that a "data security incident" occurred on its network on March 21, 2025. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included, but is not limited to: patient names, addresses, dates of birth, insurance member identification numbers, plan names, effective terms, and gender. Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about August 19, 2025, and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin posting public notices or sending notices of the Data Breach (the "Notice of Data Breach Letter") until at least November 20, 2025. The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach on or about December 10, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was a direct result 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 medical and insurance benefits. The Defendant disregarded the privacy and property rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that they did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate and complete notice of the Data Breach. Plaintiff Robert Ruszin is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in the city of Yardley. Defendant Fieldtex Products Inc. is a medical supply fulfillment organization that provides over the counter, healthcare-related products to members through their health plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com FINAL COAT: Does not Properly Pay Salespersons, Kassiotis Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES KASSIOTIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINAL COAT LLC, PATRICK FOLEY, individually, MATHEW GIOVANELLO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2577CV01365 (Comm. of Mass, December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay commissions. According to the complaint, Final Coat pays its salesperson on a commission basis. Final Coat regularly pays commissions to salespersons that they have earned later than the date the salespersons are entitled to receive them. The salespersons are required to drive their personal vehicles to meet with Final Coat's customers and incur business expenses when they drive and meet, such as, without limitation, fuel costs, insurance, maintenance, or tolls but Final Coat does not reimburse its salespersons for the business expenses they incur when they drive. Final Coat also did not record the total number of hours that Plaintiff worked each day or each week, asserts the complaint. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated sales employees, the Plaintiff seeks damages including, without limitation, all unpaid or untimely paid wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties as appropriate ancillary relief, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief to which they are entitled. Plaintiff James Kassiotis is a former sales employee of Final Coat from June 2025 until August 2025. Defendant Final Coat is a domestic corporation located in Pembroke, Massachusetts. Defendants Patrick Foley and Mathew Giovanello served as managers of Final Coat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook S. Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com FORD MOTOR: Recalls Nearly 272,645 Vehicles Over Safety Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Ford Motor Co. is recalling approximately 272,645 vehicles, including F-150 Lightning BEV, Mustang Mach-E, and Maverick models. Why: The recall is due to a defect in the integrated park module that may fail to lock the vehicle into park, posing a rollaway risk. Where: The recall is active in the United States. Ford has announced a recall affecting nearly 273,000 vehicles due to a potential rollaway risk. The issue stems from a defect in the integrated park module, which may not lock the vehicle into park, increasing the risk of a crash. The recall notice, issued Dec. 12, affects 2022-2026 Ford F-150 Lightning, 2024-2026 Mustang Mach-E, and 2025-2026 Maverick vehicles. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), these vehicles do not meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 114, which pertains to theft protection and rollaway prevention. "A loss of park function can allow the vehicle to rollaway, increasing the risk of a crash," the recall says. Recall: Ford to release free software update Ford plans to notify vehicle owners of the safety risk through interim letters expected to be mailed by Feb. 2, 2026. The company will provide a final remedy, anticipated in February 2026, which involves updating the park module software either over-the-air (OTA) or through a dealer, free of charge. This will ensure that affected Ford F-150 and other vehicles are brought into compliance with safety standards. "The faulty software can be updated ‘over-the-air,' which is done remotely, or by the dealer," the Ford recall says. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this Ford recall will be searchable on NHTSA.gov website starting Jan. 26, 2026. For more information about the Ford recall, consumers can contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332 or owners can check their Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) through Ford's recall lookup. In August, Ford announced a recall for 103,000 F-150 pickup trucks due to a potential defect in the rear axle hub bolt that could result in vehicle rollaway or a loss of drive power. Ford says it has not received any reports of injuries related to the recall so far. The company is not currently facing legal action over the Ford recall, but Top Class Actions follows recalls closely as they sometimes lead to class action lawsuits. [GN] FTD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says ------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FTD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15262 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://ftd.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that Cole browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a flower bouquet on the Website. Despite his efforts, however, Cole was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The Website contains significant access barriers that have denied Cole full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the Website. Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Haron Cole is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. FTD, LLC operates the website that provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of fresh flower arrangements, plants, and gifts, including bouquets for all occasions, roses, orchids, succulents, dish gardens, gift baskets, chocolates, baked goods, and seasonal-themed items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law GEN DIGITAL: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Jackson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Gen Digital Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter the accompanying agreed order granting preliminary approval to the class action settlement, conditionally certifying the Settlement Class, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing GDR and Paronich Law as Class Counsel. The Agreement defines a Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) comprised of: All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Gen Digital Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call regarding a LifeLock or Norton account, (2) directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a person who has or had a LifeLock or Norton account with Gen Digital Inc., (3) in connection with which Gen Digital Inc. used or caused to be used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from February 19, 2021 to October 30, 2025. After nearly a year of contested litigation involving two separate cases, and as a result of extensive arm's-length, good-faith negotiations overseen by the Hon. Diane M. Welsh (Ret.) of JAMS, Michelle Jackson and Gen Digital Inc. reached an agreement to resolve this class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. section 227.1. The settlement requires Gen to pay $9.95 million into a non-reversionary common fund from which participating Settlement Class Members will receive payments. In sum, the settlement here constitutes an objectively favorable result. