260102.mbx

260102.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 2, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 2 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Anderson Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. 7-ELEVEN INC: Galupi Sues Over Improper Convenience Fees 84 LUMBER: Court Reverses Order Compelling NFP Internal Records ABC CORPORATION: Valle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought ACXIOMLLC: Marzo Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas ADVERTISE4SALES LLC: Starling Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Calls AERO GROUNDTEK: Brown Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class AIRLINE REPORTING: Adam Files Suit in N.D. California AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Joint Bid to Extend Stay of Case Tossed ANGEION GROUP: Baker Class Suit Removed to D.D.C. ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Reynaga Suit Removed to C.D. California APPLIED THIN-FILM: Cochran Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ASCENSION HEALTH: Tapia Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ATKORE INC: McMillin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AUTUMN TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Alleges BBG INC: Bittan Suit Seeks Collective Certification BEE SWEET: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 2, 2026 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Coronel Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. BIBBS HAULING: Turientine Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay C & J CLARK AMERICA: Agdeppa Suit Removed to N.D. California C.A.A.I.R.: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Jan. 5 CALIFORNIA FINE WINE: Nguyen Suit Removed to C.D. California CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC: Riojas Suit Removed to C.D. California CALYX ENERGY: Lerblance Bid to Set Oral Argument OK'd CARMAX INC: Indiana Public Sues Over Exchange Act Violation CASSELLABROSINC: Dubois Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CATAYU GROUP: Victor Sues Over Disability Discrimination CATWIG LLC: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CENTAUR ACQUISITION: Pavelchik Sue Over Violations of the USERRA CHERRY HILL: Must Complete Discovery in "Kennard" by June 2026 CLOUD NINE: Senior Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CMG TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuller Alleges CNHI LLC: Moralez Files Suit in M.D. Alabama COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Burge Files Suit in D. New Jersey COMMERCIAL INVESTIGATIONS: Burton Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA CONVERSION FINDER: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Weingrad" COUNTY OF ROCKLAND: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Mejia" CROWN LIFT: Hilestuthill Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. DELTA AIR: Haley Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Haschemie Suit Transferred to E.D. New York DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiff Wins Class Certification Bid DVA RENAL: Lee Class Action Suit Filed in Cal. Super. EASTERN SHIPBUILDING: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice EDWARD JONES: Loses Bid to Junk "Winter" Discrimination Suit EFX INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Browning Says ELECTRO-TECH MACHINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges ELV ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 15, 2026 ERIN ALONSO: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EXXON MOBIL: Court Sets Service, Briefing Schedule in "Kennedy" F5 INC: Smith Sues Over to Recover Securities Laws Damages FIDELITY LIFE: Bourne Suit Removed to C.D. California GALAXY GAS LLC: Iannotti Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida GARDAWORLD SECURITY: Watters Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GEICO GENERAL: Seeks to Seal Confidential Information GIFTROCKET INC: Court Summary Judgment Bid in Gift Card Suit GOLI NUTRITION: "Ring" Remanded to NY State Court GRATEFUL HEARTS: Settles "Seals" FLSA Collective Case for $40K HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Wins Bid to Reconsider Class Certification HERC RENTALS: Aburto Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. HOTEL GENPAR: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS: Appling Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. IPREH LLC: Class Settlement in Burton Suit Gets Initial Nod JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Kesselheim Testimony K & B INTERESTS: Segovia Sues Over Physical Barriers KINDRED HOSPITALS: Sampson Suit Removed to D. Colorado KLOECKNER METALS: Jenkins Suit Removed to C.D. California LAS VEGAS, NV: Coyne Employment Suit Removed to D. Nev. LATHROP LOGISTICS: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIBERTY RESOURCES: LaPlant Class Suit Filed in N.Y. Sup. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS: Malloy Files Suit in E.D. Texas MARSHALL RETAIL: Moncrease Suit Removed to N.D. California MARTIN & BAYLEY: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime MELINDA EDDY: Burnside Suit Seeks to Certify Class MICROSOFT CORP: Granted More Time for Expert Reports MITO SMITH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coyle Alleges MONSANTO CO: Day Sues Over Illness Linked to Glyphosate Exposure MONSANTO CO: Roundup Products Pose Health Risks, Clemons Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Goodwin Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Marinelli Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, McMaster Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Morton Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Quintanilla Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Keller Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Lemen Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Livingston Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Lopez Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MOOREGROUP CORP: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed MRS-7 CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Alleges MUTUAL HOUSING: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Stephenson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ortega Sues Over Athletes' Eligibility Clock NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Reply Briefs Extended to Jan. 12, 2026 NIAGARA BOTTLING: Tafolla-Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES: Chappell Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NORIMEN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Chavez Due Oct. 1, 2026 OGLETHORPE INC: Smith Class Action Suit Filed in M.D. Fla. OLIPOP INC: Somers Files Suit Over Misleading Product Labels ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Escarcega Suit Transferred to N.D. California PAMELA BONDI: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification PAMELA BONDI: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response PENHALL COMPANY: Taylor Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PHARMAVITE LLC: Class Cert. Bid in Hamzeh Due Dec.10, 2026 PHH MORTGAGE: Class Settlement in Munoz Suit Gets Final Nod PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Wolfclan Suit Seeks Class Certification PMACS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abel Alleges PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Jackson Files Suit Over Data Breach QUINSTREET INCORPORATED: Guiterrez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona RCI HOSPITALITY: Fraijo Sues Over Illegal Retention of Tips RECOLOGY INC: Villarroel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROGERS MECHANICAL: Ellison Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ga. RUGSUSA LLC: Bid for Class Cert in Hong Suit Due March 5, 2026 RUGSUSA LLC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule SALESFORCE INC: Seeks to Provisionally File Docs Under Seal SELECT REHABILITATION: Settlement Deal in McLaughlin Gets Approval SERENITY TMS CENTERS: Goins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama SIERRA BULLETS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coen Alleges SINGH LANDSCAPING: Vasquez Sues Over for Unpaid Compensation SKYWEST AIRLINES: Sherrill Suit Removed to E.D. California SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY: Lara Suit Removed to C.D. California SOVEREIGN SECURITY: Williams Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas SP DISTRIBUTION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Senior Says STANLEY MARTIN: Grubbs Negligence Suit Removed to D.S.C. SUPPORT SERVICES: Carmer Seeks FLSA Putative Collective Notice SWITCHGEAR POWER: Class Cert Filing in Hansen Due May 15, 2026 SYNGENTA CROP: Dover Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Frank Sues Over Wrongful Advertising SYNGENTA CROP: Landrum Sues Over Wrongful Labeling of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Mace Sues Over Wrongful Advertising TOMMY BAHAMA: Bid for Class Cert. in Haley Due April 22, 2026 TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Rosado Files Suit Over Data Breach ULTA SALON: Cole Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. UNITED AIRLINES: Walker Sues for Discrimination and ADA Violation UNITED AUTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 6 UNITED STATES: Must Produce Admin Record in Black Lung Miner Suit UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Vample Files Suit Over Data Breach URBAN OUTFITTERS: Removes Vanwormer Suit to W.D. Wash. VIRTUSA: Wins Bid to Strike Expert's Supplemental Report in "Sugg" WARNER BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Padilla Alleges WILLIAM DOYLE: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Banham Says WILMINGTON COMMUNITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bruschi Says Asbestos Litigation ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Anderson Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JASON ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU053303C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 12, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03577-AJB-DEB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of himself and a class based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including unlawful meal and/or rest periods; accurate wage statements; minimum and overtime wages; expense reimbursement; and timely payment of wages. 7-Eleven, Inc. is an American convenience store chain, headquartered in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie R. Trotter, Esq. Mireya A.R. Llaurado, Esq. Madeleine K. Lee, Esq. Pamela McElroy, Esq. CALL & JENSEN A Professional Corporation 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-30 E-mail: jtrotter@calljensen.com mllaurado@calljensen.com mlee@calljensen.com pmcelroy@calljensen.com - and - Eric A. Welter, Esq. WELTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 20130 Lakeview Center Plaza, Suite 400 Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone: (703) 435-8500 Facsimile: (703) 435-8851 E-mail: eaw@welterlaw.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Galupi Sues Over Improper Convenience Fees -------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA GALUPI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15121 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, for every pickup or delivery transaction made on the 7NOW mobile application, 7-Eleven charges an undisclosed convenience fee (the "Convenience Fee") which is hidden within a line item labeled "Taxes & Fees." As a result of the Convenience Fee, consumers pay a uniformly higher price than advertised for the products purchased through 7NOW. 7-Eleven's misconduct has caused the Plaintiff and putative Class Members to suffer injury in fact, including economic damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this suit to halt 7-Eleven's unfair and deceptive trade practices and to recover damages on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. 7-Eleven, Inc. owns and operates chain of convenience stores. The Company offers cold drinks, candy, pizzas, groceries, tobacco items, lottery tickets, coffee, juices, sandwiches, ice creams, snacks, and other related items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erin J. Ruben, Esq. Thomas Pacheco, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Email: eruben@leesegui.com tpacheco@leesegui.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Email: hsegui@leesegui.com 84 LUMBER: Court Reverses Order Compelling NFP Internal Records --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Angel Runciman, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 84 Lumber Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-CV-852 (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania reversed the Magistrate Judge's order and denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents from non-party NFP Retirement, Inc. On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff Angel Runciman moved to compel production of certain internal documents and communications by non-party NFP Retirement, Inc., and on September 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff sought to compel NFP's internal investment analysis that it never communicated to 84 Lumber. The Court found this information was not properly discoverable for at least two reasons. First, the information was not discoverable because the requested materials were not relevant to any party's claims or defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The Court noted that NFP's communications and advice that was actually communicated to 84 Lumber was clearly relevant, because it went to whether 84 Lumber made appropriate investment decisions. However, what the subpoena asked for was what NFP did not communicate to 84 Lumber, and that was not relevant. The Court explained that what the Plaintiff really wanted was to use NFP as an unretained expert to compare 84 Lumber's investment decisions against what NFP internally thought was otherwise prudent. The Court determined that type of benchmarking was what an expert was for and was an improper use of a subpoena. Second, even if the material were discoverable, production of the requested materials would place an undue burden on NFP, considering the seven factors used to balance the interests of the movant and non-party: (1) relevance of the requested materials, (2) the party’s need for the documents, (3) the breadth of the request, (4) the time period covered by the request, (5) the particularity with which the documents are described, (6) the burden imposed, and (7) the recipient’s status as a non-party”). Upon a review of the record, the Court had a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been committed. On December 23, 2025, the Court ordered that NFP's objections were sustained and the Plaintiff's motion was denied. However, the Court found that NFP's prior proposal during the meet-and-confer process was an appropriate compromise of the dispute, and ordered that NFP shall produce a witness for a deposition solely on questions pertaining to the fiduciary record. The deposition shall not get into any NFP internal analysis that was not communicated to 84 Lumber. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QG0ps from PacerMonitor.com ABC CORPORATION: Valle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Abel Wueston Valle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a ELITE HOOKAH LOUNGE & CAFE, name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff, and NOOR NOORANI, as an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-06979 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours per week from in or around March 2023 until in or around March 2024, approximately 72 hours per week from in or around April 2024 until in or around June 2025, approximately 98 hours per week from in or around July 2025 until in or around October 2025, and approximately 84 hours per week in or around November 2025, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from March 2023 until November 2025 as a bartender. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a ELITE HOOKAH LOUNGE & CAFE, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKKA GLENN, v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC and MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00198-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension up to and including Monday, Jan. 26, 2025 (30 days) to file memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants have shown good cause for the requested extension. Additionally, the Plaintiff will not incur any prejudice if Defendants are afforded the requested relief, as Plaintiff does not oppose the request. Finally, allowing the requested extension will have no negative impact on the forward progression of this case and will not affect any other case management deadlines. As such, this Motion is brought in good faith and not for the purposes of unreasonable delay. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on Dec. 13, 2025. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KgNGQu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John M. Marees, II, Esq. Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD. 1400 Marsh Landing Parkway, Suite 109 Jacksonville, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 373-0646 Facsimile: (904) 298-8350 E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com jmarees@messerstrickler.com ACXIOMLLC: Marzo Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Marzo, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACXIOMLLC, Case No. CIVSB25I4872 was removed from the Circuit Court for Faulkner County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01317-KGB. The Plaintiff alleges that "hundreds of thousands of Colorado residents have had their statutory rights violated under the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Baxter D. Drennon, Esq. Abtin Mehdizadegan, Esq. Joseph C. Stepina, Esq. HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. 200 River Market A venue, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.214.3499 Email: bdrennon@hallboothsmith.com abtin@hallboothsmith.com jstepina@hallboothsmith.com ADVERTISE4SALES LLC: Starling Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY STARLING, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVERTISE4SALES, LLC, doing business as: 4LEGALLEADS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06113 (W.D. Wash., December 11, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the TCPA alleging that the Defendant violated the TCPA by sending multiple telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent as well as sending such calls with illegal pre-recorded voices. Because the calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who were sent the same illegal telemarketing calls, says the suit. Advertise4Sales, LLC, d/b/a 4LegalLeads.com, is a Washington-based marketing data broker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW PC 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com AERO GROUNDTEK: Brown Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIMERE BROWN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. AERO GROUNDTEK LLC, THOMAS GROVER BRACKETT, and DEREK SIMON, individually, Case No. 6:25-cv-01550-PGB-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and issuance of court-authorized notice and incorporated memorandum of law. The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an Order: (a) conditionally certifying the following FLSA class: All hourly paid Crew Members who worked more than 40 hours per week for Defendant at any time on or after [insert date 3 years before issuance of notice. (b) requiring the Defendant to produce within 14 days a list of all crew members who worked in the past three years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, email address and last four (4) digits of their social security number; and (c) authorize notice/consent to join in the forms and manner requested. Aero offers comprehensive pest control services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bmSbvi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com AIRLINE REPORTING: Adam Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC). The case is styled as Janice Adam, Claire Rappoport, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC), Case No. 4:25-cv-10921-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC) -- https://www2.arccorp.com/ -- provides the most comprehensive air transaction data and reporting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Claire Cylkowski, Esq. Isabel Rose O. Masanque, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP AMERICAN FOR DISABILITY ACCESS 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: clairec@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com jtreglio@tregliolaw.com AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Joint Bid to Extend Stay of Case Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Middleton, et al., v. Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456 (D. Kan., Filed Oct. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order denying Joint Motion to Extend Stay. The Court is concerned as to the age of, and recent lack of activity in, this case. If the parties are unable to resolve the claims, they must be prepared to move forward with concluding any remaining discovery issues from Phase 1 and moving forward with a deadline to file a motion for class certification. To that end, the Court sets an in-person status conference to discuss scheduling for Jan. 14, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The parties are encouraged to continue settlement discussions as indicated in their email but in the event the case has not resolved by Jan. 14, 2026, the parties need to be prepared to move forward with setting the relevant deadlines. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Amentum is an American government and commercial services contractor.[CC] ANGEION GROUP: Baker Class Suit Removed to D.D.C. ------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGEION GROUP LLC; EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.; and JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02079, was removed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04317-JDB to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Sparkle L Sooknanan. Angeion Group LLC specializes in managing class actions and other types of mass litigation. Angeion Group serves clients in the United States and United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Reynaga Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Humberto Reynaga, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31896 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12161. The Complaint asserts the following claim on a class-wide basis: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Failure to Provide One Day's Rest In Seven; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in Violation of Cal. Labor Code and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com APPLIED THIN-FILM: Cochran Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as REBECCA COCHRAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. APPLIED THIN-FILM PRODUCTS, a California corporation; VISHAY DALE ELECTRONICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV153554, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-10635 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly wages and overtime; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay all final wages; (6) failure to indemnify; and (7) unfair competition. Applied Thin-Film Products is a computer hardware manufacturer in Fremont, California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Seth L. Neulight, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8200 E-mail: sneulight@nixonpeabody.com - and - Alejandro Castro, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One California Plaza 300 S Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151 Telephone: (213) 629-6000 E-mail: acastro@nixonpeabody.com ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arqit Quantum Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Similarly, on April 18, 2023, a putative class action was filed against Arqit and certain of its directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Index No. 153555/2023) (the "State Court Action"). The State Court Action is based on nearly identical allegations as the Federal Complaint, and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. On October 2, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, asserting the same causes of action as in the original state court complaint. On November 1, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay the State Court Action pending resolution of the Federal Action. