260105.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 5, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 3
Headlines
76 ASH WHOLESALE: Faces Mahmood Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AG1 USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Says
AIRBUS SE: Clifford Chance Secured Dismissal of Class Action Suit
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Warner Sues Over Race Discrimination, Harassment
ANGOLA PRISON: Judge Certifies Farm Line Class-Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Settles Canadian iPhone Class Suit With Cash Payments
ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
AUTONATION INC: Williams Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BLUE OWL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Feb. 2
C3.AI INC: Continues to Defend Liggett Securities Class Suit
C3.AI INC: Continues to Defend Reckstin Family Trust Class Suit
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Taylor Egg Sues Over Egg Price Manipulation
CALIFORNIA: Delays Revoking Commercial Drivers' Licenses 'til March
CALIFORNIA: Postsecondary Education Mandates "Unlawful," Suit Says
CAPITAL RESORTS: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Timeshare Loan Contract
CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
CHRICOL INC: Faces Alger Suit Over Disabled's Access Barriers
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Toikach Alleges
CLINT MILLER: Court Denies Hunting Guide's Class Certification Bid
COAL-MAC LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Russell Alleges
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Alleges
DOCGO INC: $12.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 24
DONALD TRUMP: D.C. Court Certifies Venezuelan Detainees Class
EL CAMINO: Proveyer Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
ENCENSE ENTERPRISES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rowan Claims
ENVASES USA: Marrero Sues Over Utility Operators' Unpaid Wages
FLUX POWER: Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for April 2
GATE 1 LTD: Underpays Service Agents, Parker Suit Alleges
GEISINGER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Security Suit for $5MM
GENERAL MILLS: Slater Investigates Pillsbury Pizza Pops Recall
GLDN INC: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
GOOD AMERICAN: Jones-Rubin Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
GOOGLE LLC: Removes Rendon Suit to C.D. Calif.
GRILL'D PTY LTD: Faces Employee Class Action Lawsuit
HANK'S CLOTHING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says
HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Lee Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
HUMBL LLC: Court Junks "Pasquinelli" 2nd Amended Suit
HUSCH BLACKWELL: Former Partner Sues on Delayed 401K Contribution
INTERSTAFF INC: Nyawara Sues Over Labor Trafficking, Unpaid Wages
JBS USA: Pierre Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
LA-Z-BOY INC: Agrees to Settle Joybird Class Action for $7.15MM
LEMME INC: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
LGBCOIN LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Kesel Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
LOOPS BEAUTY: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MALONEBAILEY LLC: Kovacs Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
MONSANTO COMPANY: Charnin Sues Over Sale of Defective Herbicide
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Barnes Suit Over Defective Herbicide
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Buss Suit Over Herbicide's Health Risks
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Pena Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Schauer Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Shad Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Shell Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Shell Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Spence Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Sternisha Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Travers Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Markets Defective Herbicide, Brignola Claims
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Brewington Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sells Hazardous Herbicide, Rogers Suit Alleges
MONSANTO COMPANY: Zeni Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health
NEW HORIZONS: Faces Johnston Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
NEW YORK, NY: Symone Sues Over Violations of Constitutional Rights
NEW YORK: Refuses Exemptions on Child Vaccine Mandates, Suit Says
NOWRX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Bachhuber TCPA Class Suit in Calif.
OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada
PERSANTE HEALTH: Faces Kay Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Settles UM/UIM Coverage Suit for $1.76MM
PROVIDENCIA GROUP: Underpays Unification Specialists, Jimenez Says
PURAGAIN WATER: Faces Olivieri Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Cal.
ROYAL GREEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Johnson Says
RUSSIA: Moscow Judge Tosses WhatsApp Users' Class Lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Grants Final OK of "Anderson" Settlement
SERGIO'S PIZZA: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SERVICENOW INC: Final Hearing of $925,000 Settlement Set Feb. 24
SOLO BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says
SOUTHERN NEW: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Information, Zeolla Says
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Najarro Suit Removed to C.D. California
SUBIN 17: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Young Says
SUNDAYS FOR DOGS: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Torres Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
SWISSPORT USA INC: Dunn Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
SYNGENTA CROP: Alcott Sues Over Defective Herbicide
SYNGENTA CROP: Brack Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution
SYNGENTA CROP: Bryson Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale
SYNGENTA CROP: Dedinsky Sues Over Wrongful Sale
SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Sitzmore Says
SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Suit Claims
SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Wright Claims
SYNGENTA CROP: Kays Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale
SYNGENTA CROP: Parakkattu Sues Over Defective Herbicide
TENAHA, TX: Ordered to Pay $296K Fees in "Morrow"
TISON GROUP: Larroude Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Gender Discrimination
TOYOTA MOTOR: Leboutheller Balks at Transmission Assemblies' Defect
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Gearboxes
TYSON FOODS: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Action Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
UNITED STATES: Tincher Files Suit Alleging Unlawful Police Conduct
VANCOUVER WHITECAPS: Agrees to Settle Ticket Price Class Suit
VERSUNI USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says
WAKPAMNI LAKE: Must Arbitrate "Bridges" Predatory Lending Claims
WALMART INC: "Jacklick" Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 2
WALTER KIDDE: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Fire Alarms
WK KELLOGG: Discovery Stayed in Froot Loops Labeling Suit
XCLUSIVE TRADING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Puerto Alleges
ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Faces McFarlane Wiretapping Suit in N.D. Calif.
ZOA ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Energy Drink Class Action for $3-Mil.
[] Oil Railway Contamination Class Suit Stays in Federal Court
*********
76 ASH WHOLESALE: Faces Mahmood Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARSHAD MAHMOOD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 76 ASH WHOLESALE CORP. (d/b/a PCR PHONE AND
COMPUTER REPAIR) and AVID MAHMOOD, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-06782 (E.D.N.Y., December 9, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure
to furnish wage statements, and failure to pay on a regular weekly
basis.
Plaintiff Arshad was employed as a teller and compliance auditor by
Defendants from approximately 2015 until on or about September
2023.
76 Ash Wholesale Corp. owns, operates and controls a phone/computer
repair company located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
AG1 USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AG1 USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10398 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://drinkag1.com/learn/agz, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
AG1 USA Inc. produces nutritional supplements. The Company offers
daily foundational nutrition supplement with multivitamin,
minerals, prebiotics, antioxidants, and superfoods flavor without
artificial sweeteners that supports whole body health and improve
digestive systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
AIRBUS SE: Clifford Chance Secured Dismissal of Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Desire reports that global law firm Clifford Chance has
secured a dismissal for Airbus SE on a purported investor class
action brought against Airbus SE in the Dutch courts by Stichting
Investor Loss Compensation (SILC) using the Dutch WAMCA
proceedings.
The Hague Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court's judgment and
dismissed the purported investor class action, in which SILC sought
compensation for alleged losses incurred by Airbus SE investors. In
short, the court held that the interests of the members of the
purported class were not sufficiently safeguarded, as it deemed
that the claim funders have too much influence on how SILC handles
the matter. The full judgment can be found at
https://url.uk.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/7gbkCoVAcrw2VKpH1fGFp7wrp?domain=uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
(in Dutch).
The Clifford Chance team was led by Daan Lunsingh Scheurleer and
Jeroen Regouw and also included Sander Hendrix and Veerle van den
Bergen (Litigation) in Amsterdam. [GN]
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Warner Sues Over Race Discrimination, Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP L. WARNER SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY
d/b/a KEURIG DR. PEPPER, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02528-JPH-TAB
(S.D. Ind., December 15, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for race discrimination, race harassment, and retaliation
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a warehouse forklift
driver from February 22, 1995 until his termination on May 28,
2025.
The American Bottling Company, doing business as Keurig Dr. Pepper,
is a beverage producer based in Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H. Haskin, Esq.
Alessandra M. Rosa, 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
arosa@jhaskinlaw.com
ANGOLA PRISON: Judge Certifies Farm Line Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Ponzio, writing for WBRZ, reports that a federal judge has
certified a lawsuit challenging work conditions on Angola Prison's
Farm Line as a class-action case, opening it to potentially
thousands of inmates. The ruling comes just one month before the
trial.
"It's a critical moment because it means that the court recognizes
that the state's operation of the farm line harms everybody at
Angola prison," said Lydia Wright, legal director of Rights Behind
Bars.
The case began last summer, when inmates and advocacy groups asked
a judge to stop Angola officials from sending prisoners into the
fields during extreme heat. Wright said the plaintiffs argue the
conditions violate constitutional protections against cruel and
unusual punishment.
"It's the dangerous and degrading practice of forcing incarcerated
men, mostly Black men, into the plantation fields to work under
conditions that are intended to simulate enslavement," Wright
said.
The judge ruled the case qualifies as a class action because the
issues affect large numbers of inmates in the same way. This allows
thousands of prisoners to join the lawsuit, not just the original
named plaintiffs.
"Individuals can represent the interests of other people who don't
have their names on the lawsuit themselves," Wright added.
Wright said Angola sits on land once used as slave plantations.
Prisoners on the Farm Line plant, cultivate, and harvest crops,
many without pay, and some earning just a few cents an hour.
"They make no money at all for their work, or some make two cents
an hour, and that's been the pay rate at least since the 1950s,"
Wright said.
Advocates argue that the Farm Line provides punishment rather than
rehabilitation. "Work can be fulfilling, it can be rehabilitative,
it can be productive, and it should be all of those things. It
should also be voluntary, and it should be safe, and the farm line
is none of those things," Wright said.
The court has already issued temporary orders requiring Angola to
provide heat protections for field workers, including shade,
sunscreen, and rest breaks. The upcoming trial will determine
whether those protections become permanent.
"It is simply stunning that in 2025 it takes a federal court order
to require the state of Louisiana to treat people who are
incarcerated with human decency," Wright said.
The trial is set to begin on February 3rd. [GN]
APPLE INC: Settles Canadian iPhone Class Suit With Cash Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Hive National reports that eligible Canadian iPhone users
will soon receive cash from a settlement after a years-long
class-action lawsuit against Apple.
In March 2024, a B.C. Supreme Court judge approved the
$14.4-million settlement. The class action was launched in 2018
against Apple Inc. and Apple Canada, claiming that performance
mitigation features of Apple’s iOS software (versions 10.2.1,
10.3, 11, and/or 11.2 for iPhones) caused defects, leading the
iPhones to "prematurely age, degrade, or shut down unexpectedly."
The software updates also caused defects in the iPhone batteries,
which led to the ordeal becoming known as "batterygate."
The deadline to submit a claim has passed, and according to a Nov.
20, 2025, update, the review process has been completed. Payments
for approved claims are expected to go out in early 2026.
"If you have not received a notice in connection with your claim,
use the chatbot on this website to confirm whether your claim was
approved, rejected, or was not received," reads the notice.
Apple denied the allegations in the class action, and the
settlement does not admit to wrongdoing or fault on its behalf. The
tech giant had previously agreed to collectively pay between
$11,137,500 and $14,427,500 to impacted iPhone users in Canada.
Eligible Canadians could receive between $17.50 and $150, depending
on how many people apply for the settlement.
Customers (except those in Quebec) who owned or operated an Apple
iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, or 7 Plus smartphone device
with iOS 10.2.1 or later (for iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, or
SE), and/or iOS 11.2 or later (for iPhone 7 or 7 Plus), installed
or downloaded before Dec. 21, 2017, may be eligible for payment
from the class action. [GN]
ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On or around May 6, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Arqit and certain of Arqit's directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No.
1:22-cv-02604) (the "Federal Action"), asserting violations of
federal securities laws under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The complaint generally alleged that Arqit and
individual defendants made materially false and misleading
statements relating to Arqit's business prospects and projections.
On September 8, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended version
of the complaint (the "Federal Complaint"), which alleges the same
general theory as the original complaint and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").
On January 12, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Federal Complaint, and the motion was fully briefed as of April 26,
2024. On March 28, 2025, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
Defendants filed Answers to the Federal Complaint on August 25,
2025. On October 3, 2025, the court deferred entering a discovery
schedule in light of the parties’ attempts to reach a resolution
through mediation.
On October 20, 2025, the parties executed a term sheet that would
settle the Federal Action for $7 million, pending documentation of
the settlement and approval by the Court. On October 24, 2025, the
court entered an order staying discovery in the Federal Action sine
die while the parties finalize a settlement agreement. The parties
are required to file a status update with the court by December 19,
2025. The proceedings remain subject to uncertainties inherent in
the litigation process.
Arqit Quantum Inc. provides cybersecurity services via terrestrial
platforms.
AUTONATION INC: Williams Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTONATION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10444 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2025) is a civil action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate the Defendant's website www.autonation.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired individuals, in violations of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The complaint relates that the Plaintiff attempted to access
Defendant's website on multiple occasions from his residence in
Bronx County including on November 12, 2025, and November 20, 2025.
During these visits, Plaintiff attempted to use Defendant's Website
to research and purchase a newer Audi vehicle. However, he
encountered persistent access barriers -- including unlabeled
buttons, inaccessible form fields, broken keyboard navigation,
missing alt. text, and inaccessible pop-ups—that prevented him
from completing any transaction without sighted assistance. Due to
the Website's failure to provide accessible product descriptions,
navigable purchase flows, and properly labeled interactive
elements, Plaintiff was unable to independently evaluate or
purchase any vehicle.
The Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm, including exclusion,
frustration, and loss of autonomy. These injuries are directly
traceable to Defendant's conduct and are redressable through
injunctive relief, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Defendant AutoNation, Inc. is the largest automotive retailer in
the United States, with approximately 300 dealerships across 18
states, including New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Schonfeld, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com
BLUE OWL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Feb. 2
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Blue Owl Capital, Inc., ("Blue Owl" or
the "Company") (NYSE: OWL) investors of a class action on behalf of
investors that bought securities between February 6, 2025 and
November 16, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Blue Owl
investors have until February 2, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or join the case via
https://portnoylaw.com/blue-owl-capital-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm
can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors'
options for pursuing claims to recover their losses.
On October 30, 2025, Blue Owl reported financial results for the
third quarter of 2025. Blue Owl reported, among other items,
fee-related earnings of only $376.2 million, which missed consensus
estimates; fee-related earnings margins of 57.1% which missed
expectations by roughly 20 basis points; and a 33% year-over-year
decline in performance revenue to only $188,000. On this news, Blue
Owl's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or 4.23%, to close at
$15.86 per share on October 30, 2025. Then, on November 5, 2025,
two Blue Owl business development companies—Blue Owl Capital
Corporation ("OBDC") and Blue Owl Capital Corporation II ("OBDC
II") announced entry into a definite merger agreement, stating that
"OBDC II does not anticipate conducting additional tender offers
prior to the merger." On this news, Blue Owl's stock price fell
$0.74 per share, or 4.72%, to close at $14.95 per share on November
6, 2025. On November 16, 2025, The Financial Times published an
article on the merger, reporting that "at current prices, the
investors in [BODCII] could take a potential haircut on their
investments" in connection with the merger and that "the trading
price of OBDC . . . had been hit by souring sentiment on private
credit markets[.]" On this news, Blue Owl's stock price fell $0.85
per share, or 5.8%, to close at $13.77 per share on November 17,
2025. On November 19, 2025, Blue Owl announced the termination of
the proposed merger, citing "current market conditions."
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused
by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
The Portnoy Law Firm
(310) 692-8883
lesley@portnoylaw.com
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
C3.AI INC: Continues to Defend Liggett Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
C3.ai, Inc.disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Liggett securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On August 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint
(captioned John Liggett Sr. v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:25-cv-7129) ("the Liggett case") was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company,
Mr. Siebel, its Executive Chairman, and its chief financial
officer.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and materially
misleading statements during February to July 2025, regarding the
status of the health of Mr. Siebel and its impact on the Company's
business operations. The complaint asserts causes of action for
violations of 1) Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, and 2) Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors who acquired
C3.ai securities between February 26, 2025 and August 8, 2025. The
complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The
defendants have not filed a response to the complaint.
C3.AI, Inc. is a global artificial intelligence application
software company.[BN]
C3.AI INC: Continues to Defend Reckstin Family Trust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
C3.ai, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Reckstin Family Trust securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.