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9w3lNX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. Lincoln Place, 350 Lincoln St No. 2400, Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Provide Proper Vehicle Warranty, Pang Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ISABEL PANG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11834 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful failure to tender a regulatory compliant emissions warranty for the vehicles that GM distributes in the State of California. This complaint relates to all GM vehicles which are equipped with CAMSHAFT COVERS that are not covered for 7 years or 70,000 miles under the GM California Emissions Warranty ("CLASS VEHICLES"). Not only is the CAMSHAFT COVER "warranted parts," but it is a "high-priced" warranted part whose repair or replacement is covered under the California emissions warranty for seven years or 70,000 miles. The complaint alleges that GM has never treated the CAMSHAFT COVERS installed in the CLASS VEHICLES as being "emissions-related" parts and has never treated the CAMSHAFT COVERS installed in the CLASS VEHICLES as "warranted parts". GM's failure and refusal to properly identify the parts which should have been classified as warranted parts and "high-priced" warranted parts, including the CAMSHAFT COVER, is a clear violation of California Business and Professions Code (the "UCL") and is intended to minimize the amount of money that GM has to pay out in warranty claims, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered damage and lost money or property as a result of GM's wrongful conduct, and GM has been unjustly enriched, says the suit. Plaintiff Isabel Pangis a resident of Los Angeles County and is the owner of a CLASS VEHICLE, specifically, a 2017 Chevrolet Malibu VIN #1G1ZJ5SU3HF283030 (the "Subject Vehicle") equipped with a CAMSHAFT COVER. Defendant General Motors, LLC is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United States. Defendants Does 1 through 10 are the fictitiously named Doe Defendants who participated in some way in the wrongful acts and omissions alleged herein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Starr, Esq. Adam M. Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC 23622 Calabasas Road, Suite 320 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com adam@starrlaw.com GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL RIVERA, and DAVID CRUZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION, a wholly owned subsidiary of GIVAUDAN FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES, INC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of GIVAUDAN UNITED STATES, INC., which is wholly owned by GIVAUADAN S.A., the parent company and a publicly traded Swiss company, and XYZ ENTITIES 1-10 (fictitious names of unknown liable entities), Case No. 2:23-cv-21387-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release; (2) certifying the settlement class/collective for settlement purposes only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and (3) approving the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. Defendant does not oppose this motion. sA copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UZjXdf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street – 7th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9081 - and - Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Arevalo Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- ERICK AREVALO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-4137 (D. Md., December 16, 2025) is a class action seeking actual damages and restitution; declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services; and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. The complaint relates that as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On July 22, 2025, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, the Defendant determined that cybercriminals infiltrated this inadequately secured network and gained access to its files between July 8, 2025, through July 12, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals accessed and copied files containing the sensitive personal information of approximately 87,565 individuals. The personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance information, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses (collectively, "Personal Information"). As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered injuries including: (a) theft of Plaintiff's valuable Personal Information; (b) the imminent and certain impending injury flowing from fraud and identity theft posed by Plaintiff's Personal Information being placed in the hands of cybercriminals; (c) damages to and/or diminution in value of Plaintiff's Personal Information that was entrusted to Defendant with the understanding that Defendant would safeguard this information against disclosure; (d) loss of the benefit of the bargain with Defendant to provide adequate and reasonable data security; and (e) continued risk to Plaintiff's Personal Information, which remains in the possession of Defendant and which is subject to further breaches so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Personal Information that was entrusted to Defendant. Plaintiff Erick Arevalo is a citizen and resident of San Bernardino County, California. Defendant Healthcare Interactive, Inc. provides insurance financial administration solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Nussbaum Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ TRAVIS NUSSBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 560 Lincoln Pl, Apt H, Brooklyn, NY 11238; Kings County, NY, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., 6011 University Blvd, Suite 360, Ellicott city, MD; Ellicott County, MD, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04131 (D. Md., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifying information ("PII"), and the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant's clients who, in order to obtain healthcare services from Defendant's clients, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. On July 8, 2025, and July 12, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into Defendant's computer network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential PHI and PII stored therein, including their name, Social Security number, date of birth, email address, phone number, mailing address, and health insurance enrollment data (collectively, "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). According to Defendant's notice to victims of the Data Breach ("Notice Letter"), on July 22, 2025, Defendant discovered that its clients' patients personal information had been acquired by unauthorized third parties. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer numerous, substantial injuries including but not limited to (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (d) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) deprivation of value of his Private Information; (f) invasion of privacy; and (g) the continued risk to his Private Information, which remains backed up in Defendant's possession and subject to further breaches, so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Private Information it collects and maintains. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its care. Plaintiff Travis Nussbaum is a citizen and resident of Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Healthcare Interactive, Inc. provides education and licensing to health care providers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com INSINKERATOR LLC: Cohen Sues Over Substandard Garbage Disposals --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS COHEN and ERIK PAULSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSINKERATOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-10719 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover from InSinkErator restitution of earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits obtained as a result of the practices that are illegal under the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, InSinkErator designed, manufactured, and sold garbage disposals (in three series: Badger Series, Power Series, and Quiet Series) containing galvanized steel with knowledge that galvanized steel was not suitable for durable, long-term use in garbage disposals due to corrosion and that inexpensive, alternative materials and designs were available. However, despite InSinkErator's knowledge regarding the lack of durability in its design and material selection, it concealed the unsuitability of its design from consumers and profited significantly from the premature failure of the garbage disposals through replacement purchases. The complaint alleges that InSinkErator breached its warranties at the time Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased the Badgers because the Badgers were defective when they came off the assembly line, which was already in violation of its warranties. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members were deceived by InSinkErator, had garbage disposals that not only prematurely fail, but frequently result in significant water damage to their cabinetry and kitchens. As Plaintiffs and Class Members did not receive the benefit of their bargain and would not have purchased the garbage disposals or would not have paid as much for them if they had known the truth about the use of galvanized steel in garbage disposals. Plaintiff Thomas Cohen is a resident and citizen of Pacific Grove, California. Plaintiff Erik Paulsen is a resident and citizen of Lincoln, California. InSinkErator, LLC is a manufacturer of garbage disposals and instant hot water dispensers for home and commercial use.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG LLC 80280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (914) 471-1894 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 790-6520 E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com - and - Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7782 E-mail: tpacheco@leesegui.com - and - Jonathan Feavel, Esq. FEAVEL & PORTER, LLP Vincennes, IN 47591 Telephone: (812) 886-9230 Facsimile: (812) 866-9161 E-mail: feavel@feavelandporter.com JENNIFER CURRIE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES SHATTUCK, v. JENNIFER CURRIE, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01665-CMS (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order grating motion for an extension of time to respond to complaint. The Missouri Department of Corrections waived service on behalf of Defendants on Oct. 28, 2025. The Court then ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Dec. 29, 2025, which presently remains their answer deadline. The Honorable District Judge Autrey has ordered the defendants in that action to provide responses to written discovery requests by Jan. 2, 2026. Counsel is working to comply with Judge Autrey’s Order. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jvtPs8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Wolfgang Schaefer, Esq. Catherine L. Hanaway, Esq. MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL 221 West High Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: (573) 751-7720 E-mail: Wolfgang.Schaefer@ago.mo.gov KRISTI NOEM: Class & Subclass in Pinchi Provisionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRESCIA GARRO PINCHI, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-05632-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order provisionally certifying class and staying agency action. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to provisionally certify the class and subclass is granted. The Plaintiffs' motion to stay DHS's re-detention policy pending final resolution of their APA claims is also granted. The Court hereby postpones the effective date of the re detention policy within ICE’s San Francisco area of responsibility until the entry of a final judgment in this action. For the reasons explained below, plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed class and subclass are sufficiently numerous and share common questions of law or fact and that the named plaintiffs are typical and adequate class representatives. The Plaintiffs have also satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) for both the proposed class and the proposed subclass. The Court therefore provisionally certifies the class and subclass to be represented by plaintiffs and their counsel. The Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that the re-detention policy is arbitrary and capricious because (1) DHS failed to provide any reason for the policy when first implementing it; (2) DHS’s post hoc rationalizations for the policy, even if considered, rest on an erroneous view of the law; (3) those post hoc rationalizations ignore an "important aspect of the problem"; and (4) DHS failed to consider noncitizens' "serious reliance interests." The Plaintiffs ask the Court to provisionally certify the following class and subclass Class: All noncitizens in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco ICE Field Office who (1) entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) have been or will be charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. section 1182 and have been or will be released from DHS custody; and who (3) are in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. section 1229a, including any section 1229a proceedings that have been dismissed where the dismissal is not administratively final; and (4) are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c)." Subclass: All members of the Class whose release from DHS custody was or will be on bond, conditional parole, or their own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) and/or 8 C.F.R. section 236.1(c)(8). A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TU5cdx at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES TIMES: Class Settlement in Mirmalek Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TALIAH MIRMALEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01797-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The Court preliminarily finds that the relief provided—a non-reversionary common settlement fund of $3.85 million -- is adequate considering, inter alia, the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the alleged harm to Settlement Class Members, and the proposed method of distributing payments to the Settlement Class (i.e., direct payment via check). The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), consisting of: all persons who accessed LA Times online via website or mobile app in California and had their information collected by tracking technologies between Jan. 31, 2023, to the date of this Order. The Court appoints Plaintiff Taliah Mirmalek as Class Representative to represent the Settlement Class. The Court appoints the law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on May 22, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, via Zoom. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zoh52d at no extra charge.[CC] LUXURY TIME: Bowman Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Luxury Time Pieces by Razny Jewelers, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15266 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://razny.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Bowman has made an attempt to complete a purchase on The Website. Bowman was searching for a trusted local jewelry store, hoping to find diamond stud earrings, and decided to explore the options available online. On or about April 29, 2025, while searching for jewelry stores in the Chicago area, Bowman discovered Defendant's website, Razny.com, which appeared among the top search results. After reviewing the company's positive ratings and reading numerous customer comments praising the store's professionalism, high-quality jewelry, and attentive service, Bowman decided to explore the website, its jewelry collection, and offerings with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the site with her screen reader, Bowman encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. The Plaintiff asserts that the website lacked a "Skip to Content" link, limiting her ability to bypass the navigation menu and move her keyboard focus directly to the main content. Additionally, images used as links had ambiguous text, which prevented her from understanding their purpose or destination. Moreover, when Bowman reached the Category page, the sort options were not keyboard-focusable, making it impossible for her to sort products by preferred categories. These access barriers have caused Razny.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired individuals. Plaintiff Tanisia Bowman is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Luxury Time Pieces by Razny Jewelers, LLC operates the website which is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view jewelry and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MAX DAY: Hough Seeks Prelim. Approval of $222,000 Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HOUGH, et al., v. MAX K. DAY, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02886-WLH-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: Preliminary approval of proposed class action settlements with all remaining defendants on the terms set forth in the settlement agreements. Provisional certification of a settlement class consisting of: All individuals who (a) purchased services relating to the setup or management of an online store from Yax Ecommerce LLC, Precision Trading Group, LLC, WA Distribution LLC, Providence Oak Properties, LLC, WA Amazon Sellers LLC, and Yax IP and Management Inc. between June 2021 and November 2023, (b) did not make a profit on their purchase of that business opportunity, and (c) have never been owners, employees, legal representatives, or successors of Wealth Assistants. The appointment of Stretto as Settlement Administrator in this case. Approval of the proposed claims process to determine each class member's damages. Approval of the proposed plan of distribution that contemplates distribution of settlement funds to settlement class members on a pro rata basis by the Settlement Administrator. Approval of the form and method for providing notice of the Settlements to the Settlement Class. Preliminary approval of Banks Law Office and Richard A. Nervig P.C. as Settlement Class Counsel. Scheduling a hearing at which the Court will consider (a) final approval of the Settlements; (b) certification of the Settlement Class; (c) Settlement Class Counsel’s request for reasonable attorneys’ fees (not to exceed $55,500) and litigation expenses (not to exceed $10,000); and (d) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. Staying all proceedings in this matter pending the Final Approval Hearing, except for those actions necessary to implement and effectuate the terms of the Settlements and secure their final approval. On April 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, which asserted claims against some, but not all, of the Defendants. On May 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which asserted claims against all of the Defendants. The total amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Settlement Class is $222,000. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zGUBOf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nico Banks, Esq. BANKS LAW OFFICE 712 H St NE, Unit #8571 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 971-678-0036 E-mail: nico@bankslawoffice.com - and - Richard A. Nervig, Esq. RICHARD A. NERVIG, P.C. 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 760-451-2300 E-mail: richard@nerviglaw.com META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Exclude Expert's Opinions -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to exclude certain opinions of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Zubair Shafiq, Ph.D. Filed Under Seal. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jTW0Qp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Kristin Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. Marissa Alter-Nelson, Esq. Jessica Stebbins Bina, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com marissa.alter-nelson@lw.com jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com MICHAEL'S NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Pay Workers Fairly, d'Escoto Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CATELYN d'ESCOTO, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL'S NEIGHBORHOOD PUB, INC. d/b/a FIREWATER SALOON, RICHARD DORSCH, and JAMIE SUCKOW, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-15275 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's willful violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for failure to pay overtime and/or minimum wages owed. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff entered into an employment agreement (the "Agreement") with Defendants in early September 2025 whereby Plaintiff would be employed as a waitress, and Defendants would pay all lawfully owed minimum wages plus tips earned from customers. Plaintiff was subsequently advised by Defendants that her pay would consist solely of tips from customers. The Plaintiff worked on average fifteen to twenty hours per week. During this time, she would typically work shifts that were three to five hours long. During these shifts, she would typically make twenty to thirty dollars in tips, and Defendants would not pay her any hourly wage whatsoever. Other waitresses at Firewater advised Plaintiff that they were similarly paid only in tips and denied their owed hourly wage by Defendants. On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff complained to Defendant Suckow, and requested that Defendants pay her an hourly wage. The Defendants have since declined to pay Plaintiff any owed hourly wage, they ceased communicating with her or giving her any work shifts, and they have thereby terminated her employment with Defendants as of December 2, 2025, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings the collective action for herself and all others similarly situated to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and other damages related to Defendant's violation of the FLSA, including those employees who worked for Defendant in Illinois. Plaintiff Catelyn d'Escoto is a resident of Chicago, Illinois; and was employed by Defendants. Defendant Michael's Neighborhood Pub, Inc. d/b/a Firewater Saloon is an Illinois corporation and restaurant, bar, and live music venue. Defendant Richard Dorsch is the president of Firewater, a shareholder and owner of Firewater. Defendant Jamie Suckow is the president of Firewater, a shareholder and owner of Firewater.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: 773-415-4898 E-mail: james@dorelawoffices.com danschlade@gmail.com MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Foster Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA FOSTER, on behalf of her minor child, J.T., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS, Defendant, Case No. N25C-12-381 SSA (Super. Ct., Del., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about its current and former patients. As a condition of receiving medical services, Plaintiff provided Defendant with her PII/PHI and trusted the company would use reasonable measures to protect it according to Defendant's internal policies, as well as state and federal law. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On February 25, 2025, Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its network. And on November 21, 2025, Defendant admitted the incident on its website. The Defendant's negligence is evidenced by its failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII/PHI. And thus, Defendant caused widespread injury and monetary damages including the Plaintiff who suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Melissa Foster is the mother of a minor child, J.T. who is a current patient of Defendant. Defendant Millcreek Pediatrics is a pediatric facility based in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Gragg Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lee Gragg on behalf of the estate of Robineece Gragg, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-554 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 Adam Lee Gragg is a natural person and is the Representative of Robineece Gragg, 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: Greer Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Greer, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-553 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: Maloy Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loretta Maloy on behalf of the estate of John Maloy, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-562 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 Loretta Maloy is a natural person and is the Representative of John Maloy, 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: Mitchel-El Sues Over Negligent Sale ----------------------------------------------------- Ahmad Mitchel-El, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-416 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: Murrell Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Janette Murrell, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-418 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: Nelson Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kory Nelson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-545 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: Powell Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Cheri Lynn Powell on behalf of the estate of James Powell, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-563 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: Sims Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Sims, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-414 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 NBT BANCORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Richey Due March 2, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richey, et al., v. NBT Bancorp Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order extending that the deadlines and schedules as follows: (1) The parties are directed to file next detailed status reports by Feb. 20, 2026 (2) Discovery, including merits, class, and depositions, shall be completed by April 6, 202 except for expert discovery (3) The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is March 6, 2026 (4) The Defendant Expert Disclosure Deadline is April 20, 2026 (5) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is May 4, 2026 (6) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by May 11, 2026 (7) Class Certification Motion shall be filed by March 2, 2026 (8) Expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall be completed by June 4, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). NBT is a financial holding company.[CC] PEPSICO INC: Gelbspan Sues Over Price Fixing Scheme w/ Walmart -------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN GELBSPAN, AARON HINDS and ALEXANDER GOVEA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEPSICO INC. and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-10397 (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2025) is a class action seeking damages (including actual and treble damages), injunctive relief, costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' fees. The complaint relates that as late as 2015, Pepsi made a "foundational commitment" to make sure that Walmart would have a significant price advantage which it called either a "price gap" or a "hedge" that would allow Walmart to purchase and sell Pepsi soft drink products at prices consummately more favorable than its competitors. Because of Walmart's substantial retail market share as a seller of groceries (and, therefore, products like soft drinks), Pepsi needed to ensure that Walmart would continue to be its largest customer – which hatched the alleged conspiracy. The conspiracy benefits both Pepsi and Walmart. According to the complaint, Pepsi's retail price gap consists of monitoring Walmart's retail prices to compare them to other competitors (so that Pepsi can assess competitors seeking to undercut Walmart's advantage) in order to then: (1) provide Walmart with promotional payments and allowances as discounts to reduce Walmart's retail prices for Pepsi soft drinks, (2) reducing Walmart's competitors' discounts to increase Walmart's competitors' retail prices for Pepsi soft drink products above Walmart's, and (3) directly raising wholesale prices offered by bottlers to non-Walmart retailers in order to make it impossible to beat Walmart's retail prices on Pepsi soft drink products sold directly to consumers. While the conspiracy caused antitrust injury to both companies' direct competitors, the largest harm caused is the harm to consumers who purchase Pepsi soft drink products as affected by this conspiracy, asserts the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs purchased Pepsi soft