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to stay on December 1, 2023. On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the motion to stay. Arqit continues to cooperate with and respond to queries from the SEC in connection with their ongoing investigation, including through voluntary document productions and interviews. Arqit can offer no assurances as to the outcome of this investigation or its potential effect, if any, on the company or its results. Arqit Quantum Inc. provides cybersecurity services via terrestrial platforms. ASCENSION HEALTH: Tapia Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jacqueline Tapia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:25-cv-00626 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13957-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Ascension -- https://healthcare.ascension.org/ -- is one of the nation's leading non-profit and Catholic health systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332.4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com ATKORE INC: McMillin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rory McMillin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ATKORE INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01484-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Despite working before and after their scheduled shifts, Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for all work time. Instead, Defendant generally paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees based on the scheduled shifts, rather than the actual time worked. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required its employees to perform work outside of their scheduled shifts without compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant from 2022 through the present in the position of Machine Operator. The Defendant is a global manufacturer of cables, tubing, wiring, conduit, and other electrical/industrial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com AUTUMN TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTUMN TRANSPORT, INC.; and ESSAR LEASING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-04618 (D. Minn., Dec. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendants as a driver. Autumn Transport Inc. provides transit services. The Company offers student and local passenger transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 Email: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Oleana Savytska, Esq. Jack Bartholet, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com jbartholet@llrlaw.com BBG INC: Bittan Suit Seeks Collective Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE BITTAN, JACK ENRIGHT, AND PATRICK SMITH, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. BBG, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02839-S (N.D. Tex.. ), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting opposed motion for collective certification and issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): The Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective composed of, and facilitating the sending of written notices to, all persons who fall within the Proposed FLSA Collective. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7g40Ve at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: apiazza@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com - and - Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com - and - Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Ste. 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com BEE SWEET: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 2, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amaro, et al., v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382 (E.D. Cal., Filed March 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order directing the Plaintiffs' deadline to file the motion for class certification be continued to Jan. 2, 2026. The parties have reached a global settlement and have finalized the settlement agreement and are awaiting the signature of one party, Cross-Defendant AGR Contracting. The nature of suit states Agricultural Acts. The Defendant is a supplier of fresh citrus.[CC] BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Coronel Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MARGARITA CORONEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PRACTICE SERVICES LLC; LIFESTANCE HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV027454, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01749 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, regular, and overtime wage; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to permit rest periods; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay all wages due during employment and upon separation from employment; and (6) violation of unfair and unlawful business practices. Behavioral Health Practice Services LLC is a Worcester, Massachusetts-based medical practice founded in 1991 that provides mental health services, including medication management, counseling, and transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kristen J. Nesbit, Esq. Harrison M. Thorne, Esq. Jeremy E. Stern, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: knesbit@fisherphillips.com hthorne@fisherphillips.com jestern@fisherphillips.com BIBBS HAULING: Turientine Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARL TURIENTINE JR., LOLA RHODES, MICHAEL NELSON, and DERRICK CALHOUN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIBBS HAULING, LLC, RICHARD BIBBS B AUSTIN TRUCKING, LLC, and BRETT JONES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02516-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., December 11, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers. They routinely worked over 40 hours but were not paid overtime hours for work performed while not on the work site. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class members their overtime hours, says the suit. Bibbs Hauling, LLC is a company that operates in the transportation industry based in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com C & J CLARK AMERICA: Agdeppa Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rheamae Agdeppa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. C & J CLARK AMERICA, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation; C & J CLARK RETAIL, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV155086 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10862. The Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth 9 causes of action, including: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Donald P. Sullivan, Esq. Andrew J. Mailhot, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.Mailhot@jacksonlewis.com C.A.A.I.R.: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Jan. 5 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Copeland, et al., v. C.A.A.I.R., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00564 (N.D. Okla., Filed Oct. 10, 2017), the Hon. Judge Sara E. Hill entered an order directing the Defendants to file an expedited response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Page Limit Extension and Clarification of Class Certification Reply Obligations, not to exceed 5 pages in length, by Jan. 5, 2026. No reply will be allowed, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). CAAIR is an addiction resource center.[CC] CALIFORNIA FINE WINE: Nguyen Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Khang Nguyen, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 10 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31920 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12023. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine causes of action on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he seeks to represent: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Owed; Failure to Provide Lawful Meal Periods; Failure To Authorize and Permit Lawful Rest Periods; Failure To Timely Pay Wages Due and Payable During Employment; Failure To Reimburse Necessary Expenses; Knowing And Intentional Failure to Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination; Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. Sean M. Bothamley, Esq. Andres Antuna, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 400 San Jose, Ca 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com Sean.Bothamley@jacksonlewis.com Andres.Antuna@jacksonlewis.com CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC: Riojas Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Riojas, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES, a California corporation; and DOES I through 50, inclusive,, Case No. CIVSB25I4872 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03521. The Plaintiff pleads six causes of action, all styled as state law claims involving violations of wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). However, Plaintiff's meal period and rest break claims, are preempted under Section 301 because such claims are necessarily contractual claims under the CBA; California state law does not apply to such claims because of an express exemption in the Labor Code or Wage Order 16. Plaintiff's derivative claims (for wage statement penalties under Labor Code Section 226, waiting time penalties under Labor Code Section 203, restitution under the UCL, and penalties under the Private Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA") are preempted under Section 301 because such claims rise or fall based on the underlying substantive (and preempted) meal period and rest break claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: estaggs-wilson@littler.com - and - James Payer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314.659.2000 Facsimile: 314.659.2099 Email: jpayer@littler.com CALYX ENERGY: Lerblance Bid to Set Oral Argument OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lerblance, et al., v. Calyx Energy III, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00047 (E.D. Okla., Filed Feb. 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Set Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court also entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Opposed Motion for In-Person, Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. Calyx operates as an oil and gas exploration company.[CC] CARMAX INC: Indiana Public Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Indiana Public Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARMAX, INC., WILLIAM NASH, ENRIQUE MAYOR-MORA, and JON DANIELS, Case No. 3:25-cv-01056-RCY (E.D. Va., Dec. 23, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CarMax securities between June 20, 2025 and November 5, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging claims against CarMax, William Nash, Enrique Mayor-Mora, and Jon Daniels (collectively, "Defendants") and arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule IOb-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: CarMax's 2022 and 2023 vintage loans were underperforming; CarMax's loss reserves were inadequate to cover these loans; CarMax had an oversupply of vehicles at its lots in early 2025; this oversupply caused substantial depreciation of its inventory; CarMax's mid-2025 sales boost was largely driven by customers rushing to purchase used cars amid concerns over potential new-car tariffs; and based on the foregoing, Defendants materially overstated customer receivables, inventory values, and earnings, while misleading investors about the Company's business, operations, and growth prospects. The truth emerged through two corrective disclosures. First, on September 25, 2025, CarMax reported weak fiscal Q2 2026 results, citing tariff-related pull-forward of demand that left the Company with excess inventory and elevated depreciation expense as sales slowed beginning in May. CarMax also disclosed a $142 million loan loss provision, including S71 million related to 2022-2023 loans. On this news, CarMax's stock price fell 20.1 percent. Then, on November 4, 2025, CarMax disclosed that it had terminated the employment of CEO William Nash and warned of a sharp decline in used-car sales in the current quarter. On this news, CarMax's stock price fell an additional 24.3 percent. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of CarMax's securities, Plaintiff and the Class suffered significant losses and damages under the federal securities laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased CarMax securities during the Class Period. CarMax is a used-car retailer that operates 250 locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 4084699 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCIIAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 9074700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com CASSELLABROSINC: Dubois Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cassellabrosinc. The case is styled as Erika Dee Dubois, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cassellabrosinc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0019123 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." CASSELLABROS, INC. is a government contractor based in Elk Grove, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Phone: 818-914-3433 Fax: 818-914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com CATAYU GROUP: Victor Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Zephyrin Victor, and all others similarly situated v. Catayu Group Management Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-62631-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://tapatiasupermarket.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same access to the services, promotions, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 7 U.S. based supermarkets specializing in the sale of Hispanic grocery products, including fresh produce, meats, baked goods, and traditional Central American, Mexican, and Caribbean food items, including the supermarket.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com CATWIG LLC: Williams Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catwig, LLC. The case is styled as Raymond Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Catwig, LLC doing business as Victory Disability, Case No. 2:25-cv-07213-GAM (E.D. Pa., Dec. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Catwig, LLC doing business as Victory Disability -- https://www.victory-disability.com/ -- is dedicated to helping Veterans with Social Security Disability (SSDI) and VA disability claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com CENTAUR ACQUISITION: Pavelchik Sue Over Violations of the USERRA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PAVELCHIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTAUR ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a HORSESHOE INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., Dec. 15, 2025) alleges violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and Indiana Statutory law. According to the complaint, the Defendants treated the Plaintiff differently than other employees because of his military veteran status and his need for time off for training with the Indiana National Guard. The Defendant would not have disciplined and terminated the Plaintiff, but for his military veteran status and request for leave for military training, says the suit. Centaur Acquisition LLC owns and operates a casino and racetrack. The Company offers slot machines, dining facilities, horse racing, and electronic gaming tables. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie C. Alexander, Esq. John H. Haskin, Esq. JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES 255 North Alabama Street, 2nd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 955-9500 Facsimile: (317) 955-2570 Email: jhaskin@jhaskinlaw.com Jalexander@jhaskinlaw.com CHERRY HILL: Must Complete Discovery in "Kennard" by June 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Carolyn Kennard, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cherry Hill Programs, Inc., a Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00652-BTM-VET (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a Scheduling Order on December 12, 2025. The Court held a Case Management Conference on December 9, 2025, and ordered that any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by January 9, 2026. The Court scheduled a video Status Conference before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on March 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Court ordered that no later than April 10, 2026, the parties shall designate their respective experts for class certification in writing, with rebuttal experts designated no later than April 24, 2026. The Court further ordered that no later than May 22, 2026, each party shall comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions regarding experts for class certification. The Court ordered that all discovery related to class certification must be completed by June 12, 2026. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by July 24, 2026. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w43OVg from PacerMonitor.com CLOUD NINE: Senior Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CLOUD NINE CLOTHING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10437 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.cloudnineclothing.ca, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 4, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Cloud Hoodie from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Cloud Hoodie, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: clothing, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Frank Senior is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Cloud Nine Clothing, LLC operates the Website that offers clothing, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CMG TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuller Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- AZARIAH FULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CMG TRUCKING, INC.; and SUMMER MCINTYRE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02522-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Dec. 13, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Fuller was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver. CMG Trucking, Inc. specializes in providing skilled dump truck operators for transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 Facsimile: (317) 842-6933 Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com CNHI LLC: Moralez Files Suit in M.D. Alabama -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CNHI, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Moralez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CNHI, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01004-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala., Dec. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Class Action Fairness Act. CNHI, LLC -- https://www.cnhi.com/ -- is an American publisher of newspapers and advertising-related publications throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Harris, Esq. Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (202) 350-8850 - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 295-7771 - and - Christopher Scott Randolph, Jr., Esq. HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Ste. 800 Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: (205) 323-8277 Fax: (205) 324-2165 Email: Chris@hwnn.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Burge Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Gayle Burge, Ana Lamaire, Natanya Pope, Norberto Claudio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-18908-MCA-AME (D.N.J., Dec. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort Action. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South Lasalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com COMMERCIAL INVESTIGATIONS: Burton Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTEN BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMERCIAL INVESTIGATIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01740-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Brenda K. Sannes, and referred to Mitchell J. Katz. Commercial Investigations LLC is a licensed private investigative agency that specializes in pre-employment background investigations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com CONVERSION FINDER: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Weingrad" -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Exact Care Pharmacy, LLC, Conversion Finder, Jordan Soblick, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-1843 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant Conversion Finder and Defendant Jordan Soblick's Motion to Dismiss. The denial of the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's class allegations for injunctive relief was without prejudice to Defendant's right to raise the issue under Rule 23, assuming Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiff Leon Weingrad alleged that Exact Care Pharmacy, LLC, Conversion Finder, and Jordan Soblick violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 by placing unwanted telemarketing calls to him while his phone number was listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Defendant Conversion Finder is a fictitious name for GJT Inc, a Nevada corporation conducting marketing services. Defendant Jordan Soblick is an individual and resident of Florida. Plaintiff alleged that he received over ten telemarketing calls from Defendant spanning a more than two-month period. Plaintiff alleged that he received a call from Lisa of Exact Care Pharmacy pitching home delivery medication services. In two subsequent calls, Plaintiff alleged that he spoke with Sophia of Healthcare Benefits who then transferred the call to Diane or Snowar of Exact Care Pharmacy. Plaintiff further alleged that he received similar calls from Hazel and Jane of Healthcare Benefits and Justin offering prescription delivery services. Plaintiff brought a putative class action against Exact Care on April 10, 2025, alleging that these calls violated the TCPA. After discovery commenced, Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint on August 19, 2025, to add Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick as defendant. Plaintiff argued that Exact Care hired Conversion Finder to provide it with marketing services that resulted in the allegedly illegal calls at issue. Plaintiff further argued that Conversion Finder is a fictitious name used by Jordan Soblick to conduct illegal telemarketing. On September 15, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint as unopposed. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 15, 2025. Plaintiff sought TCPA statutory damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiff and the class. On October 14, 2025, Defendant Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick filed the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. Moving Defendant argued that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) because it failed to connect the allegedly illegal calls to Conversion Finder or Jordan Soblick. Defendant also argued that the portions of the Amended Complaint seeking injunctive relief should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing because Plaintiff had not alleged ongoing or future harm. Defendant also moved to strike Plaintiff's 23(b)(2) class claims, arguing that Plaintiff's claim for statutory damages was not incidental to the injunctive relief sought as required to maintain a class under 23(b)(2). In opposition, Plaintiff argued that the Amended Complaint met its burden of pleading facts sufficient to give rise to the inference that Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick placed the allegedly illegal calls at issue. Plaintiff also argued that the standing requirement was satisfied and that the 23(b)(2) class claims should not be stricken at this stage. The Court held that the Amended Complaint included sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that Defendant Conversion Finder and Defendant Jordan Soblick violated the TCPA. The Court noted that Plaintiff alleged that the Caller ID numbers were spoofed and that caller names were fictitious aliases. The Amended Complaint alleged that Exact Care hired Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick to orchestrate an en masse telemarketing campaign that incentivized them to work up interested customer prescription deals that met Exact Care's criteria. Plaintiff alleged that pursuant to this contractual agreement, Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick placed telemarketing calls using the alias Healthcare Benefits on behalf of Exact Care to generate leads that were then transferred to Exact Care. The Court found that Plaintiff had alleged that several of the calls at issue were transferred to Exact Care. Plaintiff alleged that Exact Care hired Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick to perform telemarketing services on its behalf. The nature of the alleged contractual relationship between Exact Care, Conversion Finder, and Jordan Soblick gave rise to a plausible inference that Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick may be connected to the allegedly illegal calls. Thus, Moving Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied. Regarding standing for injunctive relief, the Court held that at this stage, Plaintiff had met his burden of demonstrating that he was likely to suffer future injury to establish standing to seek injunctive relief under the TCPA. Plaintiff alleged to have received at least ten illegal calls from Defendant spanning a more than two-month period. The last alleged call occurred one month before Plaintiff initiated this action and Defendant had not provided Plaintiff with assurances that the calls would cease. When accepted as true, the recurrent and relatively recent nature of the alleged calls established a sufficient likelihood that Defendant would call Plaintiff in the future. Moving Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was denied. Regarding the class allegations, the Court held that Courts do not consider motions to strike class allegations under Rule 12(f). Discovery and full briefing on the merits of class certification were typically required to conduct the rigorous analysis required. The Third Circuit had acknowledged that a court should only strike class allegations contained in a complaint in rare cases when the complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met. The Court found it was premature at this stage to eliminate Plaintiff's class allegations for injunctive relief before the Court had considered whether parallel certification of a damages class was appropriate in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Tpgz4 from PacerMonitor.com COUNTY OF ROCKLAND: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Mejia" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Rene Alvarado Mejia, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Rockland, Donna G. Siberman, in her official capacity as County Clerk of Rockland County, The Rockland County District Attorney's Office, Thomas E. Walsh II, in his official capacity as Rockland County District Attorney, and John and Jane Doe in their individual capacities, Defendants, No. 23-CV-492 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in a putative class action. Plaintiff Rene Alvarado Mejia brought this putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Defendants. Plaintiff asserted claims arising from Defendants' alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and New York State Executive Law Section 296 et seq., based on Defendants' alleged denial of admitting Plaintiff into the Rockland County Drug Court due to his lack of English proficiency. Plaintiff was arrested on March 6, 2022, and charged with driving while intoxicated. Plaintiff was thereby scheduled for a court appearance in the Suffern Village Court on May 3, 2022. Plaintiff is an immigrant from Guatemala who does not speak or understand English. Plaintiff's counsel first requested that Plaintiff be admitted into the Drug Court on July 12, 2022. Plaintiff's counsel informed the Suffern Village Court that Plaintiff would supply his own Spanish interpreter. However, Plaintiff alleges that he was informed by an unidentified individual that Plaintiff was ineligible for the Drug Court because he could not speak or understand English. Plaintiff's application to the Drug Court was denied four times between July 2022 and January 2023. Plaintiff alleges that the delay in his admission to the Drug Court caused him significant distress, particularly with respect to his immigration status. Due to the persistent denial of his admission into the Drug Court, Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on January 20, 2023. During the course of litigation, on or around February 7, 2023, the Rockland County Department of Law contacted Defendant Walsh concerning the alleged failure to provide equivalent treatment for Spanish speaking individuals who are in the category of Limited English Proficient in Misdemeanor Drug Court. In his response, dated March 14, 2023, Defendant Walsh explained that the sole issue in not admitting Plaintiff into the Drug Court was the difficulty of providing equal drug/alcohol treatment services to those defendants who have No English Proficiency. Beginning in 2024, the New York State Office of Court Administration began reforming the Drug Court. The purpose of this reform was to ensure that the Rockland County Drug Treatment Court was in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Office of Court Administration assumed responsibility for the Court in March 2024 to ensure that all Limited English Proficient individuals qualified to participate in the Drug Treatment Court had meaningful access to language. The Office of Court Administration subsequently entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, which provides that the Office of Court Administration shall supply additional state-funded translators in Spanish, Creole, and Yiddish, ensure the availability of documents in those languages, and provide personnel training. In July 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice contacted Plaintiff's counsel, informing him that Plaintiff should no longer be barred from admission into the Drug Court. Plaintiff was finally admitted into the Drug Court on or about October 16, 2024. The Court first addressed threshold matters. The Court found that under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality, do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued. Given that Plaintiff is already suing Rockland County, summary judgment is warranted as to all claims asserted against the Rockland DA's Office. The Court next found that official capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent. A Section 1983 suit against a municipal officer in his official capacity is treated as an action against the municipality itself. As a result, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Silberman and Walsh are redundant because they are duplicative of the claims asserted against Rockland County. The Court thereby granted summary judgment as to all claims asserted against Defendants Silberman and Walsh. Regarding standing, the Court found that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief because a review of the record does not indicate that Plaintiff will be barred from future participation in the Drug Court based on his lack of English proficiency. However, past injuries may provide a basis for standing to seek money damages. The Court concluded that, at least for purposes of establishing standing, Plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to confer standing to seek monetary damages. On mootness, the Court determined that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot. Plaintiff has no cognizable interest in declaratory or injunctive relief because he is currently participating in the Drug Court. However, the mootness of Plaintiff's declaratory and injunctive claims does not moot his claims for monetary damages. So long as the plaintiff has a cause of action for damages, a defendant's change in conduct will not moot the case. Concerning the putative class claims, the Court found that summary judgment is warranted with respect to the putative classes' claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court noted that the case has been pending for almost three years, and Plaintiff has not yet moved to certify the putative class. The Court denied Plaintiff's request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to postpone rendering a decision. A review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to pursue discovery. Fact discovery was extended and ultimately closed on October 4, 2025. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's putative class action and individual claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court similarly granted Defendants summary judgment and dismissed all claims asserted against the Rockland County District Attorney's Office, Donna G. Silberman, and Thomas E. Walsh II. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied in all other respects. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 17, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t5FF5k from PacerMonitor.com CROWN LIFT: Hilestuthill Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MICHAEL HILESTUTHILL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN LIFT TRUCKS, an Ohio corporation; CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2531759, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 12, 2025. The District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03366 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges 10 causes of action under California law, including alleged failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code, meal and rest period violations, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to comply with Labor Code (paid sick time), wage statement violations, failure to reimburse necessary expenditures, waiting time penalties under Labor Code, and a claim under the Unfair Competition Law. Crown Lift Trucks is a manufacturer of powered industrial forklift trucks based in Ohio.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Eric F. Della Santa, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 E-mail: michael.Nader@ogletree.com eric.dellasanta@ogletree.com DELTA AIR: Haley Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK HALEY AND RANDAL REEP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Court entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, the Plaintiffs may (1) amend the complaint for the limited purpose of adding Mr. Best as a named plaintiff and including a request for injunctive relief, and (2) file a renewed motion for class certification. In any renewed motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs may incorporate by reference and/or rely solely on their briefing in support of their original motion to certify a class. The two Plaintiffs named in the amended complaint do not have standing to pursue injunctive relief for pilots at Delta subject to an allegedly unlawful military leave policy. Both Plaintiffs Haley and Reep are former employees of Delta and therefore no longer subject to Delta’s policies. On March 29, 2022, then-Chief Judge Timothy Batten denied Delta’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. Following a period of discovery, on June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class certification. Plaintiffs propose certifying two classes: (1) All current and former pilots who work or worked for Delta Air Lines, Inc. in the United States or its territories or possessions who took short-term military leave (i.e., a military leave of 30 consecutive days or fewer) from their employment from Delta as a pilot from April 30, 2007, to the date of judgment in this action, as reflected by Delta's military leave data (the “Damages Class”); and (2) all pilots currently employed by Delta who are also currently members of the uniformed services (the "Injunction Class"). The Plaintiffs Patrick Haley and Randall Reep brought this putative class action against Delta for alleged violations of the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The Plaintiffs Haley and Reep are former Delta employees who served in the U.S. Armed Forces while employed at Delta. According to Plaintiffs, Delta has a policy of providing paid leave to employees for taking certain short-term absences but does not provide paid leave for short-term military absences. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z4KghJ at no extra charge.[CC] DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Haschemie Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nabil Haschemie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-23367 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07036-LKE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Diageo North America -- https://www.diageo.com/en -- is a global leader in beverage alcohol.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Scott Maland, Esq. Sandra Elena Mejia, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ 100 SE 2 St., Ste. 2900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (850) 916-7450 Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com smejia@rvmrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Shane Anthony Grannum, Esq. Gerald Edward Greenberg, Esq. AGELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 728-0950 Fax: (305) 728-0951 Email: sgrannum@gsgpa.com ggreenberg@gsgpa.com - and - Christopher R. Le Coney, Esq. Tasha N. Thompson, Esq. KAPLAN MARTIN LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 316-9500 Email: cleconey@kaplanmartin.com tthompson@kaplanmartin.com DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiff Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., et al., LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. 3. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. 4. The Government shall submit its proposal either to facilitate the return of Plaintiffs to the United States or to otherwise provide them with hearings that satisfy the requirements of due process by Jan. 5, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uXQKhq at no extra charge.[CC] DVA RENAL: Lee Class Action Suit Filed in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., captioned as SHANNELLE LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CU25-10886 (Cal. Super., Solano Cty., Nov. 25, 2025). DVA Renal Healthcare Inc. provides dialysis services. The Company offers outpatient kidney dialysis services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. De Sario 8822 W Olympic Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 EASTERN SHIPBUILDING: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DEFELICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EASTERN SHIPBUILDING GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00354-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, seeking to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Inc. operates as a marine vessels construction company. It specializes in commercial steel and aluminum vessel construction and repair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deron T. Roberson, Jr., Esq. Aaron C. Roberson, Esq. ROBERSON & ROBERSON P.A. 16057 Tampa Palms Blvd. W. #231 Tampa, FL 33647 Telephone: (813) 808-3688 Email: deron@robersonpa.com aaron@robersonpa.com info@robersonpa.com EDWARD JONES: Loses Bid to Junk "Winter" Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Bryan D. Winter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00299-SRC, Chief United States District Judge Stephen R. Clark of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations and compel arbitration. The Court found that Winter may pursue race discrimination claims on behalf of a class seeking damages but struck his claims based on sex or sexual orientation discrimination and denied his request to seek injunctive or declaratory relief. Bryan Winter alleged that Edward Jones's equity policy permeates all aspects of an Edward Jones financial advisor's employment and unlawfully discriminates against straight white male employees. The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on July 18, 2025, seeking to certify a class of all white men who do not identify as LGBTQ+, and who worked for Edward Jones as a financial advisor at any time since March 10, 2021. Winter sought to certify two subclasses: the "Goodknight Subclass," including all members who were eligible for a Goodknight at any time since March 10, 2021, and the Advancement Subclass, including all members eligible for promotion or advancement during that period. According to Winter, Edward Jones's equity policy manifested itself through the firm's Goodknight Incentive Compensation Structure, which "transfers wages, increases an employee's job performance ratings, and provides job growth opportunity. Under this structure, the firm transfers client assets from the book of one of its financial advisors to the book of another. A transferor advisor receives additional compensation if he transfers assets to certain kinds of advisors, specifically those who are "diverse," including women, those who "identify as part of a minority race or ethnicity," and those who "identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender," or other minority gender or sexual orientation. Winter further alleged that Edward Jones favors non-white candidates over whites when filling vacant offices, making the race of the applicant -- not merit -- [a] but-for and motivating factor" in the firm's decision. He also claimed the firm imposes discriminatory termination standards on its white financial advisors, noting that when non-white financial advisors repeatedly fail to bring their performance scores up within the same time period, they are rarely terminated. The Court addressed the applicable legal standards, noting that 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in all phases and incidents of a contractual relationship, which includes employment contracts. The Court explained that race need only be one but-for cause of an employer's adverse decision to trigger section 1981. However, the Court found that Section 1981 is limited to claims of race discrimination and does not encompass claims for sex discrimination. The Court stated that discrimination claims based on sex or sexual orientation properly belong in a suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, the Court ruled that Winter may only pursue claims based on race discrimination (rather than sex- or sexual-orientation discrimination). The Court struck Winter's class allegations insofar as they discuss discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation and ordered a modified class definition as white financial advisors who worked for Edward Jones at any time since March 10, 2021. Regarding the adequacy requirement under Rule 23(a)(4), the Court found that Winter must have standing for each form of relief that he seeks. Because Winter is a former employee, the Court determined that an injunction or a declaratory judgment will not redress his alleged injury, as he cannot establish that Edward Jones's policy will harm him again in the future." Therefore, the Court held that Winter does not have standing to seek equitable relief on his own behalf and may not seek these remedies on behalf of his proposed classes. However, the Court found that Winter does have standing to seek damages against Edward Jones, because damages would redress his alleged past harm. The Court addressed certification under Rule 23(b), finding that Winter may not certify his proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) because he seeks only monetary relief and the claims involve individualized damages. However, the Court found that Winter adequately alleges predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), noting that Winter asserts a question common among all class members -- i.e., whether Edward Jones's equity policy discriminates against class members in violation of section 1981. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Edward Jones's motion to strike class allegations. Specifically, the Court ordered the class allegations struck insofar as Winter "(1) brings claims of discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation; (2) seeks injunctive or declaratory relief on behalf of himself and the members of the class; and (3) seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2)." The Court granted Winter leave to file, no later than January 2, 2026, an amended complaint conforming to the Court's rulings. The Court denied Edward Jones's motion to strike class allegations on all other grounds. Finally, the Court denied, without prejudice, Edward Jones's motion to compel arbitration. The Court explained that because the Court declines to completely strike the class allegations, Winter's suit proceeds as a putative class action, for which FINRA's rules do not allow arbitration. The Court noted that should the Court ultimately decline to certify Winter's proposed classes, Edward Jones may again move to compel arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iuCG9t from PacerMonitor.com EFX INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Browning Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SKYLER BROWNING, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. EFX INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-6095 (S.D. Tex., December 17, 2025) is a collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The complaint relates that EFX employed Browning as one of its Straight Time Employees. EFX pays Browning and the other Straight Time Employees by the hour. Browning and the other Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But EFX does not pay Browning and its other Straight Time Employees overtime. EFX applies its straight time for overtime pay scheme to Browning and its other Straight Time Employees regardless of individualized differences. The complaint alleges that EFX violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by depriving Browning and the other Straight Time Employees of the "time and a half" overtime premium they are owed for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Skyler Browning worked for EFX as a quality control manager from May 2025 through November 2025. EFX Industrial, LLC is a construction company headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ELECTRO-TECH MACHINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS ROJAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRO-TECH MACHINING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV34388 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Electro-Tech Machining, Inc. offers electrical discharge machining materials and carbon based products in block form and as precision machined parts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Jose Patino, Esq. Brian Louis, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com jose.patino@wilshirelawfirm.com brian.louis@wilshirelawfirm.com ELV ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BROWN, et al., v. ELV ENERGY SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01042-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jolson entered a scheduling order: Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by January 30, 2026. The parties agree that the motion for class certification shall be filed by November 15, 2026. Plaintiffs will make a settlement demand by June 15, 2026. Defendants shall respond by July 15, 2026. The Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law due to Defendants' alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed collective class of other allegedly misclassified independent contractors of Defendants. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MbY2WN at no extra charge.