On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint
(captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.,
22-cv-01413-HSG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain
current and former officers and directors. On December 12, 2022,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint named
as defendants the Company, four current and former officers and
directors, the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering ("IPO"), and Baker Hughes Company ("Baker Hughes"). The
amended complaint generally alleged that the defendants made
material misstatements or omissions about the Company's partnership
with Baker Hughes and the Company's own salesforce. The amended
complaint alleged that defendants made these misstatements or
omissions in connection with the Company's IPO in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between
December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The amended complaint further alleged that certain defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
All defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint on
May 1, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter
defendants. On February 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to
dismiss on all claims except for portions of the alleged violations
of Section 11 and Section 15. Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 4, 2024. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on
May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 15,
2024. While the motions were pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend their second amended complaint on September 27, 2024 to add
new factual allegations.
On February 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
amend, and the Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on
February 14, 2025. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest,
fees and costs. On March 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 6, 2025, the Court
took the motion under submission.
C3.AI, Inc. is a global artificial intelligence application
software company.[BN]
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Taylor Egg Sues Over Egg Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR EGG PRODUCTS, INC. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; ROSE ACRE
FARMS, INC.; VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC.;
HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC., HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC; HILLANDALE
FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC.
d/b/a EXPANA; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; UNITED EGG PRODUCERS; and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02554-MPB-MJD (S.D.
Ind., December 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of federal antitrust and common laws.
The action arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs
(referred to here as "Conventional Eggs" or simply "eggs") from at
least as early as January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful
conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist ("Class
Period").
The complaint relates that as part of their unlawful agreement, the
Egg Producer Defendants reported inflated "assessments" of egg
prices to Urner Barry. Urner Barry then published price quotes
using the subjective information provided by its subscribers,
including the Egg Producer Defendants. It also incorporated
transaction prices from an online spot market provided by Defendant
ECI--a private, members-only spot market for buying and selling
eggs. Urner Barry's price quotes serve as a benchmark for the
pricing of Defendants' sales of Conventional Eggs. In this way,
Urner Barry and ECI amplify price swings led by the largest-volume
producers and prevent independent, competitive decision-making by
others, notes the complaint.
The complaint alleges that Defendants' manipulation of the Urner
Barry benchmark allowed them to sustain ever-increasing price hikes
on their customers. The Defendants have repeatedly blamed higher
prices during the Class Period on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
H5N1 ("HPAI"), which led to the culling of millions of layer hens
beginning in late 2021. In reality, however, the impact of HPAI
does not account for the unprecedented surge in egg prices during
the Class Period. Rather, the Egg Producer Defendants have used
HPAI as a pretext to dramatically increase egg prices to the
detriment of Plaintiff and the Class.
The Plaintiff purchased Conventional Eggs from one or more of the
Defendants during the Class Period. By paying artificially inflated
prices for Conventional Eggs, Plaintiff suffered antitrust injury
as a direct result of the antitrust violations alleged in this
Complaint, says the suit.
Plaintiff Taylor Egg Products, Inc. is a New Hampshire corporation
with its principal place of business in Madbury, New Hampshire.
Defendants Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, Versova, Hillandale, and Daybreak
(together referred to as "Egg Producer Defendants") are the five
biggest egg producers in the United States. Together they own
almost half of all egg-laying commercial hens.
Defendant Urner Barry is a publisher that collects, analyzes, and
disseminates detailed and current information to its customers in
the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant protein, and related
segments of the food industry. Urner Barry provides actionable
competitive intelligence related to the egg market to the Egg
Producer Defendants and other egg producers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
Edward B. Mulligan V, Esq.
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
nmulligan@cohenmalad.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Carrie A. Syme, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
Hannah Grace, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
csyme@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
hgrace@dicellolevitt.com
CALIFORNIA: Delays Revoking Commercial Drivers' Licenses 'til March
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Funk of ABC reports that a week after immigrant groups filed a
lawsuit, California said Tuesday, December 30, it will delay the
revocations of 17,000 commercial driver's licenses until March to
allow more time to ensure that truckers and bus drivers who legally
qualify for the licenses can keep them.
But U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the state may
lose $160 million if it doesn't meet a Jan. 5 deadline to revoke
the licenses. He already withheld $40 million in federal funding
because he said California isn't enforcing English proficiency
requirements for truckers.
California only sent out notices to invalidate the licenses after
Duffy pressured the state to make sure immigrants who are in the
country illegally aren't granted the licenses. An audit found
problems like licenses that remained valid long after an
immigrant's authorization to be in the country expired or licenses
where the state couldn't prove it checked a driver's immigration
status.
"California does NOT have an 'extension' to keep breaking the law
and putting Americans at risk on the roads," Duffy posted on the
social platform X.
The Transportation Department has been prioritizing the issue ever
since a truck driver who was not authorized to be in the U.S. made
an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three
people in August.
California officials said they are working to make sure the federal
Transportation Department is satisfied with the reforms they have
put in place. The state had planned to resume issuing commercial
driver's licenses in mid-December, but the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration blocked that.
"Commercial drivers are an important part of our economy -- our
supply chains don't move, and our communities don't stay connected
without them," said DMV Director Steve Gordon.
The Sikh Coalition, a national group defending the civil rights of
Sikhs, and the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of the California drivers. They said
immigrant truck drivers were being unfairly targeted. The driver in
the Florida crash and the driver in another fatal crash in
California in October are both Sikhs.
Immigrants account for about 20% of all truck drivers, but these
non-domiciled licenses immigrants can receive only represent about
5% of all commercial driver's licenses or about 200,000 drivers.
The Transportation Department also proposed new restrictions that
would severely limit which noncitizens could get a license, but a
court put the new rules on hold.
Mumeeth Kaur, the legal director of the Sikh Coalition, said this
delay "is an important step towards alleviating the immediate
threat that these drivers are facing to their lives and
livelihoods."
Duffy threatened to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding
from California, Pennsylvania and Minnesota after audits found
significant problems under the existing rules like commercial
licenses being valid long after an immigrant truck driver's work
permit expired.
Trucking trade groups have praised the effort to get unqualified
drivers who shouldn't have licenses or can't speak English off the
road. They also applauded the Transportation Department's moves to
go after questionable commercial driver's license schools. [GN]
CALIFORNIA: Postsecondary Education Mandates "Unlawful," Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KHALIL MOHSENI, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection
and Innovation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01760 (E.D. Cal.,
December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
The complaint challenges newly issued California regulations in
postsecondary education that prohibit some institutions from
enrolling students unless the institutions register with, pay fees
to, and receive approval from a state department that is tasked
with overseeing financial institutions, not classrooms, but
specifically exempt other institutions. As a result of the
Defendant's regulatory action, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
institutions suffered harm.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent
ongoing and imminent violations of its members' First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights and to restore a level playing field in
which all postsecondary institutions may lawfully enroll students
and help finance their education without undue regulatory hurdles
or costs.
California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools is a
non-profit mutual benefit corporation in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward M. Cramp, Esq.
Karen L. Alexander, Esq.
Ayad Mathews, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
750 B. Street, Suite 2900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 744-2200
Facsimile: (619) 744-2201
Email: EMCramp@duanemorris.com
KLAlexander@duanemorris.com
AMathews@duanemorris.com
CAPITAL RESORTS: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Timeshare Loan Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO PACHECO and SLONE PACHECO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL RESORTS GROUP,
LLC, and CAPITAL VACATIONS CLUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:25-cv-13862-JD (D.S.C., December 12, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Military Lending Act
(MLA) and restitution/unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' extensions of credit through
the use of standard form timeshare loan agreements, which violate
the MLA. Specifically, the Defendants' agreements violate Section
987(a)(3) by unlawfully requiring covered members and their
dependents to pay interest on credit extended through loan
documents, which contain three provisions that are specifically
prohibited by the MLA: (1) mandatory arbitration; (2) class action
waiver; and (3) jury trial waiver. As a result of these MLA
violations, the Plaintiffs and all Class members have been damaged
by the interest payments made, by not receiving any of the required
disclosures, and the agreements and loans between the Defendants
and the Plaintiffs (and all members of the Class) are void from
inception as a matter of law.
Capital Resorts Group, LLC is a company that offers real estate
management, vacation and timeshare management, timeshare sales,
rental and condominium management based in Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina.
Capital Vacations Club, Inc. is a company that offers real estate
management, vacation and timeshare management, timeshare sales,
rental and condominium management based in Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne M. Kearse, Esq.
Marlon E. Kimpson, Esq.
M. Nolan Webb, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Email: akearse@motleyrice.com
mkimpson@motleyrice.com
nwebb@motleyrice.com
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352-504-3301
Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN, LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAYAN GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ and BAYRON GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC and ANDY CARMICHAEL a/k/a ANDREW A.
CARMICHAEL, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-07116-VMC (S.D.N.Y., December 14, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Brayan and Bayron Garcia-Rodriguez were employed by the
Defendants as laborers from September 1, 2022 to October 30, 2023
and from March 6, 2024 to November 8, 2024, respectively.
Carmichael Development, LLC is a general contractor in Woodstock,
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (678) 862-9344
Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com
CHRICOL INC: Faces Alger Suit Over Disabled's Access Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ALGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRICOL, INC., dba COLD STONE CREAMERY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02772 (C.D. Cal., December 15, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its property and business.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
Chricol, Inc., doing business as Cold Stone Creamery, is an ice
cream shop owner and operator located in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq.
ALLACCESS LAW GROUP
1400 Coleman Ave., Ste. F28
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 295-0137
Facsimile: (408) 295-0142
Email: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Toikach Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TOIKACH, BEATA TOIKACH, MICHAEL TOIKACH, BEATA TOIKACH, RA
VEEN BHATT, PORTIA MARIE RAVEEN BHATT, PORTIA MARIE SMITHSON, SCOTT
HOLLAND, RALPH SMITHSON, SCOTT HOLLAND, RALPH NGUYEN, and ANDY
ANSRYAN, NGUYEN, and ANDY ANSRYAN, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-018776 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., December 9, 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.
This class action arises out of the recent data breach involving
the Defendant that was identified on May 7, 2025.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were
required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public private
information as a condition of purchasing goods, without which
Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. The
Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even
after the company relationship has ended.
In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiffs' 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 Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
Christian Dior, Inc. is the American subsidiary company of
Christian Dior Couture SAS, a luxury brand that sells products,
including fashion, accessories, fragrances, and beauty
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG PLLC
333 SE 2nd Avenue Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 206-9057
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St., Ste. 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
CLINT MILLER: Court Denies Hunting Guide's Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as John Iasella, for himself and for others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clint Miller, Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00032-HRH, Judge H. Russel Holland of the United States
District Court for the District of Alaska denied the Plaintiff's
amended motion for class certification.
The Defendant's form contracts require that clients prepay the
Defendant's guiding fees. The contracts make provision for a
forfeiture of fees paid in the event a client cancels a hunting
trip. The contract makes no provision for refunds in the event that
the Defendant fails to provide the agreed-upon hunt.
The Plaintiff and proposed class members contend that the Defendant
has violated the Alaska Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act
(AS 45.50.471, et seq.) by feigning unavailability to perform the
claimants' hunting contracts, not providing the agreed-upon hunts,
and by failing to refund fees paid by clients in connection with
failed hunts. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has
systematically deceived and defrauded clients who hoped to go on a
guided, Alaska big game hunt. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant's failure to refund prepaid fees where the Defendant has
failed to provide the agreed-upon hunt, is an unfair trade
practice.
The proposed class is defined as: All persons, who entered into a
contract with Defendant Clint Miller to act as a Hunting Guide in
the State of Alaska at any time within the preceding 2 years from
the filing of this Complaint, and continuing through the present,
and who were not provided the guide service, and were not refunded
the fees they paid to Defendant Miller.
The Court evaluated the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class
certification. Regarding numerosity, the parties seem to agree that
there are approximately 40 potential class members. The potential
claimants appear to be scattered all over North America. The fact
that potential claimants are likely far from Alaska, as well as the
rather modest amount (approximately $20,000.00) of each claim, as
well as the need to secure counsel in Alaska to file suit, all
suggest the impracticability of joinder. The Court found that the
Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity prerequisite is satisfied in this case.
Regarding commonality, the Court found that because it appears that
the Defendant employed the same form guiding contract for all of
his endeavors, common issues of fact and law will arise as to all
potential class members. The Court found these issues are not
peripheral; those issues are central to the matter of whether or
not the Defendant has violated the UTPA.
Regarding typicality, the Court found that the Plaintiff's
complaint is based upon the same contract and the same business
practice as are attributed to potential class members. Because of
the substantial identity of the Plaintiff's dealings with the
Defendant and the potential class members' dealings with the
Defendant, proof of the Plaintiff's claim will tend to establish
the class members' claims as well. The Court found that typicality
is established.
Regarding adequacy of representation, the Court found that there
being before it no evidence of conflicts or other difficulties that
could stand in the way of adequate representation, the Plaintiff
and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.
The Court found that questions of law or fact common to potential
class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members.
However, regarding the superiority requirement under Rule 23(b)(3),
the Court found that an action by the State of Alaska based upon
the factual circumstances which give rise to the Plaintiff's
complaint in this case was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of Alaska on July 25, 2025. The State of Alaska has exercised
its prerogative of commencing a collective action that will, as it
progresses, sweep up the entirety of the Plaintiff's proposed
class. The State's action seeks all of the relief that the
Plaintiff would seek through its proposed class action.
Certification of this case as a class action would result in a
duplication of effort and expense. Two courts would be devoting
their scarce resources to the same controversy. Two sets of
plaintiff's lawyers would be involved. The Defendant would be put
to the expense of defending two actions over the same controversy
rather than one.
The Court found that certification of a class action in this case
would not be superior to other available methods of adjudication.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's amended class action motion fails to
qualify this case as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sWolpv from PacerMonitor.com
COAL-MAC LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Russell Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
SHANE RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COAL-MAC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00741
(S.D.W.V., Dec. 17, 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 Russell was employed by the Defendant as a greaser and
steamer.
Coal-Mac, Inc. produces and distributes coal. The Company offers
low-sulfur thermal and metallurgical coal to power generators and
steel manufacturers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
Graham B. Platz, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite 807
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com
gplatz@powellmajestro.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
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
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-06111 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 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 Reyes was employed by the Defendant as a cook.
Creative Solutions in Healthcare, Inc. provides health care
services. The Company offers assisted living, physical therapy,
ventilation, long and short term care, nursing, and rehabilitative
services to patients who require continuous health care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 766-4000
Email: carl@fitz.legal
DOCGO INC: $12.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
DocGo Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOCGO INC. and ANTHONY CAPONE,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-09476-KPF
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED DOCGO INC. ("DocGo")
PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK BETWEEN NOVEMBER 5, 2021, AND
SEPTEMBER 15, 2023, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class
action, except for certain Persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement, dated November 12, 2025 ("Stipulation") and the
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at
www.DocGoSecuritiesSettlement.com.
YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System ("Lead Plaintiff") and defendants DocGo and
Anthony Capone ("Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Litigation on behalf of the Class for $12.5 million in cash
("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Litigation.
YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on March
24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
Courtroom 618, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the
Settlement of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the
Stipulation for $12.5 million in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the
Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined
in the Notice) and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
The Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the
Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic
conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the
hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written
notice to the Class. It is important that you check the Settlement
website, www.DocGoSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans
to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to
participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the
access information will be posted to the website.
IF YOU PURCHASED DocGo PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 5, 2021, AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2023, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS
ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than March 9,
2026) or electronically via the Settlement website (no later than
March 9, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by March 9,
2026, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class (as described below), you
will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used
in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be
accessed online at www.DocGoSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing
to or calling:
DocGo Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Verita Global
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171
1-888-808-8947
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MARCH 3, 2026,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU PROPERLY
EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY
RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE
LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE
SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS IS THE ONLY OPTION
THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE
LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY
THE SETTLEMENT.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY LEAD
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 33% OF THE
$12.5 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED
$250,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE
FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL BY MARCH 3, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE
NOTICE.