drink products from a retailer other than Walmart for their own use and not for resale. They suffered injury in the form of overpayment for Pepsi soft drink products as a result of the conduct as alleged herein. Plaintiff Martin Gelbspan was a California resident. Plaintiff Aaron Hinds was a Florida, Massachusetts and New York resident before moving to the State of New Jersey at all times relevant to this action. Plaintiff Alexander Govea was a California and New York resident before moving to the Commonwealth of Virginia at all times relevant to this Action. Defendant PepsiCo., Inc, a leading manufacturer of soda, maintains its principal place of business in the State of New York. Defendant Walmart Inc., which operates thousands of retail stores in the United States and sells soda which competes directly with the soda sold by PepsiCo, maintains its principal place of business in the State of Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 1330 Ave. of the Americas, Suite 23A New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 929-709-1493 E-mail: byagman@sshhzlaw.com PLAYTIKA HOLDING: $24.75MM Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SCOTT G. KORMOS and JORDAN KLEIN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP., Plaintiffs, v. PLAYTIKA HOLDING UK II LIMITED, Defendant. C.A. No. 2023-0396-BWD SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of shares of Playtika Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: "PLTK") common stock as of 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 3, 2022, i.e., the date the Self-Tender closed ("Class Shares"), in each case in their capacity as holders or beneficial owners of Class Shares, including, to the extent necessary to afford relief, their legal representatives, heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Scott G. Kormos and Jordan Klein (together, "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the Class, have reached a proposed settlement with Playtika Holding UK II Ltd. ("Defendant") and Playtika Holding Corp. ("Playtika") for $24,750,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release between Plaintiffs, Defendant, and Playtika, dated October 7, 2025 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at https://www.PlaytikaSecuritiesSettlement.com. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as against Defendant. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on January 21, 2026 at 1:30 P.M. EST, before The Honorable Bonnie W. David, Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Sussex County, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947, or remotely by Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class Representative for the Class and Plaintiffs' Counsel should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class; (iv) determine whether the proposed Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid out of the Settlement Fund, including any Incentive Award to Plaintiffs to be paid solely from any Fee and Expense Award; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Award, including any Incentive Award to Plaintiffs; and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, https://www.PlaytikaSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at info@PlaytikaSecuritiesSettlement.com or (844) 643-4844. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, https://www.PlaytikaSecuritiesSettlement.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Because claims travel with shares and therefore the right to receive any portion of the Net Settlement Fund travels with the transfer of the Class Members' shares between 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 3, 2022, and the Class Distribution Record Date (as defined below), the persons eligible to receive pro rata distribution of the Net Settlement Fund ("Eligible Class Members") are likely different than the Class Members as of the closing of the Self-Tender. The "Eligible Shares" are all shares of Playtika common stock held as of the most recent date on or after the Effective Date for which the Depository Trust Company can produce a Security Position Report showing the position holdings of participating persons or financial institutions (the "Class Distribution Record Date"), excluding those shares held by Excluded Persons. Each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery," which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members, provided, however, that no cash payments for less than $1.00 will be made. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement (including incentive awards to Plaintiffs) must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant's Counsel such that they are received no later than January 6, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrato or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Playtika Securities Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: David M. Sborz ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 dsborz@andrewsspringer.com Ned Weinberger LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 nweinberger@labaton.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Dated: November 21, 2025 PNY BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bowman Says ------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PNY Beauty LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15264 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://pnybeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Bowman's visit to the website, in an attempt to purchase skincare products, Bowman encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from navigating the website. Despite her efforts, however, Bowman was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Due to the Website's inaccessibility, Bowman has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the goods, benefits and services of the Website, says the suit. Bowman and visually impaired individuals must in turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and-mortar retailers, says the suit. Bowman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tanisia Bowman is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. PNY Beauty LLC operates the website that offers a variety of beauty and wellness products from popular and well-known brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to seal portions of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to redact and/or seal certain documents reflecting private, confidential, and/or proprietary business information that reflects the operational investment of time, money and effort by Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Krosnick. The portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification that Plaintiff seeks to redact are not explanations of survey science. They are the non-public engine of a proprietary methodology. Those details are confidential research and trade-secret like business information. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sQy3CH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL: Custalow-Hall Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN CUSTALOW-HALL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-1025 (E.D. Va., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information ("PHI") that they collected and maintained as part of their regular business practices, including but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health and medical treatment information, account information, and/or other personal information (collectively defined herein as "PII"). According to the complaint, former and current RBHA patients, employees and customers are required to entrust Defendants with sensitive, non-public PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On September 30, 2025, RBHA detected unusual activity on some of its computers. In response, the company completed an investigation and determined that on September 29, 2025 (the "Data Breach") there was unauthorized access to a number of RBHA files and systems containing Social Security numbers, passport numbers, financial account information, health information of impacted individuals, among other sensitive information. On December 4, 2025, RBHA began mailing letters to potentially impacted individuals, including the Plaintiff. RBHA waited for over 2 months to notify impacted individuals. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost time; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; and (v) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) remain backed up in Defendants possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and which remains at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Nathan Custalow-Hall is a resident and citizen of Ohio. Defendant Richmond Behavioral Health Authority ("RBHA") is based in Richmond, Virginia, and is an entity responsible for providing mental health, intellectual disabilities, substance abuse and prevention services to the citizens of the City of Richmond. Does 1 through 20 are defendants with fictitious names. Each Doe defendant is the principal, agent, or employee of the other and was acting within the scope of such agency or employment to commit the acts alleged herein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: 212-532-1091 E-mail: rrodriguez@sirillp.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com SMARTSHEET INC: Faces Securities Class Action in W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 2:25-cv-02530, on behalf of former public common shareholders of Smartsheet Inc. ("Smartsheet" or the "Company") who held Smartsheet securities as of the record date, October 25, 2024 (the "Class Period"), and who were harmed by the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the acquisition of Smartsheet by affiliates of Blackstone Inc., Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Merger, each share of Smartsheet common stock owned was converted into the right to receive $56.50 in cash per share (the "Merger Consideration"). The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration was inadequate and that the Definitive Proxy Statement issued by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2024, as supplemented and amended on November 27, 2024, provided stockholders with materially incomplete and misleading information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Merger was completed on January 22, 2025. If you were a stockholder during the relevant period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you have until February 24, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at https://ksfcounsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Smartsheet_Complaint.pdf. To discuss this action, contact Michael Palestina at Michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com or 855-768-1857, or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-smar/ to learn more. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, and a representative office in Luxembourg. TOP 10 Plaintiff Law Firms - According to ISS Securities Class Action Services To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] STONECO LTD: $26.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE STONECO LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-9620 (GHW)(OTW) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of StoneCo Ltd. during the period from May 27, 2020 through November 16, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period'), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and StoneCo Ltd. ("Defendant" or "StoneCo") have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $26,750,000 (the "Settlement"). StoneCo denies any liability or wrongdoing. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gregory H. Woods, either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on February 27, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. (ET) at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12C, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 15, 2025; (iii) for purposes of the Settlement only, finally certify the Settlement Class, finally certify Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and finally appoint the law firm of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (v) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and Claim Form by visiting the website, www.StoneCoSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: StoneCo Securities Settlement c/o Verita Global, LLC P.O. Box 301135 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 1-888-777-6948 www.StoneCoSecuritiesSettlement.com info@StoneCoSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Michael H. Rogers, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com 1-888-219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than February 17, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, available at www.StoneCoSecuritiesSettlement.com, and such request must be received no later than February 6, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, available at www.StoneCoSecuritiesSettlement.com, and such request must be received no later than February 6, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR STONECO REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: December 10, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TARGET CORP: Kelly Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDEN KELLY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All current and former hourly-paid Team Member employees who work or worked at a Target store in Philadelphia in any workweek from February 17, 2021, through the date of class certification." The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint the undersigned law firms to serve as "Class Counsel." As discussed in the accompanying brief and reflected in the accompanying declarations, these law firms are qualified to represent the class based on the factors described in Civil Rule 23(g)(1)(A). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uPSTv1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 335 18th Pl NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: More Time to File Class Cert Bids Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reyna Dempsey, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-00425-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order enlarging the deadline for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to June 30, 2026, and adjusting subsequent deadlines as follows: Deadline to file motion for class certification: June 30, 2026 Deadline to file opposition to class certification: Aug. 3, 2026 Deadline to file reply in support of class certification: Aug. 24, 2026 Close of fact discovery: Feb. 1, 2027 Close of expert discovery: March 3, 2027 Deadline to file dispositive and Daubert motions: April 14, 2027 Deadline to file oppositions to dispositive and Daubert motions: May 14, 2027 Deadline to file replies in support of dispositive and Daubert Motions: May 28, 2027 Last day to hear dispositive and Daubert motions: July 16, 2027 A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dkrhTu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Organ, Esq. Julianne K. Stanford, Esq. Kira Brekke, Esq. CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP 332 San Anselmo Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Telephone: (415) 453-4740 Facsimile: (415) 785-7352 E-mail: larry@civilrightsca.com julianne@civilrightsca.com kira@civilrightsca.