[CC] ERIN ALONSO: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ERIN ALONSO. The case is styled as Briana Hernandez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIN ALONSO, Case No. 25STCV37258 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ERIN ALONSO is a professional nursing corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com EXXON MOBIL: Court Sets Service, Briefing Schedule in "Kennedy" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Richard Kennedy and Margaret Hazard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; Shell plc; Shell USA, Inc.; Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US; Shell Trading (US) Company; Chevron Corporation; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; BP Products of North America; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; and American Petroleum Institute, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02378, Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington approved a stipulation regarding service and briefing schedule. On November 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint commencing the action. The Defendants intend to file dispositive motions in lieu of answering the complaint, including motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and motion(s) to strike and/or motion(s) under anti-SLAPP laws. The Court ordered that if service procedures are completed by January 10, 2026, then service on all Defendants shall be deemed effective as of that date. The Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be due 60 days after January 10, 2026. The Plaintiffs' oppositions shall be due 60 days after the Defendants' motions are filed, and the Defendants' replies shall be due 45 days after the Plaintiffs' oppositions are filed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=idAubW from PacerMonitor.com For Plaintiffs: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Throndset Michenfelder, LLC Gustafson Gluek PLLC George Feldman McDonald PLLC For Defendants: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (for Chevron) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (for Chevron) Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP (for Exxon Mobil) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (for Exxon Mobil) K&L Gates LLP (for Shell entities) Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (for Shell entities) Stoel Rives LLP (for BP entities) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (for BP entities) Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP (for API) McGuireWoods LLP (for API) Corr Cronin LLP (for ConocoPhillips) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (for ConocoPhillips) F5 INC: Smith Sues Over to Recover Securities Laws Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F5, INC., FRANCOIS LOCOH-DONOU, EDWARD COOPER WERNER, KUNAL ANAND, and THOMAS DEAN FOUNTAIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-02619 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired F5 securities between October 28, 2024, and October 27, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning F5's cybersecurity capabilities and effectiveness. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's security coverage; Defendants routinely emphasized the importance of effective security measures to its clientele. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's ability to uniquely address newly developing security concerns, provide best-in class security offerings, and overall protect its clients' data while capitalizing on the market potential for enhanced security offerings. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of F5's security capabilities; notably, that it was not truly equipped to safely secure data for its clients as F5 itself was, for all relevant times, experiencing a significant security breach (the "Security Breach") of some of its key offerings and, further, that the revelation of this breach would significantly impact F5's potential to capitalize on the security market. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase F5's securities at artificially inflated prices. The full truth finally emerged on October 27, 2025 when F5 announced their fourth quarter fiscal year 2025 results after the market closed, providing significantly below-market growth expectations for fiscal 2026 due in significant part to the Security Breach as the Company announced expected reductions to sales and renewals, elongated sales cycles, terminated projections, and increased expenses attributed to ongoing remediation efforts. Pertinently, Defendants also disclosed that BIG-IP, the product that was the subject of the Security Breach, is the company's highest revenue product, elevating the scope of the impact from the original disclosure as F5 does not otherwise provide revenue contributions by product line. Investors and analysts again reacted promptly to F5's revelations. The price of F5's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $290.41 per share on October 27, 2025, F5's stock price fell to $258.76 per share on October 28, 2025, a decline of an additional 10.9% in the span of two days, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased F5 common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. F5 is a global multicloud application security and delivery company which enables customers to deploy, secure, and operate applications on-premises or via public cloud.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. TOWNSEND LEGAL, PLLC 380 Winslow Way, Suite 200 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Phone: 206-761-2480 Email: Roger@townsendlegal.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com FIDELITY LIFE: Bourne Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kyle Bourne, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. FIDELITY LIFE ASSOCIATION, an Illinois entity, Case No. 2025CUMT053636 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12145. The Complaint asserts a claim for violations of California's Anti-Spam Law (Business & Professions Code). The Complaint alleges that Fidelity "is a life insurance association that promotes its services through unlawful spamming."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James G. Snell, Esq. Timothy M. Carter, Esq. Mary Grace Thurmon, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 Phone: 650.850.4300 Facsimile: 650.850.4350 Email: JSnell@perkinscoie.com TCarter@perkinscoie.com GALAXY GAS LLC: Iannotti Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacob Iannotti, Matthew R. Berry, Mitchell Allen, Loren Mulville, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Galaxy Gas, LLC, SBK International, Inc., SBK International, LLC, John Does 1-20, Pluto Brands, LLC, Elite Retail, LLC, 11SixtySix, LLC, Bensalem Amor, Sammy Amor, Karim Amor, Case No. 1:25-cv-01037 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Dec. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-02447-AGM-NWH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Galaxy Gas was an American company that produced flavored whipped-cream chargers and dispensers containing nitrous oxide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin P. Smith, Esq. Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Jack M. Kelley, Esq. James M. Goff, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road. Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 - and - James Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770) 227-6375 - and - John Allen Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 275-5272 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com - and - Alan J. Hamilton, Esq. Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq. SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL, LLC-ATL 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 593-0020 Fax: (888) 501-9536 Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Prost, Esq. SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD 701 Market Street, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 231-3332 Email: mprost@sandbergphoenix.com - and - Christopher Timmons, Esq. Jordan Vera Davies, Esq. Karen Bain, Esq. Ramsey A. Knowles, Esq. KNOWLES GALLANT TIMMONS, LLC 6400 Powers Ferry Rd., Suite 350 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 590-3533 Fax: (404) 590-3687 GARDAWORLD SECURITY: Watters Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Zachary Watters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDAWORLD SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 25-2-04229-06 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Clark County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06153. The Complaint asserted putative class claims for allegedly failing to provide rest breaks and meal periods, failing to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failing to accrue and allow use of sick leave, making unlawful deductions and rebates from employees' wages, and other wage and hour violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Harry J.F. Korrell III, Esq. Devin Smith, WSBA #42219 David Rund, WSBA #60862 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Email: harrykorrell@dwt.com devinsmith@dwt.com davidrund@dwt.com - and - Seth Tangman, Esq. 560 SW Tenth Avenue, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 241-2300 Fax: (503) 778-5299 Email: moetangman@dwt.com GEICO GENERAL: Seeks to Seal Confidential Information ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court for an order: -- granting GEICO's Motion to Seal Confidential Information in Briefing on Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification and Parties' Motions to Limit or Exclude Witnesses in Connection with Class Certification Briefing, and -- allowing portions of the briefing and exhibits submitted in support of the briefing on the following motions to be filed under seal and redacted from the public docket. The Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment of Class Counsel. The Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's Motion to Exclude the Declaration and Opinions of Bradley M. Braun, Ph.D. The Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Exclude Portions of Dr. Jonathan T. Tomlin's Testimony and Expert Report. The Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude or Limit the Opinions of Defendant’s Proposed Expert Steven R. Wybo. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jyg6zi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. Cameron C. Stanley, Esq. Claire E. F. Grimes, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 Facsimile (844) 670-6009 - and - Kristen E. Hudson, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 607 West 3rd Street, Suite 2500 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 770-4200 Facsimile (844) 670-6009 - and - Jennifer M. Schauerman, Esq. 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 987-2800 Facsimile: (585) 445-2393 GIFTROCKET INC: Court Summary Judgment Bid in Gift Card Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Gracie Baked LLC, WeCare RG, Inc., and Millercobb LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GiftRocket, Inc., Tremendous, Inc., Nicholaus Baum, Kapil Kale, Jonathan Pines, Benjamin Kubic, Sunrise Banks, N.A., GiftRocket, LLC, Tremendous LLC, and Tremendous Parent, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-04019 (GRB) (VMS), Judge Gary R. Brown of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied both Defendant Benjamin Kubic's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on all claims, and denied both parties' requests for attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a scheme to sell consumers money transfers packaged as gift cards bearing the imprimatur of certain businesses when, in fact, the cards were simply money transfers unaffiliated with those businesses. About fifteen years ago, Defendants Nicholas Baum, Kapil Kale, and Jonathan Pines founded GiftRocket. The company's website, GiftRocket.com, allowed purchasers to send money to a recipient and 'suggest' that the recipient use the money at a particular business. These suggestions are not binding and the money transfers do not function as gift cards. Plaintiffs allege that despite the nonbinding 'suggestions,' GiftRocket 'misleadingly markets itself as selling gift cards,' implying that the gift cards can be redeemed only at certain businesses, and that GiftRocket is affiliated with the suggested business. Plaintiffs maintain that GiftRocket's advertising strategy explicitly uses the term 'gift card,' and that this tactic amounts to a simple bait and switch...misdirect[ing] consumers who are searching for real gift cards to a particular business to the GiftRocket website. Ten years after the company's founding, Defendant Benjamin Kubic joined the business as the Vice President of Business Operations. Kubic spent most of his time working on a separate product called "Tremendous." However, Kubic was not firewalled from GiftRocket's operations. He had some involvement in operating the support team for GiftRocket.com, worked with a banking partner for the business, and found an alternate provider for business data crucial to GiftRocket's product. The Court noted several facts demonstrating Kubic's knowledge and role in the alleged scheme. On February 7, 2022, Kubic asked an employee "Do we have any sort of page on GR letting business owners know where they can ask to have their businesses removed?" That employee responded we do not...I think this is essentially that's how [GiftRocket] makes money. In 2023, when Yelp withdrew its support based on complaints, Kubic unsuccessfully negotiated with Yelp to provide continued support and, when that effort failed, identified and secured the support of Google Places to provide continued access to data about businesses, allowing the GiftRocket gift card activity to continue." While facilitating this transition, Kubic wrote: "As far as I can tell, Google Places...doesn't explicitly prohibit the [GiftRocket] use case, but there are some general terms around misuse of IP that I'm sure they could rely on to shut us down if they wanted to. When Sunrise Bank refused to renew its contract, Kubic unsuccessfully tried to convince Sunrise Bank to remain, led the search for a new banking partner, located SouthState Bank, and retained responsibility for maintaining that relationship. The Court examined whether Kubic could be held individually liable under the Lanham Act. The Court noted that a corporate officer is individually liable for the torts he personally commits and cannot shield himself behind a corporation when he is an actual participant in the tort. Several courts have limited such liability to situations where the officer is a moving, active, conscious force behind the defendant corporation's infringement. The Court found that a jury could find that, given his role in resourcing the business data feed involving unconsenting businesses while recognizing that terms related to 'misuse of IP' that could 'shut us down,' that Kubic was a 'direct participant in the infringing activity.' The Court emphasized that by procuring access to the Google Places database, Kubic provided GiftRocket with the ability to commit new infringing acts against additional, previously unaffected trademark holders. The Court denied Defendant Kubic's motion for summary judgment, stating that a rational trier of fact may well render an affirmative verdict on the question of whether Kubic was a 'moving, active, conscious force' behind the infringement. The Court also denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, noting that a jury may, or may not, draw the same inferences and conclusions urged by plaintiffs from the factual record here. Regarding the New York General Business Law claims under Sections 349 and 350, the Court applied the same analysis, stating that whether Kubic personally participated presents questions that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. The Court similarly denied summary judgment on the common law unfair competition claim, noting that the elements mirror the Lanham Act claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=44GVWG from PacerMonitor.com GOLI NUTRITION: "Ring" Remanded to NY State Court ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michael Ring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goli Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-6247 (NRM) (JRC), Judge Nina R. Morrison of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and denied Defendant's request for a pre-motion conference as moot. Judge Morrison remanded this putative class action lawsuit to New York Supreme Court, Kings County, finding that Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as required under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Plaintiff initiated this putative class action lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Kings County on July 15, 2025. On behalf of himself and the putative class, he alleged that Defendant mislabeled one of its products, thereby misleading consumers to believe that each bottle contained more of the product than it did. Defendant subsequently sought to remove the case to federal court on November 10, 2025. On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court. That same day, the Court sua sponte issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), specifically as to whether Plaintiff's claims met the amount-in-controversy requirement for putative class actions removed to federal court. The parties agreed that there is minimal diversity between them. Plaintiff is a citizen of New York and Defendant is a foreign corporation incorporated and with a principal place of business in Quebec, Canada. The parties disputed, however, whether the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, codified at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), had been met. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff had not rebutted Defendant's evidence that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Plaintiff disputed that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000. The Court noted that Defendant asserted a court should only dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA if it determines to a legal certainty that the aggregate amount in controversy is less than $5 million. However, the Court found the cases Defendant cited for this proposition were distinguishable. Neither case concerned removal of a putative class action from state to federal court under CAFA. The Court explained that under CAFA, as under the traditional rule, the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving it. To satisfy its burden, Defendant must prove to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Court found that Defendant did not meet its burden. The declaration of Defendant's President that more than $5 million of the Product was sold in the State of New York during the relevant period missed the mark. Plaintiff alleged in the state court complaint that he and consumers paid more than they would have paid for the Product because of Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions. Plaintiff alleged that this means individual damages will be based on the value attributed to the challenged claims, practices, and/or omissions, a percentage of the total price paid, instead of the Product's total value. Plaintiff further alleged that this difference is typically between five cents and sixty cents per unit, a small fraction or percentage of the total price. Additionally, Plaintiff sought only actual damages. The Court found that because Defendant had adduced only a total amount of sales, rather than the number of units sold during the relevant time period, the Court was unable to ascertain whether the actual or reasonably probable amount in controversy actually amounts to $5 million or more. Federal jurisdiction cannot be based on surmise or guesswork. Moreover, Plaintiff affirmatively disputed Defendant's assertion of damages, representing to the Court that the amount in controversy (1) does not exceed $75,000 as between named Plaintiff and Defendant and (2) does not exceed $5 million for the entire class. The Court noted that where the damages sought are uncertain, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff's pleadings. Accordingly, the Court could not, based upon the state court complaint and the parties' submissions, reasonably assure itself that the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) had been satisfied. The Court noted that if Defendant does subsequently receive actual notice that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, it may still avail itself (for up to one year after the commencement of the action) of the removal provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446. Defendant plainly failed to meet its burden of establishing grounds for removal of the action. Therefore, the case was remanded to New York Supreme Court, Kings County, under case number 523551/2025. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 11, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkcyRx from PacerMonitor.com GRATEFUL HEARTS: Settles "Seals" FLSA Collective Case for $40K -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Derek Seals, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Grateful Hearts, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-5891 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Henry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of the Settlement of Their FLSA Claim and approved the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff brought the lawsuit against Defendant on November 1, 2024, alleging violations of the FLSA and PMWA for failure to pay Plaintiff and other collective members overtime premium pay. Plaintiff asserted the FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the PMWA claim as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On April 1, 2025, the parties stipulated to conditionally certify the FLSA collective, and Plaintiff agreed that he would not pursue his PMWA as a class action claim, but instead as part of the collective action. Upon Court approval of the stipulation, Plaintiff's counsel mailed notice and consent forms to join the collective to over 30 individuals. Four individuals - Trenis Jones, Shikia Brown, Darrien Polk, and Doretha Mason - opted into the collective. Following discovery, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for $40,000. According to the settlement: (1) Jones will recover $7,875; (2) Mason will recover $8,070; (3) Polk will recover $1,771; (4) Seals will recover $5,742; and (5) Brown will recover $1,000. Plaintiff's counsel, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC will receive $14,542 in attorney's fees and expenses, and Seals will receive a $1,000 service award. The Court found that the settlement concerns a bona fide dispute between the parties. Payment for overtime wages falls squarely within the contours of the FLSA. Further, Defendant's answer denies liability, which indicates that it intended to defend against Plaintiffs' claims for overtime. The Court held that the settlement concerns a bona fide dispute between the parties. The Court considered whether the settlement is fair and reasonable for the employees by analyzing the factors set forth in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). As an initial matter, the Court noted that the parties are settling for 100% of their alleged damages. Discovery confirmed that the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime for the following totals: (1) Jones - $3,937.50; (2) Mason - $4,035.90; (3) Polk - $885.50; and (4) Seals - $2,871.00. The recovery amounts as set forth in the Agreement are double the unpaid wages for Jones, Mason, Polk, and Seals, which is the maximum amount that those Plaintiffs could seek at trial. As for Plaintiff Brown, the payroll data is disputed. Nevertheless, the parties agreed to pay Brown $1,000. The Court found that absent settlement, the next steps in the case would likely be a motion to decertify the collective by Defendant, dispositive motions, and perhaps trial. Such expenditures of time are wasteful where, as here, Plaintiffs are settling for 100% of their alleged damages. All five Plaintiffs agree with the settlement terms. The parties engaged in discovery and completed a detailed damages analysis, so counsel had an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating. The Court held that, in considering the Girsh factors, the Agreement is fair and reasonable for the employees. The Court considered whether the Agreement furthers the FLSA's implementation. A release provision in an FLSA settlement agreement is only acceptable if it unambiguously covers only wage-and-hour related claims and cannot be read as a waiver of the plaintiff's right to sue on other grounds related to their employment. The release provision in the present Agreement is sufficiently narrowly tailored such that Plaintiffs are only releasing wage and hour claims that accrued prior to the entry of this Order. Although there is a strong presumption against confidentiality clauses in FLSA wage-settlement agreements, district courts within the Third Circuit have occasionally approved narrowly crafted confidentiality clauses. The confidentiality provision here is narrowly tailored in that it merely prevents Plaintiffs and their counsel from making statements to the news media. Therefore, the Court held that the Agreement does not impermissibly frustrate the implementation of the FLSA in the workplace. The Court found that both methods of calculating attorney's fees indicate that the proposed attorney's fee award is reasonable. Five individuals will benefit from the settlement fund, and none of them have objected to any portion of the Agreement. Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they are consistently appointed to serve as class counsel in wage rights cases before this Court. Plaintiff's counsel worked 44.1 hours on this litigation, an amount which the Court found to be reasonable and which warranted an award of attorney's fees. The proposed attorney's fees award, minus expenses, constitutes 34.86% of the $40,000 settlement amount, which is within the typical range. The Court approved the award of attorney's fees and associated expenses. The Agreement contemplates a $1,000 service award for Plaintiff Seals. By lending his name to the litigation, Plaintiff has incurred the risk of adverse action against his current and future employers. Further, the proposed service award constitutes a mere 2.5% of the total settlement award, which is within the general range of service awards approved by Courts in this district. The Court found the service award of $1,000 appropriate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xzw57J from PacerMonitor.com HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Wins Bid to Reconsider Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order as follows: 1. Rutherford's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice. 2. HCSC's Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff Johnny Rutherford's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied as moot. 3. HCSC's Motion for Reconsideration of Class Certification is granted. 4. The Court's previous ruling in Doc. 96, establishing a Rule 23(b)(1) class will be vacated. 5. The Court's previous ruling in Doc. 96, establishing a Rule 23(b)(2) class remains vacated. 6. HCSC's Motion for Reconsideration is denied as moot. 7. Rutherford may file a supplemental motion for class certification addressing either, or both, a Rule 23(b)(1) class or a Rule 23(b)(3) class. 8. The Court reserves the right to amend or modify its class certification determination. The Court determines that summary judgment proves improper given the dispute underlying the factual record. The Court denies summary judgment to Rutherford on his individual claim and on behalf of the class. The Court determines that it committed an error in certifying a Rule 23(b)(1) class. The Court vacates the Rule 23(b)(1) class. The Court concludes that it proves proper for the Rule 23(b)(2) class to remain vacated. The Court declines to re-certify the Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Court continues to allow Rutherford to file a supplemental motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Court also will permit Rutherford to file supplemental briefing on certification of a Rule 23(b)(1) class. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Montana state court alleging a series of claims against Health Care Service Corporation doing business in Montana as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana and the Montana University System. The 23(b)(1) class included all "policyholders and plan members covered under non-ERISA health plans in Montana that are administered by HCSC." The Court defined a subclass of policyholders "whose claims were denied by HCSC as a third-party administrator." MUS provides health insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qQgrH3 at no extra charge.[CC] HERC RENTALS: Aburto Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JUAN ABURTO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERC RENTALS EMPLOYEE SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25-CIV-08217, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 12, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10628 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not paid timely, wages not timely paid during employment, non-complaint wage statements, failure to keep requires payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair competition. Herc Rentals Employee Services LLC provides rentals of heavy equipment, tools, power generators and pumps, as well as sales of used equipment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com HOTEL GENPAR: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOTEL GENPAR, LTD.; and AVANTE, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-25873-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property and hotel business at 2505 NW 87th Ave., Doral, FL 33172, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Hotel Genpar, Ltd. owns and operates hotels and motels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-Mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS: Appling Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurance Auto Auctions Corp. The case is styled as Jonathan Appling, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Insurance Auto Auctions Corp., Case No. 627516/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other - Torts. Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. (IAA) -- https://www.iaai.com/ -- provides automotive salvage and auction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW PC 1 Old Country Rd., Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Phone: 516-873-9550 Fax: 516-747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com IPREH LLC: Class Settlement in Burton Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA BURTON, v. IPREH, LLC D/B/A INNOVATIVE PRODUCTION USA, Case No. 4:23-cv-04132-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara Darrow entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Samantha Burton's Revised Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Court grants conditional certification of the class and collective, preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, and appointment of Robert Kondras and Taryn Dissett as class counsel. The Court denies approval of the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing and consequently denies the request to schedule a Rule 23 fairness hearing. The parties are directed to submit a proposed notice that includes all statements required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B), at which point they can renew these requests. The Settlement Agreement defines the class to include: Those individuals who, at any time during the period between September 22, 2022, and September 17, 2023, were employed by IPREH at its facility located in Galesburg, Illinois, involved in the manufacturing, packaging, or handling of food or food products, and required to don and doff sanitary clothing and other protective equipment at any time. The settlement provides that IPREH would pay out a maximum of $75,000. About $25,457 of this would be for attorney fees and costs. Another $5,000 would be paid to the settlement administrator. In recognition of her work on behalf of the class, $5,000 would be set aside for Burton. The remaining $39,543 would be distributed to class members in exchange for releasing their claims against IPREH. In 2023, Burton filed a Complaint, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay her and similarly situated individuals for compensable time in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. IPREH manufactures, packages, and distributes food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vi6YP6 at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Kesselheim Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services Inc., and CareFirst Bluechoice Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:23cv629, United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Aaron Kesselheim. The Plaintiff proffered Dr. Aaron Kesselheim as a pharmaeconomics expert. Dr. Kesselheim is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, a Visiting Professor of Law at Yale Law School, and has practiced internal medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital for over 20 years. He holds an M.D. and J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania as well as an M.P.H. from Harvard. Dr. Kesselheim assisted in founding the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School and has published over seven hundred scholarly articles. Dr. Kesselheim's expert report provided background information and two opinions related to the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs. The Defendant's Motion sought to exclude both opinions on reliability and relevancy grounds as well as background information Dr. Kesselheim provided regarding certain life cycle management strategies employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Regarding Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion, the expert discussed the historical impacts of biosimilar competition on the market for biologic drugs since the passage of the Biologies Price Competition and Innovation Act. Specifically, Dr. Kesselheim opined that, in the fifteen years since BPCIA's passage, biosimilar competition has an impact on pricing. Dr. Kesselheim based his first opinion largely on two studies he co-authored in 2021 and 2024, which examined two non-Stelara biologies and studied how market structures altered by the BPCIA affected prices for biologies subject to biosimilar competition. The Defendant argued that Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion regarding biosimilar competition generally should be excluded because it merely repeated findings from his two studies on other biologic drugs and made no effort to reliably extrapolate those findings to Stelara. The Defendant further argued that Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion would leave the jury to speculate as to whether his two prior studies were applicable comparators, thereby requiring its exclusion as irrelevant and unreliable under Rule 702 and more confusing than probative under Rule 403. The Court found that the Defendant's arguments to exclude Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility. Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion is grounded in fifteen years of research and peer-reviewed studies examining how biological drug markets respond to biosimilar competition, and Dr. Kesselheim clearly applied those industry patterns to a hypothetical but-for scenario. The Court noted that any alleged gaps in Dr. Kesselheim's analysis went to weight and could be addressed on cross-examination. The Court determined that Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion was helpful for the jury because it bore directly on what would have happened to Stelara prices absent the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Dr. Kesselheim's first opinion situated Stelara within the broader context of a competitive biologies market, including comparator biologies such as Humira and the Defendant's own Remicade. Thus, Dr. Kesselheim provided the jury with a framework for understanding how a competitive biologies market typically functions. Regarding Dr. Kesselheim's second opinion, the expert discussed the likely effects of biosimilar competition on the ustekinumab market if one or more biosimilars launched in or around September 25, 2023. Dr. Kesselheim opined that if one or more biosimilars launched at that time, there would have been a meaningful lowering of spending related to this drug by all different categories of payors in the U.S. The Defendant sought to exclude Dr. Kesselheim's second opinion on the grounds that it was unreliable and unhelpful speculation. The Defendant argued that Dr. Kesselheim utilized no specific methodology or analysis to draw his conclusions. According to the Defendant, Dr. Kesselheim's conclusions rested on analogies to other drugs such as Humira, ignored available evidence from actual biosimilar entry, and amounted to impermissible ipse dixit. The Court found that the Defendant's objections to his second opinion went to weight rather than admissibility. Dr. Kesselheim's conclusion that earlier biosimilar entry would have led to a meaningful reduction in Stelara's net price was grounded in reliable, peer-reviewed research as well as consistent historical experience across biologic drug markets. The Court determined that Dr. Kesselheim's conclusions were not merely speculation. Rather, in his report, Dr. Kesselheim synthesized data from multiple biosimilar launches and explained why Stelara shared salient market characteristics with comparator drugs such as Humira. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that Dr. Kesselheim's opinion was faulty because he did not specifically examine the data following the entry of a biosimilar drug to ustekinumab in January 2025. Given the timing of the events in this litigation, such data simply was not available when Dr. Kesselheim prepared his report in March 2025. The Court noted that to the extent the subsequent data differed from Dr. Kesselheim's analysis, that subject could be addressed on cross-examination. Regarding Dr. Kesselheim's discussion of life cycle management strategies, apart from the two opinions in his expert report, Dr. Kesselheim opined on how life cycle management strategies in the pharmaceutical industry were an important factor affecting biosimilar availability. Dr. Kesselheim opined that life cycle management strategies was a broad term describing drug manufacturers' strategic efforts to extend their drugs' market exclusivities, prolong commercial viability, or strengthen their competitive positions in a market. The Court found that Dr. Kesselheim's observations on pharmaceutical life cycle management were admissible as reliable and relevant testimony. Dr. Kesselheim's opinions on this issue were grounded in specific academic research examining how branded drug manufacturers use secondary patents and related strategies to extend market exclusivity and delay biosimilar competition. This type of experiential expert testimony did not need to rest on quantitative analysis specific to Stelara to be reliable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2BFIVP from PacerMonitor.com K & B INTERESTS: Segovia Sues Over Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------- Salvador Segovia, Jr., and on behalf of others similarly situated v. K & B INTERESTS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-06136 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Sky Coffee, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning to the Property as a customer until after the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. K & B INTERESTS, INC. is a Texas company that transacts business in the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com KINDRED HOSPITALS: Sampson Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Susan Sampson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KINDRED HOSPITALS WEST, L.L.C., and SCCI HOSPITALS OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2025CV34222 was removed from the District Court for the County of Denver, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04157. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recovery based on claims for willful violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and/or the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order. She also alleges a claim for Civil Theft and seeks recovery of treble damages on that claim. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not provide to her and each member of the putative class proper rest breaks due to "Defendants' systematic understaffing and patient acuity" and did not make duty free, uninterrupted rest breaks possible.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kimberly J. Willis, Esq. Lillian G. Holbrook, Esq. HOLLAND & HART, LLP 555 17th Street, Ste 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 295-8000 Email: KJWillis@hollandhart.com LGHolbrook@hollandhart.com KLOECKNER METALS: Jenkins Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bobby Jenkins, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV33030 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12049. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in violation of Cal. Labor Code and violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Monee Takla Hanna, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 Phone: 424.221.7400 Facsimile: 424.221.7499 Email: monee.hanna@nelsonmullins.com LAS VEGAS, NV: Coyne Employment Suit Removed to D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL COYNE, KALUNA AKI, ROBERTO ANGULO, ROBERT GLOWINSKI, PADILLA MILLS, SCOTT NICHOLAS, SANDER NYGAARD, JOHNNY RODRIGUEZ, MATTHEW LONG, BRANDON LIPSCHITZ, DAVID GOLDYN, STEPHANIE HUNTER, KEVIN DAROSA, HARRISON PORTER, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated; Plaintiffs v . LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a law enforcement agency; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a municipality, Defendants, Case No. A-25-932405-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on December 12, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02476 to the proceeding. This dispute arises from Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants have failed to pay them overtime and non-pensionable compensation as required under state and federal law. The Plaintiffs allege various claims against Defendants including breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; conversion; failure to pay for all hours worked under Nevada statute; failure to timely pay all wages upon termination under Nevada statute; miscellaneous Nevada statutory violations; and failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is a combined city and county law enforcement agency of the state of Nevada.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Fugazzi, Esq. Paul S. Prior, Esq. Theresa C. Trenholm, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 1700 South Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 784-5200 Facsimile: (702)784-5252 E-mail: afugazzi@swlaw.com sprior@swlaw.com ttrenholm@swlaw.com LATHROP LOGISTICS: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lathrop Logistics LLC. The case is styled as Niceforo Flores, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Lathrop Logistics LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0019218 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lathrop Logistics LLC is a company that appears to be involved in logistics and transportation services, with a focus on the US market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: edwin@calljustice.com LIBERTY RESOURCES: LaPlant Class Suit Filed in N.Y. Sup. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Resources, Inc. The case is captioned as JOSH LAPLANT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. LIBERTY RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 13008/2025 (N.Y. Sup., Onondaga County, Nov. 25, 2025). Liberty Resources, Inc. is a non-profit behavioral health and social services agency that provides center-based and home and community-based services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. 394 Franklin St., Suite 2 Buffalo, NY 14202-1509 MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS: Malloy Files Suit in E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tyler Malloy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., Security Credit Union, Case No. 4:25-cv-01420 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Marquis -- https://gomarquis.com/ -- is a leader in digital marketing and compliance solutions, CRM software and website design for banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: In Kyung Shin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: janes@ruyakcherian.com MARSHALL RETAIL: Moncrease Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sharde Moncrease, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THE MARSHALL RETAIL GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a Delaware Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-631033 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10940-LB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts class and individual claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; wage statement violations; failure to maintain payroll records; failure to pay timely wages; waiting time penalties; failure to properly pay wages; unlawful collection of wages; failure to provide suitable seating; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; violation of business and professions code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Caroline Donelan, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.239.3400 Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Email: caroline.donelan@blankrome.com MARTIN & BAYLEY: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- RAVEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN & BAYLEY, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02174 (S.D. Ill., December 11, 2025) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant had a policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all putative collective members the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately June 2025 through November 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Martin & Bayley, Inc. owns and operates a chain of supermarkets headquartered in Carmi, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com MELINDA EDDY: Burnside Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burnside, et al., v. Melinda Eddy, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03319-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff seeks an order granting motion to certify class. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8sINSG at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSOFT CORP: Granted More Time for Expert Reports ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jane Doe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Microsoft Corporation, Qualtrics International Inc., and Qualtrics LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00718-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the parties' stipulated motion to amend the case schedule. The parties jointly moved to continue the dates set forth in the Court's Amended Scheduling Order entered on April 25, 2025. The parties stated that the discovery in this matter, which they have diligently pursued thus far, is highly technical and has required additional time to investigate the allegations and to confer and carry out the agreed upon search, collection, and production of relevant information. Additionally, the parties have served, and anticipate additional necessary, third-party discovery. The parties believed good cause exists to extend the deadlines set forth in the Amended Scheduling Order. The Court granted the motion and ordered the following amended deadlines: deadline for joinder of additional parties and to amend pleadings extended to February 26, 2026; deadline for Plaintiff to serve expert reports relevant for class certification extended to March 4, 2026; deadline for Defendants to serve expert reports relevant to class certification set as April 15, 2026; deadline for Plaintiff to serve any rebuttal expert reports relevant for class certification set as May 22, 2026; deadline to file or serve Plaintiff's motion for class certification extended to June 5, 2026; deadline for Defendants' response to be filed or served to Plaintiff's motion for class certification extended to July 10, 2026; and deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification extended to July 31, 2026. The Court will set the remaining dates, including a discovery cutoff, after its ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff is represented by Alexander A. Baehr and Molly J. Gibbons of Summit Law Group, PLLC; Ekwan E. Rhow and Marc E. Masters of Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim LLP; and Jonathan M. Rotter, Holly K. Nye, and Takeo A. Kellar of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Defendants Qualtrics International Inc. and Qualtrics LLC are represented by Gregory L. Watts, Tyre L. Tindall, Victor Jih, Samantha Alexandria-Booth Machock, and Caitlin McKelvie of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. Defendant Microsoft Corporation is represented by Fred Burnside and Xiang Li of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Ezra D. Church and Phillip J. Wiese of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sW0ND1 from PacerMonitor.com MITO SMITH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coyle Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- KATRINA COYLE, JACKELYNE GARCIA CRUZ, and STEVEN FINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITO SMITH HAVEN INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06859 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers. Mito Smith Haven Inc. owns and operates a restaurant known as "Mito Modern Japanese Cuisine Lounge" located at Lake Grove, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2458 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com MONSANTO CO: Day Sues Over Illness Linked to Glyphosate Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN DAY Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-314 MON (Super. Ct., Del., December 15, 2025) 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. According to the complaint, Defendants Monsanto Company and Bayer CropScience LP advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products, including Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, etc., or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered 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. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. 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, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Stephen Day is a resident and citizen of Virginia. Defendant Monsanto Company was in the business of, and did, design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, distribute, and/or has acquired and is responsible for the commercial herbicide Roundup. Defendant Bayer CropScience LP, a crop science company, authorized and directed and/or participated in the promotion and sales of the Roundup products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO CO: Roundup Products Pose Health Risks, Clemons Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMMY CLEMONS, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-307 MON (Super. Ct., Del., December 15, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Monsanto'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. According to the complaint, Defendants Monsanto Company and Bayer CropScience LP advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products, including Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, etc., or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered 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. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. 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, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Sammy Clemons is a resident and citizen of Texas. Defendant Monsanto Company was in the business of, and did, design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, distribute, and/or has acquired and is responsible for the commercial herbicide Roundup. Defendant Bayer CropScience LP, a crop science company, authorized and directed and/or participated in the promotion and sales of the Roundup products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Goodwin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-315 (Del. Super., Dec. 15, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the 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 sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the herbicide Roundup and 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. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Marinelli Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARINELLI, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, N25C-12-303 (Del., Sup., Dec. 15, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the 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 sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the herbicide Roundup and 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. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, McMaster Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND MCMASTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-299 (Del. Super., Dec. 15, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the 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 sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the herbicide Roundup and 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. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Morton Says ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-304 (Del. Sup., Dec. 15, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the 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 sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the herbicide Roundup and 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. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Quintanilla Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-298 (Del. Super., Dec. 15, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the 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 sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the herbicide Roundup and 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. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Douglass Jackson on behalf of the estate of Delene Jackson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-547 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 Robert Douglass Jackson is a natural person and is the Representative of Delene Jackson, 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: Johnson Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Johnson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-403 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: Keller Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lydja Keller, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-420 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: Lemen Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Jean Lemen on behalf of the estate of Dennis Lemen, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-557 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 Deborah Jean Lemen is a natural person and is the Representative of Dennis Lemen, 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: Livingston Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- David Livingston, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-434 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 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: Lopez Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Lopez, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-406 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.co - 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 MOOREGROUP CORP: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA PORTER, SHARKEY SIMMONS, and EMANUEL COLAJAY RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOOREGROUP CORPORATION, BALDWIN HARBOR CONTRACTING INC., JOHN MOORE, GARY MOORE, and MARTIN MOORE, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:17-cv-07405-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vera M. Scanlon, entered an order that the motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement is denied without prejudice. The parties are to file a renewed motion consisting of only a supplemental briefing that contains a revised settlement agreement that addresses the concerns identified herein and a supplemental letter brief that sets forth how the revised portions of the settlement agreement comply with the applicable legal standards; Plaintiffs need not resubmit briefing on any issues not identified by the Court in this Order. The Court notes that a revised settlement agreement may trigger a second CAFA notice. A status conference to discuss the issues identified in this Order is scheduled for Dec. 22, 2025. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of one third of the total settlement amount, namely $2,000,000.00, following the deduction of litigation costs, which are currently $82,219.69, such that Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $639.260.10, subject to adjustment for further litigation costs that may be incurred. The class definition covers "all fire guards, welders, carpenters, laborers and other construction employees who performed manual construction labor who worked for the Mooregroup Defendants at any time since December 20, 2011." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ISC5fc at no extra charge.[CC] MRS-7 CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TIBURCIO ACOSTA; and MARIA AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MRS-7 CONSTRUCTION, LLC; HARLIE MOON; JESSICA MOON; GARNER & ASSOCIATES ROOFING & FACILITY SERVICES, LLC; and RYAN GARNER, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02125-MHH (N.D. Ala., Dec. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. MRS-7 Construction, LLC commercial and residential roofing industry. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vicenta Bonet Smith, Esq. BONET & SMITH, PC 3499 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 870-2222 Facsimile: (205) 870-3331 Email: vicenta@bonetsmith.com MUTUAL HOUSING: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mutual Housing Management, et al. The case is styled as Maria Vazquez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mutual Housing Management, Mutual Housing California, Does 1 to 50, Case No. CU25-11921 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Mutual Housing -- https://www.mutualhousing.com/ -- offers a permanent solution to the housing needs of California's diverse families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Stephenson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jaron Stephenson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP., d/b/a LACROIX WATER, Case No. 1:25-cv-10566 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought against Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Its website, www.lacroixwater.com, is a primary digital gateway through which consumers--including blind consumers--learn about LaCroix flavors, nutritional content, product availability, store locations, and promotional offerings. Despite its size, reach, and consumer facing business model, Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, including Plaintiff. The Defendant's failure to ensure digital accessibility is part of a broader pattern of neglect. Despite being a major national beverage company with substantial resources, Defendant has not adopted or implemented accessibility policies, has not conformed its website to WCAG 2.1 AA standards, and has not provided blind consumers with equal access to its online content. The Plaintiff brings this civil action to compel Defendant to bring its website into compliance with the ADA and to ensure that blind and visually impaired consumers receive equal access to the goods, services, and information that Defendant offers to the public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual living with Cone Rod Dystrophy. National Beverage Corp. is a manufacturer and distributor of LaCroix sparkling water and related beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ortega Sues Over Athletes' Eligibility Clock ----------------------------------------------------------------- REINERI ANDREU ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00496-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Dec. 15, 2025) seeks to challenge the arbitrary and capricious application of Bylaw 12.6 (the "Five-Year Eligibility Clock") of the Defendant's application of the Five-Year Eligibility Clock unjustifiably, in violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Five-Year Eligibility Clock restrains the ability of the Plaintiff and other college athletes to earn meaningful compensation that is now available to NCAA Division I athletes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics in the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.D. Hartung, Esq. HARTUNG & SCHROEDER 303 Locust Street, Ste. 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 282-7800 Facsimile: (515) 282-8700 - and - Michael A. Dee, Esq. Dakota J. Farquhar, Esq. BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS AND BASKERVILLE, P.L.C. 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-2510 Telephone: (515) 242-2451 Facsimile: (515) 283-0231 E-mail: Michael.Dee@brownwinick.com Dakota.Farquhar@brownwinick.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Reply Briefs Extended to Jan. 12, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04476-LJL-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order extending reply briefs for the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration to Jan. 12, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KYiPfp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Laura C. Williams, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, Ny 10007 Assistant Corporation Counsel Telephone: (212) 356-2435 E-mail: lawillia@law.nyc.gov NIAGARA BOTTLING: Tafolla-Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niagara Bottling, LLC. The case is styled as Ariyarayn Tafolla-Sandoval, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated v. Niagara Bottling, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0019066 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Niagara Bottling, LLC -- https://www.niagarawater.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of bottled water and soft drinks based in Diamond Bar, California.[BN] NIKE RETAIL SERVICES: Chappell Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ajani Chappell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No. 25-2-34493-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02685. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action against Nike: failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to pay overtime wages; payment of wages less than entitled; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel F. De La Cruz, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Phone: 619-338-6500 Facsimile: 619-234-3815 Email: ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com NORIMEN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Chavez Due Oct. 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFONSO CHAVEZ, v. NORIMEN INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08428-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than Jan. 21, 2026. Any Amended Complaint shall be submitted by January 5, 2026. The Defendants' time to answer the operative complaint runs beginning on January 5, 2026. Any motion for collective action shall be submitted by Feb. 2, 2026. Any motion for class certification is due Oct. 1, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aM9u9N at no extra charge.[CC] OGLETHORPE INC: Smith Class Action Suit Filed in M.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Oglethorpe Inc. captioned as MAGALI SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OGLETHORPE INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03251-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, and referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. Oglethorpe, Inc. provides management solutions for health centers, wellness clinics and hospitals that specialize in psychiatric services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 North Orange Avenue Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com OLIPOP INC: Somers Files Suit Over Misleading Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ JORDAN SOMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLIPOP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06933 (E.D.N.Y., December 17, 2025) is a class action seeking to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices of the Defendant, and to recover actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and any other just and proper relief available under the New York General Business Law ("GBL"). According to the complaint, the Defendant conspicuously represents on their Products' label that Olipop contains "Prebiotics" and that it "Supports Digestive Health". Defendant makes these claims about the supposed health benefits of the Products in an effort to capitalize on the growing market for healthy drinks. Indeed, health-conscious consumers are willing to pay a price premium for products labeled and advertised as healthy or as having particular health benefits. But, unfortunately for consumers, drinking Olipop will not positively impact their digestive health unless they drink two or more cans of its every day for at least a month, the complaint contends. Mr. Somers has purchased the Products for himself numerous times during the applicable statute of limitations. In November 2025, he purchased Olipop Crisp Apple from a bodega in Brooklyn, New York for approximately $2.59. In purchasing the Products, Mr. Somers relied on Defendant's labeling representation that the Products "Support Digestive Health." Had Mr. Somers known that Defendant's representations were misleading, and the Products would not improve his digestive health, he would not have purchased the Products or would have only been willing to purchase the Products at a lesser price, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Jordan Somers is a citizen of New York who resides in Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Olipop Inc. formulates, advertises, manufactures, and/or sells the Products throughout New York and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Escarcega Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Samuel Escarcega, an individual, on behalf of himself, the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ontrac Logistics, Inc., HVFP Express, Inc., Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-02568 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10827-RS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. OnTrac -- https://www.ontrac.com/ -- helps retailers and shippers with fast, flexible reliable last-mile delivery that reaches 80% of the US population in 31 states & D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Michele Supanich, Esq. Trishta Dordi, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com td@melmedlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Damian Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (949) 800-8601 Fax: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com PAMELA BONDI: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.T., et al., v. PAMELA BONDI, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00116-EGS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), appoint the Section 240 Individual Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appoint the undersigned as Class Counsel. A class action is appropriate for this challenge to the government's policies that unlawfully implement its so-called "asylum cooperative agreements". Specifically, the Court should certify a class of noncitizens subject to the unlawful policies in regular removal proceedings in immigration court to challenge the Defendants' unlawful Rule, Guidance documents, and country-specific Designations, which violate the asylum statute's safe third country provision and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court should certify the following class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2): "All noncitizens whom Defendants have sought or will seek to bar from asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a on the basis that they can be removed to a third country under an Asylum Cooperative Agreement pursuant to the Rule, Guidance, or Designations." The case was first filed in January 2020 and entered a multi-year abeyance prior to resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the original implementation of the Rule by the first Trump administration. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h5AYmx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Natalie Behr, Esq. Morgan Russell, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org irp_nbehr@aclu.org mrussell@aclu.org - and - Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, D.C. 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Keren Zwick, Esq. Mary Georgevich, Esq. Gerardo Romo, Esq. Mark Fleming, Esq. Charles G. Roth, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1370 E-mail: kzwick@immigrantjustice.org mgeorgevich@immigrantjustice.org gromo@immigrantjustice.org mfleming@immigrantjustice.org croth@immigrantjustice.org - and - Melissa Crow, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 900, PMB 228 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 355-4471 E-mail: crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu - and - Blaine Bookey, Esq. Peter Habib, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES 200 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 565-4877 E-mail: bookeybl@uclawsf.edu habibpeter@uclawsf.edu - and - Anwen Hughes, Esq. Inyoung Hwang, Esq. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 121 W. 36TH ST., PMB 520 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (202) 547-5692 E-mail: HUGHESA@HUMANRIGHTSFIRST.ORG HWANGS@HUMANRIGHTSFIRST.ORG PAMELA BONDI: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.T., et al., v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00116-EGS (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request that the Court grant a 14-day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' two motions, which would make Jan. 16, 2026, the new deadline for Defendants to respond to both motions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vtp66U at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Cara E. Alsterberg, Esq. Joseph A. Mccarter, Esq. Tola Myczkowska, Esq. OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 746-8537 E-mail: Joseph.A.McCarter@usdoj.gov PENHALL COMPANY: Taylor Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Christopher Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PENHALL COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-06176 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 35 and Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders (collectively "COMPS"), and the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA") (hereafter referred to as "Colorado Wage and Hour Laws"), as well as the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), (hereafter referred to as "Virginia Wage and Hour Laws"). The Defendant failed to pay hourly-paid, non-exempt field employees for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40hours in a week, and failed to pay them time-and-a-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, in violation of the FLSA, Colorado Wage and Hour Laws, and Virginia Wage and Hour Laws. The Defendant failed to permit hourly-paid, non-exempt field employees working in Colorado to take paid, duty-free ten-minute rest periods for every four hours or a significant fraction thereof worked and failed to count missed rest break time as hours worked for purposes of straight-time and overtime compensation, in violation of Colorado Wage and Hour Laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 15, 2024 to August 2025, as an hourly-paid field employee. Penhall Company, headquartered in Irving, Texas, operates one of the largest concrete services networks in North America and maintains branch offices and field operations across numerous regions of the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zijian Guan, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5279 Email: cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Class Cert. Bid in Hamzeh Due Dec.10, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUITY HAMZEH, v. PHARMAVITE LLC, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00472-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge HAYWOOD GILLIAM, JR. entered an order granting first joint motion to modify the scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Last day to produce documents and June 9, 2026 information other than sales data: Deadline for the Defendants' expert June 9, 2026 report(s) re: science: Deadline for the Plaintiff's expert July 9, 2026 report(s) re: science: Close of all fact discovery: Aug.7, 2026 Last day to hear motion for summary Nov. 12, 2026 judgment re: science and Daubert motions: Class certification and trial setting Dec.10, 2026 conference: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kJqBer at no extra charge.[CC] PHH MORTGAGE: Class Settlement in Munoz Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Miller Baker entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and awards of fees, costs, and incentive awards. The court approves the settlement, awards $9,031,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $2,074,556.63 of litigation costs, and grants service incentive awards of $5,000.00 to each of the five named representative plaintiffs. In sum, all seven of the relevant Churchill Village factors support a finding of fairness, and all three of the Bluetooth factors suggest an absence of collusion. The court is therefore convinced that the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and free from conclusion, so it grants the unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9sFjMO at no extra charge.