DATED: November 18, 2025
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DONALD TRUMP: D.C. Court Certifies Venezuelan Detainees Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as J.G.G., et al., Plaintiffs, LIYANARA
SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB), Chief Judge
James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia (D.D.C) granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
denied the Government's motion for summary judgment.
The Court certified a class comprising all noncitizens removed from
U.S. custody and transferred to the Terrorism Confinement Center
(CECOT) in El Salvador on March 15 and 16, 2025, pursuant solely to
the Presidential Proclamation entitled, Invocation of the Alien
Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren de
Aragua.
Nine months ago, six Venezuelan men were hustled out of a detention
center in Texas, loaded onto planes, and shipped to an infamous
mega-prison in El Salvador with no explanation and no opportunity
to challenge the reason for their hasty removal. On behalf of
themselves and a putative class of similarly situated detainees,
they have turned to the courts to vindicate their constitutional
right to due process.
The Court ultimately found that the United States maintained
constructive custody over Plaintiffs while they were imprisoned in
El Salvador, thus affording the Court habeas jurisdiction over this
action. On the merits, the Court concluded that this class was
denied their due-process rights and will thus require the
Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing.
In early March of this year, the Department of Homeland Security
began interviewing Venezuelan detainees about possible gang
membership and moving them to El Valle Detention Facility in Texas.
Sometime around March 14, the President secretly invoked the Alien
Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 21, to sign a Proclamation asserting
that a Venezuelan gang named Tren de Aragua had committed an
invasion and predatory incursion upon the United States.
In the early morning hours of March 15, Venezuelans at El Valle
were taken from their cells, shackled, and loaded onto planes.
These men were given no advance notice of the basis for their
removal, nor were they informed that they could challenge their
designation. The Government flew 252 Venezuelan men, including 137
putative class members, out of the United States. Rather than
heading to Venezuela, however, these planes were bound for El
Salvador.
Around the same time, the United States transferred 4.7 million
dollars to El Salvador to be used by Salvadoran law enforcement and
corrections agencies for its law enforcement needs, which include
costs associated with detaining Plaintiffs. In July 2025,
Plaintiffs were released from CECOT and sent to Venezuela at the
same time that Venezuela released ten Americans and eighty
Venezuelan political prisoners.
The Court examined whether El Salvador detained Plaintiffs at the
behest of the United States. Before removing Plaintiffs from this
country, the United States arranged for El Salvador to detain them
in exchange for money. In this arrangement, El Salvador agreed to
accept and accommodate Plaintiffs for a duration of one year unless
or until a determination concerning their long-term disposition is
made.
In a response to the United Nations Working Group, El Salvador
itself indicated that it was working at the behest of the United
States: it facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison
infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope
of the justice system and law enforcement of that other State. El
Salvador stated that the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for
these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign
authorities.
The Court found that Plaintiffs were indeed released upon the
United States's request, in what appears to be a clear prisoner
exchange between our country and Venezuela. The Government
retained, and exercised, the power to control the return of CECOT
detainees.
The Court held that it is beyond cavil that designated alien
enemies under that act must be afforded some process to contest
their designation. Here, Plaintiffs received none. They were not
told of their designation or informed that they could challenge it
before being loaded onto planes and shipped out of the United
States mere hours after Proclamation 10903 was made public.
The Government itself has not even contested that the detainees who
now make up the CECOT class received inadequate process prior to
their removal. There can be no genuine dispute about this question
now. The Court held that the entire class received constitutionally
inadequate process on the weekend of March 14-16, 2025, when class
members were given no meaningful notice of their AEA designations
and no opportunity to challenge them.
The Court found that the only remedy that would give effect to its
granting of Plaintiffs' Motion would be to order the Government to
undo the effects of their unlawful removal by facilitating a
meaningful opportunity to contest their designation and the
Proclamation's validity. Expedited removal cannot be allowed to
render this relief toothless.
The Supreme Court has already unanimously agreed that facilitating
an individual's return to the United States is a proper remedy, one
that does not upset the Executive Branch's exclusive authority over
foreign affairs. The Court will allow the Government to articulate
what steps it proposes to facilitate the return of Plaintiffs. The
Court gave the Government two weeks to submit its proposal.
Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and
denied the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AGxFQ4 from PacerMonitor.com
EL CAMINO: Proveyer Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR A. PROVEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL CAMINO FORT LAUDERDALE LLC
D/B/A EL CAMINO, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25954-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://elcaminoftlauderdale.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
El Camino Fort Lauderdale LLC d/b/a El Camino operates as a Mexican
restaurant located at Ft. Lauderdale, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Diego German Mendez, Esq.
MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC
P.O. BOX 228630
Miami, FL 33172
Telephone: (305) 264-9090
Facsimile: (305) 809-8474
Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com
- and -
Richard J. Adams, Esq.
ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101
Miami Lakes, FL 33014
Telephone: (786) 290-1963
Facsimile: (305) 824-3868
Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com
ENCENSE ENTERPRISES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rowan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENCENSE ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a Flex Home &
Auto; PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Auto Service
Department; NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CO., LLC; and PALMER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02775
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 16, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.
Encense Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Flex Home & Auto is engaged in
insurance and investment activities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ENVASES USA: Marrero Sues Over Utility Operators' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA MARRERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENVASES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00513 (D.N.H., December 9, 2025) is brought against the
Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the state and
federal laws by failing to pay overtime for all hours worked over
40 hours in a workweek at one-and-one-half times their regular
rates of pay because of Defendant's companywide policies and/or
practices.
The Defendant's conduct in failing to pay Named Plaintiff and the
State Law Class for all hours worked was willful and not based on
any good faith dispute, added the suit.
Named Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt employee in the position of utility operator from May
2023 until May 2, 2025 at one of Defendant's facilities, labeled,
"Envases USA Bethlehem," in Pennsylvania.
Envases USA, Inc. is a global packaging manufacturing company for
food, industrial, and beverage industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olivia F. Bensinger, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.
107 Storrs Street, P.O. Box 2703
Concord, NH 03302
Telephone: (603) 225-7262
E-mail: obensinger@shaheengordon.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
E-mail: ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
FLUX POWER: Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for April 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLUX) provided the following
notice of an Order from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California related to the proposed settlement
of derivative action:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
RONALD PEARL, derivatively on behalf of FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD F. DUTT, CHARLES A. SCHEIWE, MICHAEL JOHNSON, MARK LEPOSKY,
DALE T. ROBINETTE, LISA WALTERS-HOFFERT, AND CHEEMIN
BO-LINN,Defendants, and FLUX POWER HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00373-JO-DDL
TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF FLUX POWER
HOLDINGS, INC. ("FLUX POWER" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF
AUGUST 12, 2025 ("CURRENT FLUX POWER SHAREHOLDERS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the December 8, 2025
Preliminary Approval Order entered in the above-captioned
shareholder derivative action (the "Action"), that a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated August 12, 2025 (the
"Stipulation" or "Settlement") has been entered to resolve the
shareholder derivative claims pending on behalf of nominal
defendant Flux Power in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.
The Action arises from allegations that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties as officers and directors of Flux
Power by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing
to disclose that: (i) Flux Power's financial statements from
November 10, 2022 to the filing of the Complaint included, among
other things, overstated inventory, gross profit, current assets,
and total assets; (ii) Flux Power understated its cost of sales and
net loss; (iii) as a result, Flux Power would need to restate its
previously filed financial statements from November 10, 2022 to the
filing of the Complaint; (iv) Flux Power understated its internal
control weaknesses and/or stated that it had adequate internal
controls when it did not; and (v) as a result, the Individual
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. As a result of this alleged wrongdoing, the
Action alleges the Company suffered damage.
In connection with, and conditioned upon, the Settlement, Flux
Power has agreed to implement and/or maintain corporate governance
reforms, as defined and set forth in the Stipulation. The Parties
believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Company and its stockholders, and that the
Settlement, including the Reforms, confers substantial benefits
upon the Company and its stockholders. Defendants dispute the
allegations in the Action and enter into the Stipulation and
Settlement without in any way acknowledging any fault, liability,
or wrongdoing of any kind.
On April 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. PT, at the Edward J. Schwartz United
States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101,
Courtroom 4C or via Zoom or some other video platform or
telephonically, the Honorable Jinsook Ohta will hold a hearing (the
"Settlement Hearing") in the Action. The purpose of the Settlement
Hearing is to determine, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.1: (i) whether the terms of the Stipulation should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the notice
that was issued fully satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.1 and due process; (iii) whether to enter the
proposed Order and Final Judgment in its entirety, as set forth in
Exhibit D to the Stipulation; (iv) whether the Fee and Expense
Amount for Plaintiff's Counsel, as well as service award for
Plaintiff of up to $2,000, to be paid from the Fee and Expense
Amount, should be approved; and (v) such other matters as the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Court may: (i) approve the Settlement, with such modifications
as may be agreed to by counsel for the Parties consistent with such
Settlement, without further notice to Current Flux Power
Stockholders; (ii) continue or adjourn the Settlement Hearing from
time to time, by oral announcement at the hearing or at any
adjournment thereof, without further notice to Current Flux Power
Stockholders; and (iii) conduct the Settlement Hearing remotely
without further notice to Current Flux Power Stockholders. If you
intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's
calendar and/or the website of Flux Power (ir.fluxpower.com) for
any change in date, time or format of the Settlement Hearing.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF
YOU ARE A CURRENT FLUX POWER SHAREHOLDER, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION.
This is a summary notice only. For additional information about the
claims asserted in the Action and the terms of the proposed
Settlement, please refer to the documents filed with the Court in
the Action, the Stipulation and its exhibits (they are filed as an
exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov),
and the full-length Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Derivative Action (the "Notice"). The "Investor Relations" section
of Flux Power's website (ir.fluxpower.com) provides hyperlinks to
the Notice and to the Stipulation and its exhibits.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE.
If you have any questions about matters in this Summary Notice you
may contact Plaintiff's Counsel at: Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M.
Egleston, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, 260 Madison Ave., 22nd Fl.,
New York, NY 10016, Tel: (212) 983-1300, email:
tjmckenna@gme-law.com, gegleston@gme-law.com.
If you are a Current Flux Power Shareholder, you will be bound by
the Order and Final Judgment of the Court granting final approval
of the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived the right to
object (including the right to appeal) and forever shall be barred,
in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such
objection. Any objections to the Settlement must be filed on or
before March 12, 2026, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in the Notice.
DATED: DECEMBER 8, 2025
HONORABLE JINSOOK OHTAU.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GATE 1 LTD: Underpays Service Agents, Parker Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GATE 1, LTD., and GATE 1 TRAVEL, LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07011 (E.D. Pa., December 12, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt service
agent from approximately March 6, 2023 to July 28, 2023.
Gate 1, Ltd. is a company that offers vacation packages based in
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.
Gate 1 Travel, Ltd. is a company that offers vacation packages
based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
GEISINGER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Security Suit for $5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a
notice stating the Nov. 29, 2023, data security incident involving
Geisinger Health compromised their personal or health information
may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,000 and other
benefits from a class action settlement.
Geisinger Health and Nuance Communications Inc. agreed to pay $5
million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to
adequately protect patient data, resulting in a data breach that
exposed sensitive personal and health information.
Who can file a claim?
Class members are individuals in the United States whose private
information the Nov. 29, 2023, data security incident allowed
unauthorized individuals to access and or acquire.
How much is the class action settlement payment?
Class members have the following options:
-- Cash payment A – Documented losses: Class members can claim
up to $5,000 for actual, documented out-of-pocket losses losses the
data security incident caused, including compensation for lost time
the class member spent on matters related to the incident, which
requires only an attestation rather than third-party documentation.
Other monetary losses, such as fraud or bank fees, require
supporting documentation
-- Cash payment B – Alternate cash payment: Class members who
do not submit a documented losses claim may submit a claim to
receive a pro rata cash payment. The settlement administrator will
determine the final payment amount based on the total number of
valid claims filed and the funds remaining after settlement
expenses.
-- Credit and medical monitoring services: All class members may
elect to enroll in one year of three-bureau credit and medical
monitoring and identity theft protection services. The service
includes $1 million in identity theft insurance, dark web
monitoring, medical record monitoring and access to fraud
resolution agents.
The settlement administrator will distribute settlement funds after
it pays settlement administration costs, attorneys' fees and
expenses and service awards to class representatives. If the number
of valid claims exceeds the available funds, the settlement
administrator will reduce all cash payments on a pro rata basis.
How to claim an award
To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim
online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail it to the
settlement administrator. The claim deadline is March 18, 2026.
Settlement administrator's mailing address: Settlement
Administrator -- 83320, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC,
P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324
Required proof and claim information
-- For online or mailed claims, claimants must provide their
contact information and any required claim identification
information.
-- For out-of-pocket expense reimbursement, claimants must
provide reasonable third-party documentation of actual,
unreimbursed losses that are fairly traceable to the data security
incident. Self-prepared documents alone are not sufficient.
-- For alternate cash payments and credit and medical monitoring
services, claimants do not need to submit documentation of losses.
They must attest to their eligibility and submit the claim form.
$5 million settlement fund
The $5,000,000 settlement fund includes:
-- Settlement administration costs: To be determined
-- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $1,666,666.67
-- Service awards to class representatives: $2,000 each for five
representatives ($10,000 total)
-- Credit and medical monitoring services: Total determined by
number of claims filed
-- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement
funds
Important dates
-- Opt-out deadline: Feb. 17, 2026
-- Final approval hearing: March 16, 2026
-- Deadline to file a claim: March 18, 2026
When is the Geisinger Health data security incident payout date?
The settlement administrator will issue payments and provide credit
monitoring enrollment instructions after the court grants final
approval of the settlement and resolves any appeals.
Why is there a class action settlement?
This class action lawsuit alleged the Nov. 29, 2023, data security
incident compromised Geisinger Health computer systems, allowing
unauthorized parties to access files containing sensitive personal
and medical information. The plaintiffs claimed Geisinger Health
and Nuance Communications failed to adequately protect this
information.
The defendants deny any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid
the expense and uncertainties of ongoing litigation.
Award: Up to $5,000 or pro rata cash payment plus medical
monitoring
Deadline: March 18, 2026 [GN]
GENERAL MILLS: Slater Investigates Pillsbury Pizza Pops Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slater Vecchio LLP is investigating a potential class action
lawsuit against the manufacturer of Pillsbury brand Pizza Pops
products.
On December 21, 2025, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced
a recall for four Pillsbury brand Pizza Pops Pepperoni + Bacon
products due to possible E. coli O26 contamination. The affected
Pillsbury brand Pizza Pops products include:
Product UPC Best Before Date
Pizza Pops 0 69052 June 9, 2026
Pepperoni + Bacon – 12961 9 or June 10, 2026
30 pizza snacks (2.85 kg)
Pizza Pops Supremo 0 69052 June 10, 2026, June 11,
Extreme Pepperoni + Bacon 46901 2 2026, or June 12, 2026
– 30 pizza snacks (3 kg)
Pizza Pops 0 69052 June 9, 2026 or
Pepperoni + Bacon 12967 1 June 10, 2026
– 8 pizza snacks (760 g)
Pizza Pops FRANK’s 0 69052 June 14, 2026
RedHot Pepperoni + Bacon 12947 3
– 4 pizza snacks (380 g)
A complete list of the recalled products can be viewed on the
Government of Canada’s website.
E. coli (Escherichia coli) infections are bacterial illnesses that
can affect anyone exposed to a contaminated food product. Symptoms
of E. coli infection typically appear 1 to 10 days after exposure
to E. coli bacteria and may include:
-- nausea,
-- vomiting,
-- headache
-- mild fever
-- severe abdominal cramps, and
-- watery or bloody diarrhea
In severe cases of illness, some people may require hospital care
and suffer long-lasting health effects or death.
What is a class action?
A class action is a legal case through which one person makes a
claim to the Court on behalf of a similarly situated class of
people who have the same or a similar legal claim. A class action
seeks to hold a defendant or defendants responsible for their
conduct that affects each member of the class by resolving issues
that are common to the class in the same legal proceeding, instead
of each class member bringing a claim individually.