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Ricardo Perez, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com rperez@nka.com The Defendants are represented by: Heather L. Richardson, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Jennafer M. Tryck, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: HRichardson@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com Jtryck@gibsondunn.com UTB ENTERPRISES: Settles Unpaid Meal Break Class Suit for $3.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that UTB Enterprises and Goldenband LLC agreed to a $3.55 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims they failed to pay McDonald's employees for short meal breaks. The settlement benefits individuals who worked as hourly employees at a McDonald's franchise location operated by UTB Enterprises or Goldenband since March 8, 2014, and who had a meal period of less than 30 minutes during a six-hour shift that was not paid. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused UTB Enterprises and Goldenband of violating Oregon law by failing to pay McDonald's employees for short meal breaks. Under Oregon law, employees are entitled to be paid for short meal breaks. UTB Enterprises and Goldenband LLC are franchisees of McDonald's restaurants. The defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.55 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of eligible workweeks they worked during the class period. Class members who worked 0 to 10 eligible workweeks can receive $31.14. Class members who worked 11 or more eligible workweeks can receive $872.49. Exact payment amounts may vary. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 7, 2026. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for March 27, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 8, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who worked as hourly employees at a McDonald's franchise location operated by UTB Enterprises, Goldenband, Donald D. Armstrong or Lori Armstrong since March 8, 2014, and had a meal period of less than 30 minutes during a six-hour shift that was not paid. Potential Award Up to $872.49 Proof of Purchase Class members who wish to submit a claim for additional payment must provide information about their employment, including the dates of employment, the McDonald's location where they worked and the hours they worked. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/08/2026 Case Name South, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., Case No. 20CV29671, in the Circuit Court of Oregon of Multnomah County Final Hearing 03/27/2026 Settlement Website UTBGoldenbandClassAction.com Claims Administrator South v. Armstrong Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 5129 Portland, OR 97208-5129 info@UTBGoldenbandClassAction.com (833) 419-0987 Class Counsel Jon M. Egan JON M. EGAN P.C. Defense Counsel Sean P. Ray BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP [GN] VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Court Extends Time for Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murphy, et al., v. Villages at Noah's Landing, LTD, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and for Leave to File Ten Excess Pages. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act.[CC] WELLS FARGO: $85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 5 -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, and WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, KLEBER R. SANTOS, and CARLY SANCHEZ, Defendants. Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo") common stock between February 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby ("Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated October 15, 2025 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Court"), that the Court-appointed Class Representatives SEB Investment Management AB and West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund (together, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned securities class action ("Action"), have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Wells Fargo, Charles W. Scharf, Kleber R. Santos, and Carly Sanchez (together, "Defendants") for $85,000,000 in cash that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on May 5, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, before the Honorable Trina L. Thompson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, either in person in Courtroom 9 – 19th Floor of the Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things: (i) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; and (iii) whether Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred by Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Class in an aggregate amount not to exceed $40,000) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website, www.WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the case website, www.WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com. You may also obtain a copy of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at SEB Investment Mgm't AB v. Wells Fargo & Company, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173025, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by calling toll free 1-866-905-8128; or by emailing info@WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be found on the website for Class Counsel, www.ktmc.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online via www.WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com, no later than April 14, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses must be submitted to the Court. Objections must be filed or postmarked (if mailed) no later than April 14, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. As this Class was previously certified and, in connection with class certification, Class Members had the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class, the Court has exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion in connection with the Settlement proceedings. If you previously requested exclusion from the Class in connection with class certification and wish to opt back into the Class to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a request to opt back into the Class so that it is received no later than April 14, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: SEB Investment Mgm't AB v. Wells Fargo & Company c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173025 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-866-905-8128 info@WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com www.WellsFargoSecuritiesAction.com All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Sharan Nirmul, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 1-610-667-7706 DATED: December 11, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Northern District of California ********* 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 2026. 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 ***