[CC] PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Wolfclan Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN and ZAKERY BONDS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs primarily assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiffs move to certify the following Class: "All detainees who are presently or have at any time been held in any cell blocks at Pierce County Jail having unremedied plumbing defects leading to unsanitary living conditions, and all detainees who will be held in those cells blocks in the future (the Plaintiff Class). The Plaintiffs Wolfclan and Bonds move to certify a class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) to seek injunctive relief and challenge Defendants' common practice of subjecting pretrial detainees held at the Pierce County Main Jail to inhumane and unsanitary living conditions. The County has made it abundantly clear it has no intention of taking action to solve the unsanitary and inhumane conditions at the Jail. Plaintiffs therefore move to certify this case as a class action of pretrial detainees. The proposed Class of pretrial detainees satisfies Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy and seeks injunctive class-wide relief under Rule 23(b)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4), (b)(2). Class certification is the appropriate mechanism for achieving a just and efficient resolution of this litigation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rYlX8L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Pritchard, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. Michael P. Rubin, Esq. Sara J. Wadsworth, Esq. Alissa Harris, Esq. Gabrielle K. Lindquist, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-624-0900 Facsimile: 206-386-7500 E-mail: scott.pritchard@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com michael.rubin@stoel.com sara.wadsworth@stoel.com ali.harris@stoel.com gabrielle.lindquist@stoel.com - and - Mark P. Walters, Esq. Mitchell D. West, Esq. LOWE GRAHAM JONES PLLC 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1130 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 381-3300 Facsimile: (206) 381-3301 E-mail: walters@lowegrahamjones.com west@lowegrahamjones.com PMACS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abel Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ABEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PMACS HOSPITALITY LLC; PMACS 9 LLC d/b/a SIR HENRY'S d/b/a DISCO SALLY'S; PATRICK MCNAMEE; and MICHAEL MCNAMEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10311 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Abel was employed by the Defendants as a cook. PMACS Hospitality LLC offers a diverse array of venues including cocktail bars and restaurants throughout New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Jackson Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- RAMON JACKSON, CLYANNA PALMER, and SAMANTHA SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10728 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information ("PII") of its current and former customers and applicants (including Plaintiffs), including names, Social Security numbers/National ID numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, Prosper account numbers, other financial/credit application information, driver's license numbers, marriage or birth certificates, passport numbers, tax information, and payment card numbers. The complaint states that the Plaintiffs were required to provide their PII to the Defendant as a condition of creating an account and applying for a loan. Between approximately June 2025 and August 2025, an unauthorized person gained access to Prosper's network systems and accessed and downloaded files containing the PII of Prosper's customers and applicants, including Plaintiffs and Class members (the "Data Breach"). As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs have suffered injury and damages including a substantial and imminent risk of identity theft; the wrongful disclosure and loss of confidentiality of their highly sensitive PII; time and effort lost attempting to mitigate the harm caused by the Data Breach; and deprivation of the value of their PII. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Class members, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Ramon Jackson is a citizen and resident of Florida. Plaintiff Clyanna Palmer is a citizen and resident of Texas. Plaintiff Samantha Shaw is a citizen and resident of North Carolina. Defendant Prosper Marketplace, Inc. is a financial technology company based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-621-2000 Facsimile: 312-641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com QUINSTREET INCORPORATED: Guiterrez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quinstreet Incorporated. The case is styled as Julie Guiterrez, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Quinstreet Incorporated, Case No. 4:25-cv-00705-LCK (D. Ariz., Dec. 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. QuinStreet, Inc. -- https://www.quinstreet.com/ -- is a publicly traded online marketing company based in Foster City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Fraijo Sues Over Illegal Retention of Tips ----------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Fraijo, Aneia Stallings, Madeline Shorter, and Analiese Restrepo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC.; BMB DINING SERVICES (KATY), INC. D/B/A BOMBSHELLS KATY; BB SAN ANTONIO 1, LLC D/B/A BOMBSHELLS SAN ANTONIO; TRAVIS REESE; AND MARCO RAMIREZ, Case 4:25-cv-06175 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' illegal retention of tips. Regardless of whether an employer takes a tip credit, the FLSA prohibits employers from keeping any portion of employees' tips for any purpose. If the Defendants charge the Servers for uniform, then that would result in an illegal retention of tips. The Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for whether their payroll practices violated the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires employers who claim a tip credit to permit the tipped employees to keep 100% of their tips, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at the Bombshells Katy. The RCI owns and operates the restaurant known as Bombshells Katy, located in Katy, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town and Country Blvd. Suite 500 Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 223 – 8855 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com RECOLOGY INC: Villarroel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recology, Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Villarroel, Robert F. Sand, Liese L. Sand, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Recology, Inc., Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Company, Recology San Francisco, Sunset Scavenger Company, Case No. CGC25631805 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Mass Tort." Recology Inc. -- https://www.recology.com/ -- formerly known as Norcal Waste Systems, is an American waste management company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union St. San Francisco, CA 94123-4507 Phone: 415-433-3900 Fax: 415-433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com ROGERS MECHANICAL: Ellison Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ga. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JAMES ELLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROGERS MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25CV02134, was removed from Superior Court of Georgia, Douglas County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on December 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07112-WMR to the proceeding. The complaint asserts causes of action purportedly arising from a data security incident that was discovered in January 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that he, along with similarly situated individuals, experienced damages as a result of a security incident implicating his personal information. Rogers Mechanical Contractors, LLC provides mechanical contracting services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Leonard, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 3155 North Point Parkway, Suite G-100 Alpharetta, GA 30005 Telephone: (470) 740-4100 - and - Jill Fertel, Esq. H. Nellie Fitzpatrick, Esq. Jonathan D. Tobin, Esq. Daniella Ashouri, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 450 Sentry Parkway East, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (610) 567-0700 E-mail: jfertel@c-wlaw.com nfitzpatrick@c-wlaw.com jtobin@c-wlaw.com dashouri@c-wlaw.com RUGSUSA LLC: Bid for Class Cert in Hong Suit Due March 5, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge ARACELI MARTiNEZ-OLGUiN entered an order extending Class Certification Briefing Schedule as follows: Event Deadline Close of discovery on issues related Feb.23, 2026 to class certification: Motion for class certification: March 5, 2026 Opposition to motion for class April 30, 2026 certification: Reply in support of motion for class June 25, 2026 certification: Last day to file certification Daubert Aug.13, 2026 motion(s): Hearing on class certification motion: Oct.8, 2026 RugsUSA sells rugs and home accessory product. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K23o3u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Abby Meyer, Esq. P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Kevin Murphy, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLING, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP RUGSUSA LLC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Close of discovery on issues related Feb. 23, 2026 to class certification Motion for class certification March 5, 2026 Last day to make Plaintiff's April 6, 2026 expert(s) available for deposition Opposition to motion for class April 30, 2026 certification Last day to make Defendant's May 28, 2026 expert(s) available for deposition Reply in support of motion for class June 25, 2026 certification Last day to file certification July 9, 2026 Daubert motion(s) Last day to file Daubert Aug. 13, 2026 opposition(s) Last day to file Daubert reply Aug. 27, 2026 brief(s) Hearing on class certification Oct. 8, 2026 motion A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=omrJRP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Abby Meyer, Esq. P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Abby Meyer, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLING, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP SALESFORCE INC: Seeks to Provisionally File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG and LANAE JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALESFORCE, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing Salesforce to provisionally file under seal documents containing information or references to information that Plaintiffs Diane Young and Lanae Johnson designated as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order or documents that contain material that this Court has previously sealed. Salesforce certifies that it has reviewed and complied with the Court's Standing Order Governing Administrative Motions to File Materials Under Seal. Salesforce further certifies that it has reviewed and complied with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and established that only one motion is necessary, as Salesforce is not the Designating Party with respect to any materials seeking consideration. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7CkgsB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Emani N. Oakley, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. Elisabeth Hutchinson, Esq. Erik Manukyan, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com EOakley@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com EHutchinson@mofo.com EManukyan@mofo.com SELECT REHABILITATION: Settlement Deal in McLaughlin Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Schlesinger entered an order that: "Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Stipulated Judgment" is granted. The Plaintiffs shall file the Fourth Amended Complaint within 7 days from the date of this Order. Once the Fourth Amended is filed, this Court will enter judgment for the plaintiffs in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and dismiss the FLSA collective action with prejudice. The Court agrees with that trend and finds that the general releases signed by the named plaintiffs are fair and reasonable. The fee settlement does not affect Plaintiffs' recovery because it was negotiated separately from the liquidated damages award. The FLSA collective action contains 1,179 plaintiffs. The settlement establishes a $2,500,000 liquidated damages fund, from which $1,300,000 will be allocated to the PMs, and $1,200,000 will be allocated to the therapists. (Id. at 6). Those damages will be paid pro rata based on the number of hours that each class member worked and their rates of pay. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NuTsit at no extra charge.[CC] SERENITY TMS CENTERS: Goins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serenity TMS Centers LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Goins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Serenity TMS Centers LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00705-LCK (N.D. Ala., Dec. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Serenity Mental Health Centers -- https://serenitymentalhealthcenters.com/ -- provides compassionate, innovative care for depression, anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com SIERRA BULLETS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY COEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIERRA BULLETS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-4282 (W.D. Mo., Dec. 12, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Coen was employed by the Defendant as a blank press operator. Sierra Bullets, LLC manufactures bullets for firearms. The Company offers wide range of bullets for both rifles, handguns, and pistols. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W 120th Street Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913)-696-0925 Facsimile: (913)-696-0468 Email: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SINGH LANDSCAPING: Vasquez Sues Over for Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Elver Vasquez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SINGH LANDSCAPING & LAWN SPRINKLER, CORP., and JAGTAR SINGH, individually, and RANJIT SINGH, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06997 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis at his regular rate for each hour that he worked, and thus Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, if greater, for the hours that he worked over forty in a week, in violation of the FLSA's and the NYLL's overtime provisions. Furthermore, from the beginning of his employment until June 30, 2025, the hourly rate that Defendants paid Plaintiff was below the minimum wage that the NYLL required for each hour of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a manual laborer from March 17, 2025, until October 18, 2025. The Defendants is a New York corporation that operates a landscaping, sprinkler, and construction business in Queens, New York, and its two owners and day-to-day overseers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 SKYWEST AIRLINES: Sherrill Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Annelise Sherrill, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 209269 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01818. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide timely wages, and failure to provide sick pay.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. Nicholas Rawls, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452 Phone: +1.213.489.3939 Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539 Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com nrawls@jonesday.com - and - Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq. STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE 543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: +1.805.578.3474 Facsimile: +1.805.994.0199 patricia@patriciastambelos.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY: Lara Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Lara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV30175 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12018. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a claim under the California Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"). To determine whether a PAGA claim is preempted under Section 301, courts examine the underlying allegations of California Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq. J. Scott Carr, Esq. Paul G. Sherman, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 493-3980 Email: jozmer@kcozlaw.com scarr@kcozlaw.com psherman@kcozlaw.com SOVEREIGN SECURITY: Williams Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sovereign Security, LLC. The case is styled as Shirell Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sovereign Security, LLC, Richard D. Cottom, Maurice Dupree, Case No. 251202744 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Dec. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Declaratory Judgment." Sovereign Security, LLC -- http://sovereign-security.com/-- offers professionally installed residential and commercial lifestyle interactive security systems and is committed to providing our customers with the latest products and technology while giving you superior customer support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Rubinsky, Esq. BRODIE & RUBINSKY, P.C. 121 S. Broad Street, Suite 1710 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-925-1470 Fax: (215) 925-3748 Email: rubinsky@brodierubinsky.com SP DISTRIBUTION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Senior Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SP DISTRIBUTION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10482 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://doona.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 4, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Car Seat from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Car Seat, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: car seats and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Frank Senior is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant, SP Distribution LLC, operates the Doona online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal STANLEY MARTIN: Grubbs Negligence Suit Removed to D.S.C. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Judith Newman Grubbs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stanley Martin Homes, LLC, Log Shoals Investments, LLC, and Jane Doe #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2025-CP-23-6918, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for the State of South Carolina, Greenville County, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on December 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-13855-TMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges state law causes of action for declaratory judgment, negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract and unfair trade practices. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges defects in the construction of her home in the following particulars: (1) failing to properly construct and install concrete; (2) failing to construct an adequate exterior building envelope; (3) failing to properly install the septic systems; (4) failing to properly install the mechanical and electrical systems; (5) failing to properly grade the lots; (6) failing to prepare the lots so that they would have adequate drainage; (7) failing to properly seal the building components; (8) failing to properly insulate the homes; (9) failing to properly install the roofs and roof coverings; (10) failing to properly install the electrical systems and associated components; (11) failing to properly install the subflooring; (12) covering up their own defective work and the defective work of others; and, (13) failing to make proper repairs. Stanley Martin Homes, LLC operates as a home construction company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allen Bullard, Esq. MONTGOMERY WILLARD, LLC Post Office Box 11886 Columbia, SC 29211-1886 Telephone: (803) 779-350 SUPPORT SERVICES: Carmer Seeks FLSA Putative Collective Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY CARMER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00372-LS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting, under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for court-authorized notice of this lawsuit to all similarly situated employees. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order: (1) Authorizing notice of this lawsuit to the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective, defined as: "All current and former hourly employees who perform customer-service tasks, such as customer service agents, customer service representatives, fraud analysts, and sales representatives, who worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years;" (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice (Exhibits G & H) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of the Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to the FLSA Collective; (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email and text message sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D8dHfU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ,P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com egoemann@sommerspc.com SWITCHGEAR POWER: Class Cert Filing in Hansen Due May 15, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HANSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWITCHGEAR POWER SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01453-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Griesbach entered a scheduling order as follows: Initial disclosures are to be exchanged between the parties no later than Feb. 13, 2026, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Amendments to the pleadings may be filed without leave of court on or before February 13, 2026. On or before May 15, 2026, the Plaintiff will file a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and a Motion for Court-Authorized Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Depositions, whether for discovery purposes or for trial, must be completed by the discovery deadline absent agreement of the parties or order of the court. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FvrSwA at no extra charge.[CC] SYNGENTA CROP: Dover Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Dover, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-462 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Frank Sues Over Wrongful Advertising --------------------------------------------------- Kevin Frank, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-459 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Landrum Sues Over Wrongful Labeling of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Fae Landrum, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-460 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Mace Sues Over Wrongful Advertising -------------------------------------------------- Donald Mace, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-449 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 TOMMY BAHAMA: Bid for Class Cert. in Haley Due April 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE HALEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01969-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Rothstein entered an order setting the deadline for class certification discovery as follows: Event Deadline Class certification discovery: March 23, 2026 Motion for class certification: April 22, 2026 Parties to meet and confer regarding No later than 14 days remaining discovery and case after resolution of the scheduling deadlines: motion for class certification The Defendant's request to stay discovery pending resolution of the forthcoming motion to dismiss is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qurBTP at no extra charge.[CC] TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Rosado Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- JUAN ROSADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC and THE METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01837 (E.D. Mo., December 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that Defendant MetroHealth is an enterprise client of TriZetto. As such, TriZetto stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about its current and former employees and/or consumers of Defendant MetroHealth. But such PII/PHI was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On October 2, 2025, Defendant TriZetto was hacked which comprised the data of its enterprise consumers. And yet, Defendant TriZetto waited until December 9, 2025, before it began notifying the Class -- 68 days after the Data Breach was discovered. The complaint alleges that because of Defendants' Data Breach, at least the following types of PII/PHI were compromised: Name of individual, Address, Date of birth, Social Security Number Information, Medical Information, and Health Insurance Information. Defendants' negligence is evidenced by their failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII/PHI. And thus, Defendants caused widespread injury and monetary damages, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff, Juan Rosado is a natural person and a citizen of Cleveland, Ohio. Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions LLC is a provider of revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems, based in Earth City, Missouri. Defendant MetroHealth System is a nonprofit healthcare system that provides comprehensive medical care and community health initiatives aimed at disease prevention and overall well-being, based in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. McSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com ULTA SALON: Cole Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. ------------------------------------------ The case styled as LISA COLE, ASHLEY JOHNSON, MISTY GREBEL, ALEXIS BRIMHALL, KAYLA SLACHTA, and JILL REISINGER, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 53C06-2511-CT-00326, was removed from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Indiana to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on December 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02521-RLY-MJD to the proceeding. This is a class action brought by Named Plaintiffs against Defendant Ulta Salon for false and misleading email marketing. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. operates as a beauty store. The Company sells cosmetics, fragrances, skin and hair care products, appliances, and accessories.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christina L. Fugate, Esq. Audrey K. Howard, Esq. Angela M. Rinehart, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP One American Square, Suite 2900 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200 Telephone: (317) 236-2100 E-mail: christina.fugate@icemiller.com audrey.howard@icemiller.com angela.rinehart@icemiller.com UNITED AIRLINES: Walker Sues for Discrimination and ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRETT WALKER, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; UNITED PILOTS LONG TERM DISABILITY VEBA TRUST COMMITTEE; and ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-411 (S.D. Tex., December 12, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint states that in order to fly commercial aircraft, Captain Walker is required to possess and keep current a "First Class Medical" Certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and signed by an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME)--who is a doctor certified and trained by the FAA to issue such authorization--indicating he is medically qualified to fly. No other medical documentation is required by the FAA or agreed to in the pilot's collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In January 2024, Captain Walker was diagnosed with cancer, a medical condition that required several months of treatment. During that time, he was not qualified to have a First Class Medical Certificate and was forced to go on long-term disability (LTD), a program administered at United Airlines by both the company and union representatives—the United Pilot Long Term Disability Veba Trust Administrative Committee (LTD Committee). He was approved for LTD payments by the LTD Committee during the pendency of his treatment. Once Captain Walker's medical issue was resolved, he was able to obtain his First Class Medical Certificate--again, the only health-related FAA qualification for flying commercial aircraft. In August 2024, Captain Walker presented the company with the Certificate and sought reinstatement to flying. The LTD Committee, however, informed him--through its agent, Defendant Alight (a third-party medical benefits provider)--that he must also provide the LTD Committee any Special Issuance correspondence between Captain Walker and the FAA containing protected health information. The complaint alleges that the Special Issuance letter issued to the pilot and/or AME cannot be part of a disability inquiry because it is neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity. There is no reason for the company to have the correspondence since it is a private document between the doctor and the pilot--the FAA only requires the First Class Medical Certificate, which indicates a pilot's medical fitness for duty. Further underscoring the conspiracy here against Captain Walker, the LTD Committee found that he no longer qualified for LTD benefits since he could hold a First Class Medical. Not only is there no basis for such a request under FAA regulations, United's Flight Operations Manual, or the pilot CBA, any such request would be barred by the statute anyway, asserts the complaint. In addition to the money damages incurred during Defendants' period of discrimination, Captain Walker seeks both a declaration against such conduct and an injunction forbidding Defendants from continuing to engage in such conduct against himself and any other pilot similarly situated. Plaintiff Brett Walker is a pilot with Defendant United Airlines and a member of the Defendant Air Line Pilots Association union. Defendant United Airlines is Captain Walker's employer and is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, and corporate offices (including payroll for the entire company) in Houston, Texas. Defendant Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) is a labor organization representing United pilots -- including Captain Walker -- with its principal place of business in Washington, DC. Defendant the United Pilot Long Term Disability Veba Trust Administrative Committee (LTD Committee) is the Committee comprised of both United and ALPA members that administers the LTD Trust created to provide for pilots on LTD. Defendant Alight, an agent for the LTD Committee (and thus both United and ALPA), is an information and technology consulting company that provides third-party systems and support for human resource functions of companies (including health benefit administration) and maintains its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, with offices in The Woodlands and Lewisville, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Sullivan, Esq. Jace R. Yarbrough, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com UNITED AUTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 6 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferrara et al., v. United Auto Supply of Syracuse, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00337-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension in the deadlines to disclose experts and to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which was filed on Dec. 16, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants request the following that the following extensions be granted: 1. The deadline for the Defendants' expert disclosure shall be extended from Dec. 29, 2025, up to and including Feb. 13, 2026. 2. The deadline for Defendants to file any opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be extended from Jan. 6, 2026, up to and including Feb. 20, 2026. 3. The deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures shall be extended from Jan. 13, 2026, up to and including March 5, 2026. 4. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file any reply in further support of their motion for class certification shall be extended from Jan. 13, 2026, up to and including March 18, 2026. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WuOwUt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Suzanne M. Messer, Esq BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, NY 13202-1355 E-mail: smesser@bsk.com Telephone: (315) 218-8628 UNITED STATES: Must Produce Admin Record in Black Lung Miner Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Harry Wiley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00227 (S.D. W.Va.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and sustained in part the Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order. The Plaintiff is a miner with signs of black lung who wishes to access a program within the Respiratory Health Division of the National Institutes for Occupations Safety and Health that screens miners for black lung and provides a Part 90 letter for those found to have black lung that permits the miner to invoke a right to transfer to a job with lower dust exposure. The suit was brought in response to the effective closure of the RHD after most employees received Reduction in Force notices in April 2025 and were placed on administrative leave. Pursuant to an Administrative Order entered on April 9, 2025, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for discovery disputes. The Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, asserting that discovery should not be permitted in this case, was referred to Judge Aboulhosn. He entered an Order on September 30, 2025, denying the protective order on the grounds that the Defendant had identified no legitimate basis for failing to comply with the discovery deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order. The Defendant appealed that order. The Defendant contended that cases brought under the Administrative Procedure Act are decided based on the administrative record and additional discovery is permissible only if the Plaintiff makes a strong showing of bad faith, bias, or improper behavior, or when the record is shown to be incomplete. The Defendant further contended that any extra-record discovery should come after production of the administrative record and urged the Court to stay the Plaintiff's written discovery requests pending production of the administrative record and their motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff argued that the Court rejected the Defendant's proposed limitation on discovery when it entered a Scheduling Order with discovery deadlines despite the Defendant's arguments that the case should be limited to the administrative record. The Plaintiff contended that the record is not complete as it does not contain a single document related to the agency action in this case. The Plaintiff indicated that the proposed administrative record does not contain a single document relevant to the factual circumstances regarding the challenged agency actions, but instead consists of medical records and communications with Messrs. Wiley and Ward. The Court found that Judge Aboulhosn's order was well reasoned and free of any clear error. The Court concurred in his rejection of any request for a stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The Court found that full consideration regarding the availability of discovery under the APA is appropriate. The administrative record produced by the Defendant is not respon sive to the central issue in the case. Thus far, the Defendant has produced nothing that provides any explanation for the challenged action. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply. The Court sustained in part the Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order. The Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to the extent it seeks to preclude broader discovery prior to production of the administrative record and denied it to the extent it seeks to stay production of the administrative record. The Court ordered the Defendant to produce a responsive administrative record within ten days of entry of this Order. The Court ordered that the stay in this matter be lifted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IeJZNf from PacerMonitor.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Vample Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- LASHA VAMPLE on her own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07083 (E.D. Pa., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of potentially several hundred thousand individuals, including, but not limited to, name, date of birth, federal/state identification numbers, tax identification number, social security number and/or financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The complaint relates that prior to and through October 31, 2025, Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant stored Plaintiff's and Class members' PII unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. On December 1, 2025, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class members of a data breach. According to the Breach Notice, the breach occurred in a third-party technology product, Oracle EBS, "a financial application used to process supplier payments, reimbursements, general ledger entries, and to conduct other University business. Oracle recently announced a previously unknown security vulnerability that could allow unauthorized access to Oracle EBS and data stored in it. Additionally, according to the Breach Notice the information involved includes customers' "names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and financial account information." The Breach Notice further states that Plaintiff's personal information, specifically, "name and Social Security Number" were included in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes. Plaintiff Lasha Vample is a resident and citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendant University of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business at 3819 Chestnut Street, Suite 214, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: 267-685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com URBAN OUTFITTERS: Removes Vanwormer Suit to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of LAUREN VANWORMER; and MALLORY SANTIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN OUTFITTERS INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 25-2-31565-7) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 25, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02386-MLP. The case is assigned to Judge Michelle L. Peterson. Urban Outfitters, Inc. operates as a lifestyle products and services company. The Company sells fashion apparel, accessories, and household and gift merchandise. Urban also designs and markets women's casual wear. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Blake Edward Marks-Dias, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Ave 10th FL Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 Email: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com - and - Hillary Hamilton, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM (CA) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Ste 200 N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 621-5576 Email: hillary.hamilton@skadden.com - and - Meredith C Slawe, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM (NY) One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3534 Facsimile: (917) 777-3534 Email: meredith.slawe@skadden.com - and - Michael W. McTigue , Jr., Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM (NY) One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3529 Facsimile: (917) 777-3529 Email: michael.mctigue@skadden.com - and - Colin M George, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Ave 10th FL Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Email: cgeorge@corrcronin.com VIRTUSA: Wins Bid to Strike Expert's Supplemental Report in "Sugg" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Leo Sugg, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Virtusa, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-8036 (GC)(JTQ), Magistrate Judge Justin T. Quinn of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's Motion to Strike the Reply Report of Plaintiff's Statistical Expert David Lang, Ph.D. The underlying dispute arose out of a class action lawsuit in which Plaintiff alleged that Defendant engaged in and promoted racially discriminatory hiring, staffing, and promotion practices favoring employees of South Asian descent. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of non-South Asian applicants, employees, and former employees of Defendant who allegedly suffered from the discriminatory conduct and practices. The proposed classes were: (1) all current and former non-South Asian employees of Virtusa who were not promoted; (2) all former non-South Asian employees of Virtusa who were involuntarily terminated; and (3) all non-South Asian individuals who applied for employment at Virtusa and were not hired. Plaintiff retained David Lang, Ph.D. to serve as his statistical expert witness. Dr. Lang's initial report, served on July 29, 2024, used data provided by Defendant as to employee race, nationality, or both. Based upon this data, Dr. Lang opined that: (1) 89.2% of hired employees were of Asian descent; (2) white employees were significantly less likely to receive a high appraisal score for promotion purposes; and (3) white employee terminations were 17.7% involuntary compared to 8.1% of Asian employee terminations. From these findings, Dr. Lang concluded that there is significant evidence that non-Asian employees are being discriminated against at Virtusa in terms of hiring, employee ratings and promotions, and through terminations. Plaintiff Leo Sugg passed away on September 3, 2024. On September 18, 2024, the matter was stayed. Thereafter on March 21, 2025, his wife, Gwynne Sugg, was substituted in as Plaintiff by way of Court Order. On February 20, 2025, Defendant deposed Dr. Lang. At the deposition, Defendant questioned Dr. Lang about Table 9 in his report, which concerned involuntary terminations. Defendant's counsel noted that the Table reflected only 11 involuntary terminations of white employees over a ten-year period. Plaintiff alleged that after the deposition, Dr. Lang recognized that there might have been an error in his terminations analysis and thus decided to revisit the data. Defendant served Plaintiff with Dr. White's rebuttal report on March 10, 2025. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff served Dr. Lang's reply report. Upon a closer look, Dr. Lang apparently discovered subsets of employee populations within Defendant's data that he left out of his report and analyses. In making his original terminations analysis, Dr. Lang identified and studied 103 terminated white employees. However, in his reply report, Dr. Lang identified and studied 618 terminated white employees and drew statistical conclusions based on this number. With respect to Dr. Lang's analysis of employee promotion data, Dr. Lang originally used an employee population of 1,964 individuals. That sample size ballooned in his reply report to a total of 6,056 individuals. These two changes seemingly resulted in a substantial increase in the proposed putative class sizes. Defendant argued that Dr. Lang's reply report should be stricken because it was neither a proper reply report nor a proper supplemental report under Rule 26(e). Defendant submitted that Dr. Lang's reply report contained significant deviations from the original report and relied upon several thousand new individuals and advanced entirely new opinions and statistical analyses from this population. The Court sided with Defendant and found that Dr. Lang's report did not constitute a proper reply. The Court stated that the point of this new report was obvious: Dr. Lang and Plaintiff sought to establish a larger potential class size for certification purposes. The Court noted that Plaintiff acknowledged that without the reply report, the class sizes suggested in the initial report may be inadequate for Rule 23 purposes. The Court emphasized that this was not the purpose of a reply report and that a reply was not a redo and should not allow a party to press the reset button on analyses, findings, and conclusions. The Court found that Dr. Lang advanced new opinions and new analyses in his report, most significantly regarding the number of white employees involuntarily terminated. However, Dr. White's rebuttal did not address the number of terminations at all. Accordingly, the Court determined that Dr. Lang's supposed reply brief was improper. The Court further stated that even assuming Dr. Lang's reply report were proper under Rule 26(a), it would still need to be stricken under Rule 26(e). The Court noted that Rule 26(e) was not an avenue to correct failures of omission because the expert did an inadequate or incomplete preparation, add new opinions, or deepen or strengthen existing opinions. The Court stated that because Dr. Lang's reply report failed to qualify as a supplemental report under Rule 26(e), it must be stricken. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Strike the Reply Report of Plaintiff's Statistical Expert David Lang, Ph.D. was granted. The Court further ordered that the Reply Report of Plaintiff's Statistical Expert David Lang, Ph.D. was hereby stricken from the record. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=menC1Q from PacerMonitor.com WARNER BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Padilla Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER LEIVA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARNER BROS. STUDIO OPERATIONS, A DIVISION OF WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES INC.; WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY; WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV34499 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Padilla was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Warner Bros. Studio Operations, A Division of WB Studio Enterprises Inc. oversees the physical operation of Warner Bros. Studios which provides video based entertainment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Mason Doidge, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law m.doidge@d.law WILLIAM DOYLE: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Banham Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN BANHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM DOYLE GALLERIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10528 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, Social Security number, and financial account information (collectively defined herein as "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. On February 18, 2025, Defendant learned that it had been the subject of a cyberattack. On October 24, 2024, and February 18, 2025, an unauthorized individual stole files from Defendant which likely contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. On December 10, 2025, defendant sent notice of security incident letters ("Notice Letter") to Plaintiff and Class Members. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time 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) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. 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 Jonathan Banham is a resident and citizen of Chicago, Illinois. Defendant William Doyle Galleries, Inc. is a New York-based fine art seller and auctioning company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com WILMINGTON COMMUNITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bruschi Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MEL BRUSCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILMINGTON COMMUNITY CLINIC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11923 (C.D. Cal., December 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including protected health information ("PHI") and other personally identifiable information ("PII"), like health insurance identification numbers, medical information, dates of birth, driver's license numbers or state identification numbers, and names (together with PHI, "Private Information"). According to the complaint, the Defendant received Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information in its provision of health services to Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On August 13, 2024, unauthorized individuals infiltrated Defendant's network systems which resulted in the access of protected Private Information. On December 10, 2025, over a year after the breach, Defendant posted on its website a notice of the data breach. The unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The complaint alleges that as a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and (vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. Plaintiff Mel Bruschi is a resident and citizen of San Pedro, California. Defendant Wilmington Community Clinic is a not-for-profit healthcare organization, operating two medical facilities in the Wilmington, California area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com Asbestos Litigation ********* 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 ***