The individual who first files the claim must ask the Court for
permission to proceed as a class action. If permission is granted
(referred as "authorized" in Quebec, and "certified" in all other
Canadian provinces) and the case may proceed as a class action, the
Court will appoint an individual as "Representative Plaintiff" to
represent the best interests of the class during the litigation and
will define the class group. Each person who meets the criteria of
the class group is considered a "Class Member".
What should proposed class members do now?
Do not consume the recalled products and seek medical treatment as
appropriate.
If you consumed a recalled product and felt sick, fill out the form
on this webpage and make detailed notes about the circumstances of
your illness, including:
-- when you consumed the recalled product;
-- what recalled product you consumed;
-- how long after your consumption of the recalled product you
began feeling sick;
-- what symptoms you experienced; and
-- for how long these symptoms lasted.
In order to assist in proving that your illness was caused by the
consumption of the recalled products, it is important that you
collect and retain the above-listed information as soon as
possible. [GN]
GLDN INC: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLDN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-15226 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 16, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://gldn.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
GLDN Inc. is an online store focusing on handcrafted and
direct-to-customer jewelry products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Tel: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
GOOD AMERICAN: Jones-Rubin Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE JONES-RUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD AMERICAN, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-10716 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 16, 2025) is an action
alleging that the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the
Comprehensive Computer Data and Access and Fraud Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class accessed
and navigated www.goodamerican.com (the "Website") and their
electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by
advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc., Google,
LLC, Klaviyo, Inc., TikTok Ltd., Snap, Inc., and Pinterest, Inc.
Despite its promises and representations of privacy, the Defendant
aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to
eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and
Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates,
including communications that contain personally identifiable
information.
Good American, LLC designs and markets apparel products. The
Company distributes hoodies, jackets, trousers, t-shirts,
sweatshirts, jeans, skirts, shorts, and other clothing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
50 Main Street, Suite 475
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 874-0710
Facsimile: (914) 206-3656
E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
GOOGLE LLC: Removes Rendon Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ISABEL RENDON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC;
and LULULEMON ATHLETICA INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange (Case No. 30-2025-01525137) to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on December 17, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:25-cv-02793. The case is assigned to Judge David O.
Carter, and referred to Magistrate Autumn D. Spaeth.
Google LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Fox, Esq.
Hannah Makinde, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 624-2500
Facsimile: (213) 623-458
Email: adam.fox@squirepb.com
hannah.makinde@squirepb.com
GRILL'D PTY LTD: Faces Employee Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy of Lawyers Weekly reports that Victoria-based law
firm Gordon Legal has launched proceedings in the Federal Court of
Australia, on behalf of more than 15,000 past and present employees
of burger chain Grill'd, alleging that the burger chain did not
provide workers with rest breaks that they were entitled to under
applicable enterprise bargaining agreements.
The proceedings are being supported by the union for fast-food
workers, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
(SDA).
The firm and union believe that, if the claim succeeds, thousands
of past and present employees may be eligible to claim
compensation.
HR Leader has reached out to Grill'd for a statement.
Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech said: "Hundreds of young workers
have already come forward reporting that they were refused rest
breaks or denied the opportunity to take them."
"Gordon Legal is proud to be working with the SDA to provide some
long-overdue justice for Grill'd employees."
The class action's representative applicant, Mia Troy, said: "I was
physically exhausted and burnt out after working at Grill'd for
over two years without a single rest break. No one should feel
scared to ask for something as basic as a moment to rest.
"Bringing this action is my way of saying that our wellbeing
matters, and that young workers deserve to be treated with dignity,
not as if we're replaceable,
"I want future Grill'd employees to get what they are entitled
to."
SDA South Australian branch secretary Josh Peak said: "This is yet
another case of young workers in fast food being systematically
exploited and denied basic entitlements. Paid rest breaks are a
right set out in the agreements negotiated by Grill'd and
underpinned by the Fast Food Award."
"Grill'd cannot pick and choose which entitlements workers receive
– and now thousands of workers are standing with the SDA to set
things right.
"It takes a lot of courage to stand up against your employer. We're
committed to ensuring Grill'd workers receive their paid rest
breaks and are compensated appropriately for any denied breaks."
The proceedings are open to those who worked at Grill'd between
December 2019 and December 2025.
In a statement provided to HR Leader, Grill'd founder and managing
director said: "We are aware of the class action that has been
filed against Grill'd, joining some major QSR players also facing
similar actions."
"Grill'd takes its obligations to our team very seriously, they are
our greatest asset and we are committed to providing a positive,
fair and supportive workplace. With our recently approved
Enterprise Agreement, Grill'd is now among the highest-paying
employers in the industry, reflecting our ongoing focus on
recognising and rewarding our people," he said. [GN]
HANK'S CLOTHING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Hank's Clothing for Men and Women, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15349 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2025) is
a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
https://www.hanksbelts.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Youngren and other blind or
visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The complaint relates that Youngren has made an attempt to complete
a purchase on the Website. Youngren was looking for a durable belt
for everyday wear. On May 14, 2025, he searched Google with the
intention to order a leather belt online, and came across the
Defendant's Website, offering American-made full-grain leather
belts designed to meet a variety of needs and preferences. While
exploring their offerings, Youngren decided to purchase the Montana
Bison Double Layer. However, as he tried to navigate the website
and complete his purchase, Youngren encountered accessibility
barriers that significantly hindered his ability to proceed.
Due to these accessibility issues, Youngren was unable to browse
the website effectively using his screen reader and was ultimately
prevented from completing the purchase of his desired product.
These access barriers have caused the Website to be inaccessible
to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired
persons, says the suit.
Youngren seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Dustin Youngren is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Hank's Clothing for Men and Women, Inc., operates the Website which
provides consumers access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to purchase view a variety of leather belts
for men and women, including jean belts, dress belts, work belts,
suede styles, and retro double-prong designs.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Office: 844-731-3343
Direct: 718-554-0237
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Lee Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-04038-JRR (D. Md., December 9, 2025) is a class
action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information who were
impacted in a data breach.
On or about July 22, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a security
incident on its IT Network. Upon detection, the Defendant launched
an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the
incident.
According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class
Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to
keep the private information collected safe and secure from
unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and
derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its
duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security
practices.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons whose private information was compromised and stolen as a
result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
Healthcare Interactive, Inc. is a technology provider that develops
AI-powered software solutions for insurance enrollment and benefits
administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Melissa G. Meyer, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
mmeyer@zlk.com
HUMBL LLC: Court Junks "Pasquinelli" 2nd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware dismissed the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Matt Pasquinelli and Bryan Paysen
against HUMBL, LLC (referred to as HUMBL, Inc.), Brian Foote,
Jeffrey Hinshaw, George Sharp, Karen Garcia, Michele Rivera, and BF
Borgers CPA, PC in Case No. 23-743-JLH.
This putative class action for securities fraud alleged that
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of 1933. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint represented
Plaintiffs' third attempt to levy viable claims against the
Defendants. The HUMBL Defendants and Defendant George Sharp moved
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Court began with the First and Third Causes of Action, which
were the Section 10(b) claims. In the previous dismissal order, the
Court granted Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds
that the complaint failed to plausibly plead reliance.
Specifically, the Court explained that Plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege direct reliance because they pointed only to two
conclusory paragraphs in support of their argument. Plaintiffs
still relied on the exact same paragraphs: "Plaintiffs relied upon
the price of the securities, the integrity of the market for the
securities, and/or statements disseminated by Defendants, and were
damaged thereby and "Plaintiffs, relying on the materially false
and misleading statements described herein, which the Defendants
made, issued or caused to be disseminated, or relying upon the
integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise acquired HUMBL
securities at prices artificially inflated by Defendants' wrongful
conduct." The Court found that the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, like its predecessor, still failed to plausibly plead
direct reliance.
The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege they were
entitled to a presumption of reliance, under either the
fraud-on-the-market doctrine or the presumption under Affiliated
Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). The
Court explained that the complaint failed to allege facts plausibly
suggesting that HUMBL traded in an efficient market and failed to
plausibly plead that Defendants owed a duty to disclose.
With respect to the Affiliated Ute presumption, Plaintiffs asserted
they were entitled to the presumption because "Defendants failed to
disclose that HUMBL itself was an elaborate pump-and-pivot scheme
to enrich insiders at the expense of investors." The Court found
this conclusory assertion insufficient to show entitlement to the
presumption, stating that the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
did not plausibly plead that Moving Defendants owed a duty to
disclose. Therefore, Plaintiffs were not entitled to the Affiliated
Ute presumption.
With respect to the fraud-on-the-market presumption, courts
consider eight factors in determining whether a market is
efficient: the five Cammer factors and the three Krogman factors.
As the HUMBL Defendants pointed out, Plaintiffs effectively
conceded that five of the eight factors did not support their
position by simply refusing to address them. Additionally, the
Court found that the fifth Cammer factor (empirical facts showing a
cause-and-effect relationship between specific corporate activity
and an immediate response in the stock price) weighed against
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed it was sufficient that they "alleged
that the stock price significantly increased upon the release of
material positive news," but the Court found that threadbare
allegation was devoid of plausibly pleaded empirical facts.
Likewise, the Court found the second Cammer factor did not support
Plaintiffs' position. The second Cammer factor looks to whether a
significant number of analysts are following and reporting on the
security. Plaintiffs discussed two analysts who followed and
reported on HUMBL during the relevant period. The Court agreed with
the HUMBL Defendants that two is not a significant number of
analysts. Thus, seven of the eight factors for consideration under
the fraud-on-the-market doctrine weighed against Plaintiffs. The
Court agreed with the HUMBL Defendants that one factor out of eight
cannot carry a presumption of reliance by itself.
The Second Cause of Action alleged control person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. However, such liability hinges
on an underlying violation of Section 10(b). Because the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint failed to state a Section 10(b)
claim, it also failed to state a Section 20(a) claim.
The Fourth Cause of Action alleged that the HUMBL Defendants
violated Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by selling
an unregistered security, namely HUMBL's "BLOCK ETX" service.
Plaintiffs attempted to compare the BLOCK ETX service to a mutual
fund. The Court found the analogy misplaced, noting that Plaintiffs
ignored the fact that one purchases shares in a mutual fund. There
was no allegation in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint that
Plaintiffs purchased shares of the BLOCK ETX service. The Court
pointed out that Plaintiffs' own PSLRA certification confirmed that
the BLOCK ETX service was not itself a standalone asset that could
be bought or sold. The BLOCK ETX trades listed on the PSLRA
certification detailed multiple individual transactions in
different cryptocurrencies, not in BLOCK ETX itself. Plaintiffs
thus failed to plausibly allege that the BLOCK ETX is a security.
The Court concluded that the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
represented Plaintiffs' third attempt to plead a viable claim
against the Moving Defendants. In the previous order dismissing the
complaint, the Court specified the deficiencies and gave Plaintiffs
an opportunity to cure. They failed to do so. Any further amendment
would be futile. Accordingly, the Court granted the HUMBL
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Defendant George Sharp's Motion
to Dismiss. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint was dismissed
as to the HUMBL Defendants and Defendant Sharp, who were terminated
as defendants in this action.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SYLq15 from PacerMonitor.com
HUSCH BLACKWELL: Former Partner Sues on Delayed 401K Contribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hall Benefits Law, LLC reports that a former equity partner at
Husch Blackwell LLP has filed a proposed class action alleging that
the law firm unlawfully withheld and misused employee 401(k)
contributions. The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, accuses the firm of
violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
holding funds deferred from employees' salaries and using them to
cover operational costs. The former partner further alleges that
the unlawful holding of funds deprived the employees of investment
growth and put the plan at risk.
Husch Blackwell is a Midwestern-based law firm with multiple
offices nationwide. The firm maintains a 401(k) retirement plan for
about 400 plan participants, most of whom have contributions
deducted from their paychecks as salary deferrals. Both ERISA and
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations require employers to
hold plan assets in trust for their participants. Accordingly, a
business must forward withheld funds to the plan as soon as it can
separate them from general operating funds, which is usually within
a few business days for large law firms. Violations of these rules
constitute both a prohibited transaction and a breach of fiduciary
duty.
The former partner filed suit on behalf of all current and former
employees who contributed to the plan since at least 2022. The suit
focuses on accusations that the firm engaged in purposeful delays
in remitting employees' deferred salary contributions to the plan.
In many instances, the firm allegedly retained deferred funds for
three months or longer before transferring them to the plan. The
former partner also accused Husch Blackwell of commingling the
deferred funds with its general operating accounts and using them
to pay day-to-day expenses, including office rent and payroll. In
doing so, the firm allegedly earned interest on, or at least used,
the funds as a prohibited transaction under ERISA, in the form of
impermissible self-dealing, when the funds should have been applied
to the plan participants' investment accounts.
The complaint details specific instances of misconduct supported by
internal payroll audits and participant statements. These incidents
reportedly occurred while the law firm was experiencing cash flow
problems due to expansion. Furthermore, the law firm failed to
disclose the delays in its annual Form 5500 filings and in its
participants' filings to obscure its actions. The complaint
describes the failure to disclose the delays as a breach of the law
firm's fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, exposing plan
assets to its financial troubles.
Finally, the suit accuses Husch Blackwell of maintaining inadequate
internal controls and failing to monitor contributions to the plan
properly. The firm allegedly ignored DOL guidance about promptly
remitting deferred funds and failed to implement automated
safeguards common in large law firms.
The former partner is seeking class certification, injunctive
relief concerning the processing of deferred salary contributions
to the plan, restitution for lost investment income, and statutory
penalties up to the full amount of the misappropriated funds.
This lawsuit is a reminder to smaller employer-sponsored plans of
the need to maintain strict internal controls and the potentially
disastrous penalties for delaying and misappropriating deferred
funds. As many plan participants are mid-career attorneys with
higher salaries, the lost investment opportunities resulting from
the law firm's delays could yield a significant recovery for
proposed class members. The suit also indicates increased
litigation over plan administration and heightened DOL scrutiny of
delayed contributions.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law,
offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and
HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the
complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those
laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your
exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by
calling 470-571-1007. [GN]
INTERSTAFF INC: Nyawara Sues Over Labor Trafficking, Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LILIAN AWINO NYAWARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTAFF, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-05992 (S.D. Tex., December 12, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1983, and state law claims.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor trafficking
scheme where it threatens a class of nurses with serious financial
harm and abuse of the legal process, including immigration and
litigation threats, to secure an artificially cheap and captive
supply of labor, which it then sells to healthcare providers at a
profit. The Plaintiff alleges labor trafficking and failure to pay
proper wages.
Interstaff, Inc. is a recruitment agency, with its principal place
of business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (773) 666-4316
Email: mhussain@bm.net
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Michaela Wallin, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4635
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: mdellangelo@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Soledad Slowing-Romero, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler St. NE, Unit 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 474-4230
Email: sslowingromero@bergermontague.com
- and -
Magen E. Kellam, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MAGEN E. KELLAM, PA
808 Wiggins Pass Road, Suite 204
Naples, FL 34110
Telephone: (239) 260-4622
Email: magen@kellamlegal.com
JBS USA: Pierre Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------
NESLY PIERRE; LOUINE JEANLOUIS; and CARLOS SAINT AUBIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; and SWIFT BEEF COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04023 (D. Colo., Dec. 16, 2025) is an
action arising from the Defendants' recruitment and subsequent
employment of the Plaintiffs and other Haitian individuals at the
Defendants' meat processing plant in Greeley, Colorado.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, after luring the
Plaintiffs and other Haitian individuals to the plant with promises
of high-paying jobs that required no English language skills and
employer-provided housing in nearby apartments, the Defendants
instead charged them to live in squalid conditions and subjected
them to dangerous work conditions without proper training.
JBS USA Food Company operates as a food company. The Company offers
wide range of meat, including lamb, pork, and beef products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Joshua R. O'Neill, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
Email: morgan@nka.com
aprakash@nka.com
joneill@nka.com
- and -
Amal Bouhabib, Esq.
Hannah Wolf, Esq.
FARMSTAND
712 H St NE Suite 2534
Telephone: (202) 595-8816
Email: amal@farmstand.org
hannah@farmstand.org
- and -
Juno Turner, Esq.
Toree Lindblad, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
P.O. Box 371689, PMB 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
Email: juno@towardsjustice.org
toree@towardsjustice.org
LA-Z-BOY INC: Agrees to Settle Joybird Class Action for $7.15MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that Joybird agreed to a $7.15 million
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it deceptively
advertised discounts on its website and in stores.
The La-Z-Boy settlement benefits consumers in California, Oregon
and Washington who purchased one or more products on Joybird.com or
at a physical Joybird store location at a sale price between Dec.
18, 2019, and Oct. 31, 2025.
According to a Joybird discount class action lawsuit, the company
deceptively advertised discounts on its website and in stores.
Plaintiffs say that they were misled by the discounts into paying
more for furniture than they would have if they had known the true
prices.
Joybird is an online furniture store owned by La-Z-Boy that offers
a variety of couches, chairs, tables and other home furnishings.
The company also has physical locations in California, Texas and
New York.
Joybird has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $7.15
million to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the La-Z-Boy settlement, class members can
receive a $115 benefit. Class members can choose to receive their
settlement benefit as either a cash payment or a store credit
voucher. Store credit vouchers will be valid for two years after
distribution and can be used at any time on any purchase at
Joybird.com.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 13, 2026.
The final approval hearing for the Joybird discount settlement is
scheduled for March 6, 2026.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 13, 2026.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who, while in the states of California, Oregon or
Washington, purchased one or more products on Joybird.com or at a
Joybird physical store location, at a sale price, from Dec. 18,
2019, to Oct. 31, 2025.
Potential Award
$115 cash or store credit
Proof of Purchase
Email address or mailing address associated with one of the class
member's purchases
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
02/13/2026
Case Name
Jacobs, et al. v. La-Z-Boy Inc., et al., Case No. 25CU038051N, in
the California Superior Court for San Diego County
Final Hearing
03/06/2026
Settlement Website
JoybirdSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Joybird Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2009
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2009
JoybirdSettlement@noticeadministrator.com
(833) 583-8270
Class Counsel
Simon Franzini
Grace Bennett
DOVEL & LUNER LLP
Scott Braden
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
Defense Counsel
Christopher Leyel
YOKA | SMITH LLP
Alex Beroukhim
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP [GN]
LEMME INC: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEMME INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10185 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://lemmelive.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the
New York State General Business Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
November 27, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Travel Essential
Bundle from Defendant and to view the information on the website,
the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her
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.
The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add
the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Lemme Inc. operates the website that offers women's health
supplements.[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
LGBCOIN LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (the
"Court") against James Koutoulas and LGBCoin, LTD (the
"Defendants"). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants violated U.S.
Securities laws by unlawfully offering the sale of unregistered
LetsGoBrandon Coin ("LGBCoin") securities. The Court decided that
this lawsuit should proceed as a class action on behalf of a group
of people and entities.
Who is included in the Class?
You are a member of the Class if you purchased LGBCoins during the
period from November 2, 2021, and March 15, 2022, inclusive, unless
you are specifically excluded as provided below.
Is there any money available now?
No. If the Class receives any money, whether from a settlement or
through the enforcement of a judgment, class members will receive
additional notice.
What are my rights?
Do Nothing: If you are a Class member by doing nothing, you are
choosing to stay in the Class. You will be permitted to share in
any recovery that may result from this class action, but you will
give up your rights to sue Defendants in a separate lawsuit for the
claims made in this class action. In addition, you will be bound by
past and any future court rulings on, or settlement of, the claims
against Defendants.
Ask to be Excluded: Get out of this lawsuit. Get no benefits. Keep
your rights. If you opt out of the Class (meaning you state in
writing that you do not want to be included in this lawsuit), you
will not be entitled to any recovery that may result from this
class action and you will not be bound by any past or future
rulings in this lawsuit. You will be free to pursue your own claims
against Defendants on your own or as part of a different lawsuit.
If you want to keep your right to separately sue James Koutoulas
and LGBCoin, LTD, you must exclude yourself by February 11, 2026.
Complete information is available at www.LGBCoinCryptoAction.com.
The Court's hearing.
The Court will hold a Final Pretrial Conference on February 17,
2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B of the Middle District of
Florida. The Court will hold a Jury Trial beginning on March 2,
2026. [GN]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Kesel Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIERSTEN KESEL, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13784-JEK (D. Mass., December 9, 2025)
is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
robocalling to promote its products and services in violation of
the TCPA.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
statutory damages to put an end to Defendant's unlawful conduct
which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm
that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of the cellular telephone number
(ending in 7613) that received the above telephonic prerecorded
sales calls and has been registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry since February 6, 2020.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company operates provides insurance
services. The Company offers car, motorcycle, boat, life, property,
landlord, and flood insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Campbell, Esq.
CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
The Schrafft's Center Power House
529 Main Street, Suite P200
Charlestown, MA 02129
Telephone: (617) 872-8652
E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
101 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500
Ft. Lauderdale, MA 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
LOOPS BEAUTY: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOOPS BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10186 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.loopsbeauty.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State
General Business Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
November 20, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Loops Variety Hydrogel
Face Mask from Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied her 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.
Plaintiff Young was unable to locate pricing and was not able to
add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Loops Beauty, LLC operates the website that offers beauty and
skincare products.[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
MALONEBAILEY LLC: Kovacs Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KOVACS, RUSSELL ALESI, JULIAN DUCHEINE and DEMIAN
LICHTENSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID MORADI, DR. CARR BETTIS, JASON
HUMBLE, JAMIL TAHIR, JAMES HAWKINS, DR. KATHERINE FLEMING, TONY
COELHO, KELLY GEORGEVICH, JAMES SPOLAR, MALONEBAILEY LLC, AUDIOEYE,
INC., and JOHN DOE 1-50, Defendants, and ETERNAL SOURCES TECH
PARTNERS LLC, FIRST CONTACT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., FORMULUS BLACK,
INC., Nominal Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10336 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations,
securities fraud, whistleblower retaliation, interference with
protected benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, malicious
prosecution and abuse of process, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, common law torts, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to AudioEye, Formulus Black, and First Contact (the
"Derivative Entities") by consciously failing to implement,
monitor, or enforce reasonable systems of oversight and internal
control, notwithstanding repeated and obvious red flags.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to monitor: (a) large-scale
insider selling by officers and directors; (b) whistleblower
complaints regarding securities fraud and governance failures; (c)
escalating litigation risk and retaliation exposure; and (d) misuse
of corporate funds for personal protection and lawfare. As a result
of the Defendants' breaches, the Derivative Entities suffered
substantial damages, including depletion of corporate assets,
exposure to regulatory and litigation liability, reputational harm,
and loss of shareholder value.
MaloneBailey LLC is a public accounting firm based in Houston,
Texas.
AudioEye, Inc. is a software solution provider based in Tucson,
Arizona.
Eternal Sources Tech Partners LLC is an information technology
solutions firm based in Dallas, Texas.
First Contact Entertainment, Inc. is a game developer in
California.
Formulus Black, Inc. is a software firm based in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John H. Snyder, Esq.
Thomas C. Sima, Esq.
JOHN H. SNYDER PLLC
157 East 81st Street, Suite 3A
New York, NY 10028
Telephone: (917) 292-3081
Email: john@jhs.nyc
MONSANTO COMPANY: Charnin Sues Over Sale of Defective Herbicide
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD CHARNIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-296 MON (Del. Super., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach
of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices
statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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: Faces Barnes Suit Over Defective Herbicide
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-313 MON (Del. Super., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach
of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices
statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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: Faces Buss Suit Over Herbicide's Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN BUSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-305 MON (Del. Super., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach
of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices
statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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, Pena Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-397 (Del. Super., Dec. 16, 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, Schauer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH SCHAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-398 (Del. Sup., Dec. 16, 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, Shad Says
----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN SHAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-399 (Del. Sup., Dec. 16, 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, Shell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE SPICHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER
CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-401 (Del. Sup., Dec.
16, 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, Shell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERESA SHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-396 (Del. Sup., Dec. 16, 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, Spence Says
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SPENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-435 (Del. Sup., Dec. 17, 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, Sternisha Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK STERNISHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-382 (Del. Sup., Dec. 16, 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, Travers Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS TRAVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-405 (Del. Sup., Dec. 16, 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: Markets Defective Herbicide, Brignola Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BRIGNOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-297 MON (Del. Super., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach
of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices
statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Brewington Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY BREWINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER
CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-318 MON (Del. Super.,
December 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied
warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or
deceptive trade practices statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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: Sells Hazardous Herbicide, Rogers Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-317 MON (Del. Super., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach
of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices
statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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: Zeni Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ZENI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-311 MON (Del. Super., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach
of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices
statutes.
The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their
exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the
active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup
is 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
and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions
and inactions of the Defendants.
Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products
based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [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
NEW HORIZONS: Faces Johnston Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
BRYCE JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW HORIZONS BAKING CO. INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-02700-JRK (N.D. Ohio, December 12, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from approximately September 26, 2023 through August 4,
2025.
New Horizons Baking Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of baked goods,
headquartered in Norwalk, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 746-4039
Facsimile: (248) 746-4050
Email: mturner@sommerspc.com
NEW YORK, NY: Symone Sues Over Violations of Constitutional Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTACIA SYMONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NYPD CAPTAIN
ABRAHAM BADILLO (TAX REG. NO. 936162); NYPD OFFICER JARVIS ONABANJO
(TAX. REG. NO. 959010; NYPD MEMBER DOES 1-20; NYPD COMMISSIONER KAZ
DAUGHTRY; NYPD OFFICER AHMED N. ALI (TAX REG. NO. 970381); NYPD
SERGEANT STANISLAV KUSHNIR (TAX REG. NO. 947764); NYPD DETECTIVE
MATTHEW COFFARO (BADGE NO. 3042); NYPD OFFICER WOODLY SAINROSE
(TAX. REG. NO. 975790); NYPD SERGEANT JOEL MOTTOLA (TAX REG. NO.
950922, Defendants, and ETERNAL SOURCES TECH PARTNERS LLC, FIRST
CONTACT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., FORMULUS BLACK, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-10379 (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for unlawful seizure/false arrest, excessive
force, due process, deprivation of fair trial rights, malicious
prosecution, failure to intervene, assault, battery, intentional
and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent training
and supervision in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, New
York City Administrative Code, and New York State Common Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated their rights
guaranteed under the laws of the State of New York related to three
incidents concerning the dates May 6, 2023, April 30, 2024, and
March 11, 2025.
The City of New York is a municipal government in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leena Mohmoud Widdi, Esq.
Jessica Massimi, Esq.
COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C.
1639 Centre Street, Suite 216
Ridgewood, NY
Telephone: (929) 888-9480
Facsimile: (929) 888-9457
Email: leena@femmelaw.com
- and -
Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq.
277 Broadway, Suite 1501
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (718) 783-3682
Facsimile: (646) 349-2914
Email: Gideon@GideonLaw.com
- and -
Tahanie A. Aboushi, Esq.
THE ABOUSHI LAW FIRM PLLC
1441 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 391-8500
Email: Tahanie@Aboushi.com
NEW YORK: Refuses Exemptions on Child Vaccine Mandates, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE; JANE DOE, on behalf of her minor child
SARAH DOE; GINA GOE on behalf of herself and her minor child
RAPHAEL GOE; REBECCA ROE, on behalf of herself and her minor child
BETSY ROE; BONNIE BOE, on behalf of herself and her minor child AMY
BOE; PASTOR STEPHON SOE, on behalf of himself and his minor child
HALIE SOE; PAMELA POE on behalf of her minor children GRACE POE and
ADAM POE and JOHN JOE, on behalf of himself and his minor children
JAMES JOE and ARIANA JOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DR. JAMES V. MCDONALD, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of Health of the State of New
York, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06877 (E.D.N.Y., December 15,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Free Exercise Clause, the Substantive Due Process Clause, and Equal
Protection Clause.
The case challenges New York's refusal to let them opt out of
childhood vaccine mandates that conflict with their faith. The
Plaintiffs assert that the State's absolute ban on religious
accommodation "substantially interferes" with their ability to
raise their children in accordance with their sincere religious
beliefs. The Plaintiffs seek immediate relief to prevent ongoing
and irreversible harm.
Children's Health Defense is a non-profit organization in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sujata S. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
120 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
Telephone: (607) 327-4125
Email: sujata@gibsonfirm.law
- and -
Christina Martinez, Esq.
GIBSON FIRM, PLLC
245 Bricktown Way, Suite J
Staten Island NY 10309
Telephone: (347) 215-4543
Facsimile: (718) 556-2007
Email: ChristinaMartinezEsq@gmail.com
NOWRX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises NowRX, Inc., ("NowRX" or the
"Company") investors of a class action on behalf of investors that
bought securities between February 1, 2022 and November 5, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). NowRX investors have until January
23, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or join the case via
https://portnoylaw.com/nowRX-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide
a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors’ options
for pursuing claims to recover their losses.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: NowRx Inc. was a private Delaware corporation
launched in 2016 headquartered in Mountain View, California, which
described itself as a tech-powered pharmacy that provides same-day
prescription delivery and telehealth services.
On September 30, 2021, NowRx commenced an offering pursuant to SEC
Regulation A pursuant to which NowRx offered to sell up to
7,002,801 shares of NowRx Series C Preferred Stock, convertible
into shares of Common Stock, at a price of $10.50 per share (the
"September 2021 Offering") using an Offering Statement and
supplements thereto for the offer and sale of Series C.
On November 30, 2022, NowRx announced it reached an agreement with
Alto Pharmacy to acquire the business (California prescription
files, etc.) effective immediately. The announced stated that
"beginning December 2, 2022, Alto Pharmacy will provide all
prescription delivery and services to NowRx patients, ensuring the
continuity of high-quality service that NowRx customers have come
to expect." As a result, the Series C stock investors lost their
entire investment.
The NowRx class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period failed to disclose: (i) material, adverse facts
concerning NowRx's financial condition (ii) that NowRx was on the
brink of bankruptcy or insolvency; (iii) that NowRx had hired an
investment bank to explore a sale or raise significant funds so
that it could continue operations; (iv) that as of December 31,
2021, NowRx was itself valued by an investment bank at $3.55 per
share and this $3.55 per share price was far from the $10.50 per
share price being sold by Defendants, and (v) as a result,
investors in the C stock offering would likely lose their
investment.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
The Portnoy Law Firm
(310) 692-8883
lesley@portnoylaw.com
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Bachhuber TCPA Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ooma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 9, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Bachhuber TCPA class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On September 3, 2025, plaintiff Kevin Bachhuber filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 or TCPA (the
"Bachhuber Litigation"). The complaint seeks damages of $500 per
violation, or $1,500 per willful violation, of the TCPA and
injunctive relief.
On November 6, 2025, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration on an individual basis and stay the court proceedings
pending resolution of the arbitration.
Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has
determined that the amount of any loss resulting from the Bachhuber
Litigation is not estimable.
Ooma Inc. provides communications services and related technologies
based in California.
OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Ooma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 9, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Chiu Trademarks Act and Competition Act
class suit in the Federal Court of Canada.
On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action
complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal
Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and
Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages
and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company from describing and
marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise
representing that it is free.
On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu
and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding.
In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new
plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as
having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021.
In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from
counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding
jurisdiction and class action certification issues.
In January 2025, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favor of the
Company by denying class action certification and compelling
individual arbitration in California; however, plaintiff's counsel
has since filed an appeal of certain portions of the judgment in
Canada and filed a related complaint in California seeking a
declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement in the
Company's terms of services is invalid and unenforceable.
On June 5, 2025, the proceedings related to the complaint filed in
California were stayed pending the resolution of the Canadian
appeal.
The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against
these complaints.
Ooma Inc. provides communications services and related technologies
based in California.
PERSANTE HEALTH: Faces Kay Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA KAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-18320 (D.N.J., December 9, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information and other personally
identifiable information of certain individuals, including
Plaintiff.
On or about January 28, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an
unauthorized party gained access to its network from January 23,
2025, to January 28, 2025, and accessed or acquired certain files
and folders that contained private information.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health
information and other personally identifiable information of
certain individuals.
The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a
foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had
Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical
controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it
could have prevented the data breach, says the suit.
Persante Health Care is a national provider of sleep and balance
center management services to hospitals and physician practices
such as TidalHealth. The Plaintiff is a patient of TidalHealth,
which is how Defendant obtained her personal information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
FURIA LAW, LLC
350 Springfield Ave., Suite 200
Summit, NJ 07901
Telephone: (646) 830-1915
E-mail: furiap@furiafirm.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Settles UM/UIM Coverage Suit for $1.76MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that Progressive agreed to pay more than
$1.76 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it charged
unfair premiums for stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage (UM/UIM) on single vehicle policies.
The Progressive settlement benefits Progressive policyholders who
resided in New Mexico and purchased or otherwise paid for an
insurance policy that included stacked UM coverage while insuring
only a single covered vehicle between Jan. 1, 2009, and April 30,
2025.
Automatic payments are available for class members who purchased or
paid for stacked UM/UIM coverage where only a single vehicle was
covered at any time between May 10, 2018, and April 30, 2025.
If the entitled payment is $10 or more, members can receive the
money via check or an electronic payment system, such as Paypal,
Venmo and EpiqPay, within 45 days of the effective date. Members
who are entitled to receive less than $10 shall have 90 days after
the notice date to select a payment option.
Members entitled to other payments should submit a claim form and
select a payment method. Other payments will be no less than
$37,000 in the aggregate and no more than $75,000 in the
aggregate.
Progressive is an insurance company that offers auto, home, renters
and motorcycle coverage, among other products.
Progressive has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.765
million class action settlement to resolve the allegations.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 12, 2026.
The final approval hearing for the Progressive uninsured motorist
insurance settlement is scheduled for Feb. 23, 2026.
Class members who wish to submit a claim for the Progressive
settlement must do so by Jan. 12, 2026.
Who's Eligible
Progressive policyholders who resided in New Mexico and purchased
or otherwise paid for an insurance policy that included stacked UM
coverage while insuring only a single covered vehicle between Jan.
1, 2009, and April 30, 2025.
Potential Award
Varies.
Proof of Purchase
Policy number, if known.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
01/12/2026
Case Name
Peck v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00490-SMD-JFR, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico
Final Hearing
02/23/2026
Settlement Website
NMUIMSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Peck v. Progressive Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 3339
Portland, OR 97208-3339
info@NMUIMSettlement.com
(888) 885-4525
Class Counsel
Geoffrey R. Romero
ROMERO, HARADA & WINTERS
Ray M. Vargas
THE VARGAS LAW FIRM LLC
Paul Zebrowski
Thomas A. Biscup
ZEBROWSKI LAW
Defense Counsel
Michael E. Mumford
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP [GN]
PROVIDENCIA GROUP: Underpays Unification Specialists, Jimenez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAZMIN JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROVIDENCIA GROUP, LLC and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV36337 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 12, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a unification specialist
from 2024 until May 2025.
The Providencia Group, LLC is a provider of human services doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
101 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1450
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com
PURAGAIN WATER: Faces Olivieri Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT OLIVIERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PURAGAIN WATER, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-03578-WQH-SBC (S.D. Cal., December 12, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to authorize and permit and/or make
available meal and rest periods, unlawful deductions, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to pay sick leave, failure to
provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties, and unlawful business practices.
Mr. Olivieri was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt water
technician in the Los Angeles County area from approximately March
2025 to August 2025.
Puragain Water, LLC is a water filter supplier in Escondido,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW
808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (323) 551-9221
Facsimile: (310) 564-4093
Email: william@laurelemploymentlaw.com
ROYAL GREEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Johnson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL GREEN APPLIANCES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-10190 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2025) is a civil
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the website, www.royalgreenappliance.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and
visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law.
The Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's website on November
20, 2025, November 25, 2025, and again on December 1, 2025, from
his home in Bronx County, New York. However, despite repeated
efforts, the Plaintiff was unable to navigate key portions of the
website, including product detail pages, shopping cart, and
checkout forms. These barriers, corroborated by objective audit
tools, obstructed Plaintiff's ability to complete purchases and
engage with the website independently. He was forced to abandon his
attempts to buy appliances despite his clear intent and ability to
pay, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to
adopt, implement, and maintain accessible web design practices
consistent with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, Level
AA.
Royal Green Appliances, Inc. operates the website that offers
household appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Schonfeld, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
RUSSIA: Moscow Judge Tosses WhatsApp Users' Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Moscow Times reports that a Moscow municipal judge has tossed
out a class action lawsuit against state media regulator
Roskomnadzor and the Digital Development Ministry filed by a group
of WhatsApp and Telegram users in Russia.
The judge from Moscow's Tagansky District Court ruled that Kaluga
activist Konstantin Larionov had failed to provide evidence that he
is "authorized to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of Telegram
and WhatsApp owners," the court's press service said in a statement
on December 26.
Larionov, along with several dozen co-plaintiffs, filed a class
action lawsuit against Roskomnadzor and the Digital Development
Ministry on Dec. 23, arguing that government restrictions on
Telegram and WhatsApp calls violate their constitutional rights,
including freedom of information and the secrecy of
communications.
Roskomnadzor began blocking voice and video calls on the two
messaging apps in August as part of what it described as an
anti-fraud initiative, a move both companies criticized.
Larionov said he and his co-plaintiffs plan to continue the lawsuit
and appeal the judge's ruling.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs cite Russian Central Bank data
showing that mobile phone calls and text messages -- rather than
messaging apps -- remain the primary channels used for fraud.
Larionov, who worked on pro-peace politician Boris Nadezhdin's
presidential election campaign in 2023, has criticized
Roskomnadzor's decision to restrict WhatsApp and Telegram calls as
"politically motivated" and described his co-plaintiffs as
"ordinary Russian citizens who are tired of not being able to use
messaging apps for calls."
"Of course, I understand the situation activists and politicians
face in Russia. I'm simply trying to make this world and our
country a little better, with the means at my disposal," Larionov
told the online news outlet Bereg earlier this month.
"Should I sit down and stop doing work that's beneficial to
society? Definitely not," he said. [GN]
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Grants Final OK of "Anderson" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Devon Anderson and Beverly L. Sweeney on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. The City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Department
of Public Health, and San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency, Defendants, and San Francisco Employees' Retirement System,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the class action settlement, with
modifications to address Class Action Fairness Act notice issues.
The Court finally certified for settlement purposes the Class
defined as "all current and former employees of the City and County
of San Francisco who took a leave or an absence from their
employment with the City to engage in qualified military service
during the Settlement Class Period (i.e. October 10, 2024 to June
18, 2025)." The Court certified multiple subclasses including the
Pension Subclass, Pension Interest Subclass, Pension Pickup
Subclass, and Long-Term Leave Subclass. The Court confirmed the
appointment of Devon Anderson and Beverly Sweeney as Class
Representatives and R. Joseph Barton of The Barton Firm LLP and
Michael Scimone of Outten Golden LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel.
The Court found that the Settlement Agreement provides substantial
monetary relief to the Class. The settlement will effectively
provide all Class Members entitled to monetary or benefits with the
maximum relief they would likely have been able to recover at trial
(except for the potential of liquidated damages if the City's
violations were found to be willful). The settlement provides
relief in the form of monetary payments, back pay, leave accrual,
and/or pension credit for multiple counts. Class members identified
in the Defendant's data will receive 100% of the benefits to which
Plaintiffs allege they were entitled without need to submit a
claim."
The Court determined the settlement was the result of serious,
informed, and non-collusive negotiations following more than 20
settlement conferences with a magistrate judge. The Court found the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Rule 23(e)(2)
and the Churchill factors. The Court noted no Class member has
opted out or objected to its terms. The settlement requires the
City to make prospective changes to its policies and procedures to
bring them into compliance with the law.
The Court addressed a significant procedural issue. The settlement
agreement was filed on November 21, 2024, requiring CAFA notice by
December 1, 2024. However, the City sent the CAFA notice on
November 14, 2025, after the motion for final approval was filed.
To address this deficiency, the Court ordered that the final order
and final judgment be entered automatically at the end of the
90-day period (i.e. by February 19, 2026) without further action by
the parties or this Court so long as no state or federal official
has notified the Court of an objection to the Settlement within
that period.
The Court extended the deadline for all Class Members to submit
claims or challenges to February 19, 2026. The Defendant must
provide Class Members notice of the extended deadline at the City's
expense through multiple channels including the Department of Human
Resources monthly newsletter, the MyPortal site, and the San
Francisco Employee Retirement System portal.
The Court approved service awards of $15,000 to each Class
Representative, finding the Plaintiffs' declarations put forward an
impressive record of advocacy. According to the settlement a total
amount of $1,418,229.85 is to be paid by the City for attorney's
fees and expenses through November 30, 2025. This included
$1,336,456.85 in attorney's fees" and $81,773.85 as reimbursement
of expenses. The Court found the requested attorneys' fees are
reasonable and are less than Class Counsel's lodestar, which
establishes a presumption of reasonableness.
The City must pay these amounts by January 30, 2026 and "if the
City fails to deliver any portion of this payment after January 30,
2026, the City will pay interest on the unpaid portion at a rate of
10% per annum."
Effective February 19, 2026, the claims of Plaintiffs and the Class
are released as provided in the Settlement Agreement as to Counts
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XII, XIII and XIV. The Court
dismissed the Class Claims with prejudice. The Court expressly
retained exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters with respect to
the Class Claims for enforcement and administration purposes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9yR0Dn from PacerMonitor.com
SERGIO'S PIZZA: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERGIO'S PIZZA OF MALCOM X BLVD,
INC. (d/b/a SERGIO'S PIZZA), and GREGORY VAN ROTEN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-06887 (E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and
failure to provide wage statements.
Mr. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants at Sergio's Pizza from
approximately July 6, 2025 until on or about November 2, 2025.
Sergio's Pizza of Malcom X Blvd, Inc., doing business as Sergio's
Pizza, is a pizza shop owner and operator, located at 279 Malcolm X
Blvd., Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
SERVICENOW INC: Final Hearing of $925,000 Settlement Set Feb. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that Individuals who
participated in the ServiceNow Inc. 401(k) plan and invested in
American Century target date funds at any time from Feb. 21, 2018,
through Oct. 29, 2025, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from
a class action settlement.
ServiceNow Inc. agreed to pay $925,000 to resolve a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 related to the management of its 401(k) plan
and the selection of certain investment options.
Who are the class members?
The class includes individuals who meet all of the following
criteria:
-- They participated in the ServiceNow Inc. 401(k) plan at any
time from Feb. 21, 2018, through Oct. 29, 2025.
-- They invested in any of the American Century target date funds
the plan offered during that period.
This includes beneficiaries of deceased participants who invested
in the funds during the class period and alternate payees subject
to a qualified domestic relations order who otherwise meet the
above criteria.
There are two main categories of class members:
-- Current participants: Individuals who have a positive balance
in their plan account as of Oct. 29, 2025. These participants will
receive their settlement payment as a direct deposit into their
plan account.
-- Former participants: Individuals who had an active plan
account on or after Feb. 21, 2018, but do not have a plan account
with a positive balance as of Oct. 29, 2025. These individuals will
receive their payment by check mailed to their last known address.
How much can class members get?
The gross settlement fund is $925,000. The settlement administrator
will distribute this amount to eligible class members after
deductions for attorneys’ fees, administrative expenses and
service awards to the class representatives.
Each class member's payment is based on:
-- The number of eligible class members
-- The amount each person invested in the relevant funds during
the class period
Former participants will receive a minimum payment of $10.
No action needed to receive payment
Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive their
share of the settlement. The settlement administrator will use plan
records to determine eligibility and calculate payment amounts.
-- Current participants: Payment deposited into their plan
account
-- Former participants: Payment sent by check to their last known
address
Former participants whose mailing address has changed should
contact the settlement administrator to update their information to
ensure they receive payment.
Settlement administrator's contact information: ServiceNow ERISA
Administrator, P.O. Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007,
ServiceNowERISA@noticeadministrator.com, 866-322-0107
$925,000 settlement fund breakdown
The $925,000 settlement fund covers:
-- Administrative expenses: To be determined
-- Attorneys' fees: Up to $231,250
-- Attorneys' costs: Up to $120,000
-- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each for
two representatives ($10,000 total)
-- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund
Important dates
-- Final approval (fairness) hearing: Feb. 24, 2026
When is the ServiceNow ERISA settlement payout date?
The settlement administrator will distribute payments no later than
60 days after the court grants final approval to the settlement.
Why did this class action settlement happen?
The class action lawsuit alleged that ServiceNow Inc. and its board
of directors failed to properly manage their 401(k) plan by
selecting and retaining certain investment options, specifically
the American Century target date funds, in violation of ERISA.
The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability, but both sides
agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of further litigation.
[GN]
SOLO BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLO BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.solostove.com/us/en-us/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Solo Brands, LLC operates as a household appliance retailer. The
Company offers products such as fire pits, camp stoves, grills, and
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SOUTHERN NEW: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Information, Zeolla Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TINA ZEOLLA and KIRSTEN KELLOGG, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00541-TSM (D.N.H., December
17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligently
failing to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' Sensitive Information from being disclosed to third
parties, without their consent, including to Google and TikTok.
The complaint relates that SNHU's students are required to use
mySNHU, Defendant's online student portal. Using mySNHU, students
can review their grades, enroll in courses, apply for financial
aid, pay their tuition bills, and access their SNHU e-mail
accounts. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other SNHU
students, Defendant does not keep its student's private academic
information confidential. Instead, through mySNHU, Defendant
collected and transmitted a substantial amount of sensitive,
personally identifiable information from Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' education records to unauthorized third parties, including
Alphabet, Inc. ("Google") and ByteDance, Inc. ("TikTok"), through
the use of surreptitious online tracking tools.
According to the complaint, the information that SNHU transmitted
included a shocking amount of highly confidential information, such
as Plaintiffs' and Class Members': full names; e-mail addresses;
phone numbers; addresses; ethnicities; gender identities; career
statuses; SNHU student ID numbers; whether they have served in the
military; whether they are a first-generation college student;
whether they have applied for financial aid; detailed descriptions
of every course in which they have enrolled; and their cumulative
GPAs (collectively, the "Sensitive Information").
As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with educational
providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related
to the release of Sensitive Information to third parties, (iv) loss
of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Sensitive
Information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing
risk to their Sensitive Information, says the suit.
Plaintiff Tina Zeolla is currently enrolled at SNHU.
Plaintiff Kirsten Kellogg was enrolled with SNHU until December of
2025.
Defendant Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) is a private,
nonprofit, accredited institution with more than 3,000 on campus
students and over 200,000 online students, making it one of the
fastest growing universities in the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam H. Weintraub, Esq.
WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC
170 Commerce Way, Suite 200
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone: (603) 212-1785
Facsimile: (504) 708-4512
E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Najarro Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christian David Najarro, an individual, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
25STCV32024 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-12008.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged
Violation of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("WARN") Act, California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Matthew R. Richardson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
matthew.richardson@ogletree.com
SUBIN 17: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Young Says
---------------------------------------------------
GLADYS YOUNG, ALYSSA TAUL, AMBER DUNN, JUIFRIA MAYNARD, KENDRA
POWELL, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. CHINTU PATEL, MALKIT SINGH, SUBIN 17, LLC, SUBIN
18, LLC, SUBIN 21, LLC, SUBIN 22, LLC, SKY 5, LLC, SKY 7, LLC, SKY
10, LLC, SKY 13, LLC, SKY 14, LLC, SKY 16, LLC, SKY 17, LLC, SKY
18, LLC, SKY 22, LLC, SKY 23, LLC, SKY 24, LLC, SKY 25, LLC, SKY
31, LLC, SKY 32, LLC, SKY 36, LLC, SKY 37, LLC, SUBWAY KENTUCKY 2,
LLC and SUBWAY KENTUCKY 4, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-2552
(S.D. Ind., December 17, 2025 is a class and collective action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
According to the complaint, Mr. Patel is the common owner of the
Subways with the exception of two Subways in Kentucky which are
owned by Mrs. Jigna Patel, the wife of Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel manages
these Subways through Mr. Singh and District Managers. The
Plaintiffs and the class are or were employed as non-exempt
employees of the Subways owned and managed by Mr. Patel.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and members of the "Tip
Class" earned tips from customers via EZ Cater, Easy Deliveries,
and other services. However, the Defendants failed to pay all of
these tips to the Plaintiffs and members of the Tip Class. As a
result, they have been, and continue to be, damaged by Defendants'
breaches of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs were
also not paid for all hours worked, whether at their regular or
overtime rates. Mr. Patel made the decision not to pay overtime
premiums to Plaintiffs, while Mr. Singh implemented that decision,
adds the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the class have been and continue
to be damaged by Defendants' violations of the FLSA, asserts the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are/were employees of Mr. Patel.
The Defendants that are named limited liability companies operate
Subway restaurants.
Chintu Patel is the manager of each of the named limited liability
companies.
Malkit Singh assists in managing each of the Subway locations
owned/or operated by Mr. Patel.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
Weldy Law
11268 Governors Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: (317) 289-0483
Facsimile: (317) 288-4013
E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com
SUNDAYS FOR DOGS: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SUNDAYS FOR DOGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10439 (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://sundaysfordogs.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
December 3, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Dog Food 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 Dog Food, as well as other products available online
and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: dog food, 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 Sundays For Dogs, Inc. operates the interactive Website
that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services including information about Defendant's: dog food, 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
SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Torres Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nathaniel Torres and Rory Michie,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED; ADIN ROSS; and AUBREY DRAKE GRAHAM, Case No.
D-202-CV-2025-09620 was removed from the Second Judicial District
Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, to the United States District
Court for District of New Mexico on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-01292.
The Plaintiffs assert three causes of action, two against all
Defendants and one against Sweepsteaks Limited alone. Under the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA). The Plaintiffs seek monetary and
non-monetary relief from all Defendants, including damages,
injunctive or other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees,
disbursements, and costs. The Plaintiffs also bring a claim for
unjust enrichment against all Defendants, seeking the return of
money Defendants have allegedly "illegally taken" from Plaintiffs
and putative class. Finally, Plaintiffs bring a claim under the New
Mexico gambling loss recovery statute, seeking recovery from
Sweepsteaks Limited of their alleged "gambling losses."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Frieda Scott Simons, Esq.
THE SIMONS FIRM LLP
P.O. Box 5333
Santa Fe, NM 87502-5333
Phone: (505) 988 5600
Email: fsimons@simonsfirm.com
- and -
A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq.
Robert W. Ward
IFRAH PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Email: jeff@ifrahlaw.com
rward@ifrahlaw.com
- and -
Brandon S. Floch, Esq.
Christopher D. Joyce, Esq.
NEIMAN MAYS FLOCH & ALMEIDA, PLLC
201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 434-4943
Email: bfloch@nmfalawfirm.com
cjoyce@nmfalawfirm.com
SWISSPORT USA INC: Dunn Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ira Dunn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., a foreign profit
corporation; SWISSPORT FUELING, INC., a foreign profit corporation;
SWISSPORT CARGO SERVICES, L.P., a foreign limited partnership; and
DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No.
25-2-35843-7 KNT 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-02676.
The Plaintiff asserts one claim against all Defendants for
purported violations of RCW 49.62.070. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that Plaintiff and "potentially dozens of Washington
employees earned less than twice the applicable state minimum
hourly wage and were restricted, restrained, or prohibited from
having an additional job."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
Hannah M. Hamley, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
hannah@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Erin M. Wilson, Esq.
Priya B. Vivian, Esq.
Joseph Q. Ridgeway, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101-3808
Phone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
Email: wilsonem@ballardspahr.com
vivianp@ballardspahr.com
ridgewayj@ballardspahr.com
SYNGENTA CROP: Alcott Sues Over Defective Herbicide
---------------------------------------------------
Judy Alcott, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-446 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: Brack Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Brack, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-463 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: Bryson Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Bryson, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-465
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: Dedinsky Sues Over Wrongful Sale
-----------------------------------------------
David Dedinsky, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-442
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: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Sitzmore Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY SITZMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, Defendant,
Case No. N25C-12-340 (Del. Sup., Dec. 17, 2025) is an action
seeking compensation for injuries and damages caused by the
exposure of the Plaintiff from Defendant's herbicide products
containing paraquat.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's
herbicide 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
their use.
The Plaintiff used the Defendant's herbicide products containing
paraquat regularly and frequently over a period of many months. As
a result of the Plaintiff's many months of regular, frequent, and
prolonged exposure to Defendant's herbicide products, the Plaintiff
contracted Parkinson's disease.
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC produces fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management,
seeds, and research and development services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
THOMAS LAW LLC
1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 647-1203
Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com
SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JELENE WALESCH, on behalf of the Estate of JULIANA ANDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC; and CHEVRON U.S.A.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. N25C-12-347 (Del. Sup., Dec. 17, 2025) is
an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat,
which causes Parkinson's disease in humans.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit
and unsuitable for being marketed and sold in commerce and lacked
proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with
its use.
Decedent Anderson was exposed to Paraquat that Chevron, Syngenta,
and their corporate predecessors designed, manufactured,
distributed, and sold. As a result of that exposure, Paraquat
entered Decedent's body causing Decedent to develop Parkinson's
disease or its predecessor.
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC produces fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management,
seeds, and research and development services. [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
SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Wright Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC,
Defendant, Case No. N25C-12-342 (Del. Sup., Dec. 17, 2025) is an
action seeking compensation for injuries and damages caused by the
exposure of the Plaintiff from Defendant's herbicide products
containing paraquat.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's
herbicide 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
their use.
As a result of the Plaintiff's many years of regular, frequent, and
prolonged exposure to the Defendant's Paraquat products, Plaintiff
contracted Parkinson's disease.
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC produces fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management,
seeds, and research and development services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
THOMAS LAW LLC
1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 647-1203
Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com
SYNGENTA CROP: Kays Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kays, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-445 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: Parakkattu Sues Over Defective Herbicide
-------------------------------------------------------
Mathai Parakkattu, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-464
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
TENAHA, TX: Ordered to Pay $296K Fees in "Morrow"
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as James Morrow, Stephen Stuart Watson,
Amanee Busby, Yuselff Dismukes, Linda Dorman, Marvin Pearson,
Jennifer Boatwright, Ronald Henderson, Javier Flores, and William
Flores, Plaintiffs, v. City of Tenaha Deputy City Marshal Barry
Washington, City of Tenaha Mayor, Shelby County District Attorneys
Office, Shelby County Precinct 4 Constable Randy Whatley, Shelby
County District Attorney Investigator Danny Green, and Shelby
County, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-00288(E.D. Tex.)-JRG,
Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, granted as modified
the Plaintiffs' motions for interim attorney fees and ordered the
City Defendants to pay $296,110 in fees. The Clerk of Court was
directed to close the above-captioned case as the Consent Decree
terminated in July 2020 and no parties or claims remain. Any
outstanding claims or requests for relief not addressed were denied
as moot.
On July 24, 2008, Plaintiff James Morrow and a proposed class of
others similarly situated filed suit against Defendants under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Defendants' actions violated the
Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The Parties ultimately negotiated a settlement agreement consisting
primarily of a consent decree, which required Defendants to follow
detailed and monitored procedures for a period of years to ensure
that Defendants' future policing practices did not result in the
same or similar illegal traffic stops, detentions, searches, and
seizures alleged in the lawsuit.
Over the course of this case, Plaintiffs filed four motions seeking
the recovery of attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection
with the enforcement of the Consent Decree, and a fifth motion
seeking the recovery of attorney fees and expenses incurred in
appeals and other litigation events in this case. The Court
previously awarded Plaintiffs $35,339.94 in attorney fees and
expenses for the period of September 10, 2013 to August 31, 2016.
Plaintiffs also sought attorney fees and expenses for the period
from September 2016 through April 2019, as well as for the period
of May 1, 2019 through March 31, 2020. The Court granted, in part,
those motions and awarded Plaintiffs an additional $289,433.96 in
attorney fees and expenses.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Fourth Fees Motion on March 17,
2021 seeking the recovery of $88,553.33 in attorney fees. The Court
previously granted as modified the Fourth Fees Motion. However, the
Fifth Circuit vacated that decision and remanded it for further
proceedings consistent with their opinion because the Court had not
provided adequate notice to class members as mandated by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) prior to awarding fees.
To cure this error, the Court provided class notice and held a
hearing on the Fourth Fees Motion on September 26, 2025. The
parties agreed on the record at the hearing that the notice ordered
by the Court and as given to members of the class as to the Court's
consideration of the pending attorney fees motions was adequate. No
class members were present at the hearing, and no argument was made
by counsel for either party which convinced the Court that its
previous order regarding the Fourth Fees Motion was incorrect. The
Court found that its damages award should remain unchanged. The
Fourth Fees Motion was granted as modified in the amount of
$16,020.00.
In the Fifth Fees Motion, Plaintiffs requested additional attorney
fees from the period from January 1, 2021 through the time of the
filing of the Motion in the amount of $405,965.00. They estimated
that Mr. Timothy Garrigan spent 565 hours working on this case in
that time at a rate of $500, and that Mr. Timothy Craig spent 310
hours working on this case at a rate of $400. Plaintiffs noted that
the Court had previously found Mr. Garrigan's rate of $500 to be
reasonable. Plaintiffs further noted that the Court had previously
found a rate of $350 to be reasonable for Mr. Craig's work and
asserted that he completed complex work in this case and that he
had recently received attorney fee awards from other Courts in this
District at $400 an hour.
The Court found that Mr. Garrigan's requested rate of $500 an hour
was reasonable for his work. The Court further found that the
complexity of the work had not appreciably changed such that it saw
no reason to deviate from its prior decision that $350 an hour was
reasonable for Mr. Craig's work and awarded him that rate.
Upon review of the hours expended, the Court made several
reductions. The lodestar was reduced by 45 hours for the Fourth
Fees Motion. The lodestar was reduced by 22 hours for the Fifth
Fees Motion. The Court additionally reduced the lodestar by 10
hours with respect to the time Mr. Craig billed for work on the
three-page Motion to Amend Order Denying Attorney's Fees. Regarding
the 2021 Appeal, the Court found a reduction of 15 hours to the
lodestar to be reasonable for Mr. Garrigan's work. For the 2023
Appeal, the Court found that a reduction of 20 percentage points in
time billed for work was reasonable. The Court found that a further
33.3 percentage point reduction in time billed for work on the 2023
Appeal was appropriate given that Plaintiffs' counsel, Defendants'
counsel, and the Court itself all shared in the blame for the
necessity of the 2023 Appeal in the first place.
The Court declined to add the requested additional 20-30 hours of
Mr. Garrigan's time to wind down this case, agreeing with
Defendants that there was no litigation to wind down. The Court did
not find any reason to adjust the lodestar upward or downward based
on the Johnson factors.
The calculation of fees awarded in relation to the Fifth Fees
Motion was as follows: Mr. Timothy Garrigan was awarded $196,650
for 393.3 hours at $500 per hour. Mr. David Craig was awarded
$83,440 for 238.4 hours at $350 per hour, for a total of $280,090.
Accordingly, the Court granted as modified Plaintiffs' Contested
Motion for Award of Interim Attorney Fees and Costs Incurred During
the Fee Period from April 1 Through December 31, 2020 and
Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Award of Interim Attorney Fees
Incurred from January 1, 2021 Through the Filing of this Motion
Including an Estimate of Fees Required to Fully Close Out this
Litigation and Request for Opportunity to Present Adversarial
Materials. The Plaintiffs were awarded a sum of $296,110 in fees,
A copy of the Court's decision dated 12th December is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mFu41m from PacerMonitor.com
TISON GROUP: Larroude Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Gender Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN-LAURENT LARROUDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TISON GROUP INC., BARACHOU, LLC,
and BARACHOU NYC LLC, and BARACHOU WV LLC, and REBECCA TISON,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10324 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, failure to furnish accurate wage
notices, unequal pay, and sex/gender discrimination.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial pastry
chef from on or about September 15, 2023 until on or about
September 12, 2024, and approximately from April 1, 2025 through
July 15, 2025.
Tison Group Inc. is a pastry shop owner and operator located in New
York, New York.
Barachou, LLC is a subsidiary of Tison Gorup Inc., with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York.
Barachou NYC LLC is a subsidiary of Tison Gorup Inc., with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York.
Barachou WV LLC is a subsidiary of Tison Gorup Inc., with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
TOYOTA MOTOR: Leboutheller Balks at Transmission Assemblies' Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LEBOUTHELLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC.,
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01389-JCB (E.D. Tex., December 12,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, common law fraud, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose to
consumers, including the Plaintiff, the defects in several Toyota
vehicles' UA80 8-speed automatic transmissions and torque
converters. According to the complaint, despite knowing that the
UA80 transmissions are defective, and possessing the knowledge that
the Class Vehicles are unreliable and unsafe, the Defendants
continue to market and advertise that their vehicles and
transmission assemblies are safe. As a result of Toyota's unfair,
deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners and/or
lessees of Class Vehicles, including the Plaintiff, have suffered
an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in
value, suit says.
Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. is an automobile company, with its
principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is an automobile company, with its
principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
Toyota Motor Corporation is an automobile company, with its
principal place of business in Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture,
Japan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
Austin P. Smith, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@steckelerlaw.com
austin@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Gearboxes
--------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson, writing for CARSCOOPS, reports that Toyota is facing
fresh legal trouble over one of its most widely used gearboxes. Two
new class action lawsuits allege that the automaker's UA80
eight-speed automatic transmission is prone to early failure,
raising concerns about long-term durability and resale value.
The latest lawsuit centers on claims that the transmission can
compromise a vehicle's lifespan and market appeal, particularly as
issues are said to appear well before the end of a typical
ownership cycle.
The suit was filed by James LaBoutheller, a 2020 Toyota Camry XSE
owner, who says he heard abnormal noises coming from the
transmission. After taking the car to a Toyota dealership, he was
informed that the transmission needed to be replaced.
Toyota agreed to supply a new transmission, but not to pay for
installation. That left LaBoutheller to cover the labor costs
himself, totaling several thousand dollars out of pocket.
According to the complaint, the transmission suffers from two main
defects. The first is mechanical: excess heat reportedly builds up
inside the gearbox, accelerating wear and degrading the
transmission fluid.
The second issue involves the software. The suit claims that faulty
programming causes the transmission to upshift too early and engage
the torque converter clutch prematurely, which in turn places
unnecessary strain on key internal components.
Alleged Long-Term Knowledge
According to the class action, Toyota has known about issues with
the eight-speed transmission since durability testing before it
even started to install the gearbox in customer cars.
It further claims that the company disregarded years of warning
signs, including internal data, customer complaints, dealer service
records, and government safety submissions documenting early
transmission failures.
Toyota not only failed to act on the reported issues, the suit
says, but also implemented software updates that increased wear on
the transmission. The reason? To improve fuel efficiency, according
to the filing.
The plaintiff adds that Toyota continued to assure customers that
their vehicles were working as intended. Meanwhile, warranty
coverage was routinely denied once vehicles crossed mileage
thresholds, even when the problems had first been reported at lower
mileages.
LaBoutheller is seeking to represent a nationwide class of current
and former owners and lessees of several affected Toyota and Lexus
models. He is seeking a jury trial and damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief.
A Second Lawsuit Surfaces
This isn't the only lawsuit involving the UA80 transmission.
Earlier this month, a separate class action was filed in California
by plaintiff Neil Pallaya, who purchased a new 2020 Toyota
Highlander in December 2020. The vehicle came equipped with a
3.5-liter V6 engine paired to a UA80E transmission.
Pallaya's complaint details a persistent high-pitched whining noise
that began around 67,000 miles, which a Toyota dealer diagnosed as
complete transmission failure. Because the vehicle was out of
warranty, he was quoted more than $7,400 for a replacement, one he
argues is just as flawed as the original.
He claims the defect stems from fundamental design flaws, and that
Toyota has failed to provide a meaningful remedy, leaving owners
stuck with expensive repairs and ongoing questions about long-term
reliability.
The California suit expands the list of potentially affected
vehicles, covering the following models:
-- 2017-present Toyota Highlander
-- 2024-present Toyota Grand Highlander
-- 2018-2024 Toyota Camry
-- 2017-2020 Toyota Sienna
-- 2019-2022 Toyota Avalon
-- 2019-present Toyota RAV4
-- 2023-present Lexus RX 350
-- 2021-present Lexus ES 250
-- 2019-present Lexus ES 350
-- 2022-present Lexus NX 250 and NX 350
-- 2024-present Lexus TX 350 [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson, writing for LIVE NOW, reports that shoppers may be
eligible for part of an $87.5 million antitrust class action
lawsuit settlement with several beef processors.
People who purchased beef in grocery stores or supermarkets in
several states may be eligible.
The lawsuit is an antitrust class action lawsuit that claims
several beef processors entered into a market allocation agreement
and stopped competing against each other for market share.
Shoppers in several states may be eligible for part of an $87.5
million antitrust class action lawsuit settlement with several beef
processors.
Dig deeper:
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota says
shoppers in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, may be
entitled to a cash payment from the settlements.
What you can do:
The court says a person or entity is included and may be eligible
for a payment if they purchased any of the following beef products
at a grocery store or supermarket for personal consumption between
August 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019:
-- Beef (fresh or frozen) made from chuck, loin, rib, or round
primal cuts. More details regarding the different beef products
included in the Settlements is available at
www.OverchargedForBeef.com.
The following beef products are not included in the settlement:
Any beef marketed as:
-- Premium: USDA Prime, organic, 100% grass-fed, Wagyu,
"American-Style Kobe Beef."
-- Specialty: No Antibiotics Ever ("NAE"), antibiotic-free,
kosher, halal, certified humane.
-- Processed: Ground, marinated, seasoned, flavored, breaded, or
cooked beef.
Why you should care:
-- The lawsuit is an antitrust class action lawsuit that claims
several beef processors—including JBS, Cargill, National Beef,
and Tyson Foods—entered into a market allocation agreement and
stopped competing against each other for market share. The alleged
purpose and effect of this agreement was to increase their margins
and increase the price consumers paid for beef.
By the numbers:
The court says Tyson Foods agreed to a settlement of $55 million
and Cargill agreed to a $32.5 million settlement to resolve claims
against them and both companies have also agreed to certain
non-monetary relief. Four other companies, JBS USA Food Company,
Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., and National Beef Packing
Company have not settled.
The Court has not ruled that the Defendants did anything wrong, and
the companies deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
What Do the Settlements Provide?
If you are included in the Settlement Class, you can file a claim
to receive a pro-rata (equal share) cash payment proportional to
the amount of included beef you purchased during the class period.
How to Submit a Claim
To receive a payment a Claim Form with all required information
must be submitted and postmarked or completed online at
www.OverchargedForBeef.com June 30, 2026.
Overcharged for beef settlement legal options
1. Get a Cash Payment
You will receive a cash payment, and you give up your right to sue
Cargill and Tyson over the legal claims in this lawsuit. Submit a
Claim Form by June 30, 2026.
2. Opt-Out (Exclude Yourself)
You will not get a payment from these settlements, but you keep
your right to sue Cargill and Tyson on your own for the legal
claims in this lawsuit. Submit a written opt-out request by March
30, 2026.
3. Object to the Settlements
You will be bound by the Settlements, but you can tell the Court
why you think the Settlements are unfair. Submit a written
objection by March 30, 2026.
4. Do Nothing
Take no action. You will not receive a cash payment, and you will
be legally bound by the Settlements, giving up your right to sue
Cargill and Tyson later.
What's next:
The Court will hold a hearing on May 12, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. CDT, to
decide whether to officially approve the Settlements, the amount of
attorneys' fees, and any service awards. You or your lawyer may
attend the hearing, but you are not required to do so.
This notice is a summary. For a detailed explanation of your
rights, the full definition of the Settlement Class, and how to
opt-out or object, please visit the Settlement Website at
www.OverchargedForBeef.com or call the toll-free number at
1-877-283-8711. [GN]
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Orvin Ganesh filed a class
action lawsuit against Under Armour Inc.
Why: Ganesh claims Under Armour failed to properly safeguard and
secure sensitive customer data.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Maryland federal
court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges Under Armour failed to properly
safeguard and secure sensitive customer data in a data breach
allegedly caused by the Everest ransomware group.
Plaintiff Orvin Ganesh claims Under Armour failed to take
precautions designed to keep individuals' personally identifiable
information (PII) secure despite having "numerous" statutory,
regulatory, contractual and common law duties and obligations to do
so.
Ganesh wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose
PII was compromised in the Under Armour data breach, which
allegedly occurred in November 2025.
"Plaintiff and the class reasonably expected the defendant to keep
their PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this
information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized
disclosures of this information," the Under Armour class action
lawsuit says.
Under Armour data breach exposed data of millions of customers,
class action claims
Ganesh argues Under Armour failed to implement and maintain
reasonable safeguards, comply with industry-standard data security
practices and laws and regulations governing data security and
properly train its employees on data security measures and
protocols, among other things.
"By implementing and maintaining reasonable safeguards and
complying with standard data security practices, the defendant
could have prevented this Under Armour data breach," the class
action lawsuit states.
The lawsuit claims that Under Armour has not acknowledged the data
breach or notified impacted individuals that their sensitive
personal data has been exposed.
The data breach exposed the PII of millions of Under Armour
customers and employees from various countries, according to the
Under Armour class action, which argues the Everest ransomware
group published sample data of PII to substantiate their claim.
Ganesh claims Under Armour is guilty of negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of
privacy and declaratory judgment.
In another Under Armour class action lawsuit, a group of customers
have accused the company of advertising false price discounts for
merchandise sold throughout its outlet stores.
The plaintiff is represented by Jason S. Rathod of Migliaccio &
Rathod LLP and Beena M. McDonald, Alex M. Kashurba and Holly E.
Jones of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.
The Under Armour data breach class action is Ganesh v. Under Armour
Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04106-MJM, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Tincher Files Suit Alleging Unlawful Police Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN TINCHER, JOHN BIESTMAN, JANET LEE, LUCIA WEBB, ABDIKADIR
NOOR, and ALAN CRENSHAW, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); TODD LYONS,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
MARCOS CHARLES, Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement
and Removal Operations (ERO), ICE; DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Field
Office Director, ERO, ICE Saint Paul Field Office; JOHN A. CONDON,
Acting Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI); The Department of Homeland Security;
Unidentified Federal Agencies; and Unidentified Federal Agents; in
their official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-04669 (D.
Minn., December 17, 2025) is a class action aiming to vindicate the
rights of the Minnesotans who have been victimized by their own
government simply for exercising their First Amendment rights; to
end the false sense of impunity that fuels the worst of Defendants'
misconduct; and to ensure that Minnesotans can assemble, observe,
document, and criticize Defendants' activities, safely and
unburdened by the fear of retaliation.
The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class
engaged in constitutionally protected acts of recording, observing,
and/or protesting events of public interest, including the conduct
of federal agents on duty in public places. But Defendants cannot
tolerate the thought of being recorded, observed, or criticized.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants, acting under color of
law, used excessive force and threats of force and arrest to curb
Plaintiffs' and the Plaintiff Class's exercise of their First
Amendment rights. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class reasonably
fear the continued deployment of chemical agents without warning;
unlawful seizure and arrest; and intimidation through the use of
firearms and other means if they continue to engage in
constitutionally protected activity. These acts would chill a
reasonable person from continuing to engage in a constitutionally
protected activity. These acts did, in fact, chill Plaintiffs and
the Plaintiff Class from continuing to observe, record, and/or
protest current events of public interest, including the conduct of
federal agents on duty in a public place. Further, the excessive
and unlawful use of force, and the rampant constitutional
violations, were so widespread, well-known, and obvious to
Defendants that Defendants' continued use of excessive force
against Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, and continued violation
of their constitutional rights, was willful and recklessly
indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
Accordingly, Defendants are jointly and severally liable to
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.
Plaintiff Susan Tincher is a resident of the Near North
neighborhood, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, in the state of
Minnesota. She has lived in Minneapolis for 30 years. She and her
husband Jim have two adult children and a small consulting
business.
Plaintiff John Biestman lives in the Linden Hills neighborhood of
Minneapolis with his wife Janet Lee. He is 69 years old and retired
from a career as a banker.
Plaintiff Janet Lee is a 67-year-old resident of the Linden Hills
neighborhood of Minneapolis, along with her husband John Biestman.
She is a speech-language pathologist.
Plaintiff Lucia Webb is a 31-year-old resident of the Powderhorn
neighborhood of Minneapolis. She is the Operations Director at a
local non-profit.
Plaintiff Alan Crenshaw is a 35-year-old resident of Uptown in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a student in the Urban Studies
department at the University of Minnesota.
Plaintiff Abdikadir Abdi Noor is a 43-year-old resident of Fridley,
Minnesota. He is Somali American and has been a United States
citizen for approximately 20 years.
Defendant Kristi Noem is Secretary of United States Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
Defendant Todd Lyons is the Acting Director and the senior official
currently performing the duties of the Director of the United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency housed
within DHS.
Defendant Marcos Charles is Acting Executive Associate Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations within ICE.
Defendant David Easterwood is the Saint Paul Field Office Acting
Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations within ICE.
Defendant John A. Condon is the Acting Executive Associate Director
for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security is a
department of the executive branch of the United States government,
responsible for coordinating immigration enforcement actions.
Unidentified Federal Agencies are unidentified agencies or
departments of the U.S. government whose employees or agents,
acting under color of federal law and within the scope of their
employment and duties with the respective agencies by which they
are employed or for which they are agents, are participating in the
unlawful conduct described in this Complaint.
Unidentified Federal Officer Defendants are unidentified agents and
officers of federal agencies, including DHS, ICE, ERO, HSI, acting
under color of federal law and within the scope of their employment
and duties with the respective agencies by which they are employed
or for which they are agents, are participating in the unlawful
conduct described in this Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin C. Riach, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN C. RIACH
125 Main St. SE, Suite 339
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 203-8555
E-mail: kevin@riachdefense.com
- and -
Teresa Nelson, Esq.
Catherine Ahlin-Halverson, Esq.
Alicia Granse, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF MINNESOTA
P.O. Box 14720
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (651) 529-1692
E-mail: tnelson@aclu-mn.org
cahlin@aclu-mn.org
agranse@aclu-mn.org
- and -
Kyle W. Wislocky, Esq.
Jacob F. Siegel, Esq.
CIRESI CONLIN LLP
225 S. 6th St., Suite 4600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 361-8233
kww@ciresiconlin.com
jfs@ciresiconlin.com
- and -
Robert J. Gilbertson, Esq.
Caitlinrose H. Fisher, Esq.
Virginia R. McCalmont, Esq.
Jackson C. Evert, Esq.
Rebecca R. Rogers, Esq.
FORSGREN FISHER MCCALMONT
DEMAREA TYSVER LLP
1500 Capella Tower
225 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 474-3300
E-mail: bgilbertson@forsgrenfisher.com
cfisher@forsgrenfisher.com
vmccalmont@forsgrenfisher.com
jevert@forsgrenfisher.com
rrogers@forsgrenfisher.com
VANCOUVER WHITECAPS: Agrees to Settle Ticket Price Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Finance reports that a proposed settlement has been reached
in a class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia concerning ticket prices for the Vancouver Whitecaps FC v.
Inter Miami CF match held on May 25, 2024 (the "Match"). The
settlement is subject to court approval at an upcoming hearing.
The class action alleges that misleading promotional materials were
used in selling tickets to the Match, since the materials used the
images of certain players on Inter Miami CF's roster that
ultimately did not play in the Match.
The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability and assert that the
claim is without merit. The defendants maintain that they have
strong defences to the proposed class action.
If approved, the terms of the settlement will apply to all
individuals worldwide who held a ticket to the Match -- whether or
not they attended -- excluding tickets provided for free or
distributed to Whitecaps employees, players, and their families.
Key terms of the proposed settlement include:
-- Ticketing Policy Updates: The Whitecaps will revise their
Ticketing Terms and Conditions to state that team rosters and
player participation are subject to change and cannot be
guaranteed.
-- Additional Disclosure on Ticketmaster: The Whitecaps will seek
to add language to the popup notice on Ticketmaster's site to
inform buyers that player appearances are not guaranteed.
-- Improved Visibility of Terms: The link to the Whitecaps'
Ticketing Terms and Conditions will be moved to a more prominent
location on the team's website.
-- Donations to Charitable Organizations: The defendants will pay
a total of CAD $475,000, which will be distributed to three
charitable organizations involved in sports: KidSport BC, Canada
SCORES (Vancouver General Fund), and BGC South Coast BC.
For greater certainty, the settlement does not contemplate
distribution of monetary benefits to the Settlement Class.
The settlement will be considered for approval by the Supreme Court
of British Columbia at a settlement approval hearing, which has
been set for February 27, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at 800 Smithe Street,
Vancouver, BC. At the hearing, the Court will consider whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
settlement class. The Court may also decide on the legal fees and
expenses to which the lawyers for the plaintiff will seek, in an
amount not exceeding 33% plus taxes, which will be deducted from
the funds to be donated if approved by the Court.
Class members may object to the settlement by making a submission
in writing prior to January 28, 2026. Class members may also
opt-out of the settlement if they wish to preserve their legal
rights to pursue an individual claim for the issues raised in the
class action lawsuit. [GN]
VERSUNI USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERSUNI USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10400 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://us.home-appliances.philips, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Versuni USA Corporation manufactures household appliances. The
Company offers a diverse range of kitchen and home appliances such
as coffee machines, air purifiers, steam cookers, handheld
steamers, and air fryers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
WAKPAMNI LAKE: Must Arbitrate "Bridges" Predatory Lending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Shelley Bridges, Lisa Blakemore, and
Teresa Lukaszewicz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Raycen Raines, Wakpamni Lake
Community Corporation, WLCC II d/b/a Arrowhead Advance, WLCC
Lending JEM d/b/a Explore Credit, WLCC Lending FDL d/b/a Fast Day
Loans, WLCC Lending FDL d/b/a First Day Loan, and John Does Nos.
1-40, Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:24-cv-00087-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.),
the United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Asheville Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. The
Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Class
Allegations as moot.
On March 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this action alleging
that the Defendants operated a predatory lending scheme in which
the Defendants attempted to cloak themselves with sovereign
immunity...to shield plainly illegal commercial conduct." The
Plaintiffs assert violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c), (d); North
Carolina's Usury Law; North Carolina's Consumer Finance Act; North
Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Tennessee's
Usury Law; and Wisconsin's Usury Law. The Plaintiffs also allege
claims for unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.
The Plaintiffs collectively allege that the Defendants are
predatory lenders who have attempted to associate themselves with
an American Indian tribe to engage in a predatory lending scheme
seeking to have the tribe's sovereign immunity shield the
Defendants from civil liability and government enforcement. The
Defendants formed organizations to provide individuals with
short-term loans with interest rates exceeding six hundred
percent.
Each Plaintiff signed Loan Agreements containing provisions stating
the agreements are governed by the laws of the Oglala Sioux Nation
of the Pine Ridge Reservation Tribe ('Tribal Law')...and applicable
federal law. The arbitration provisions specified that any
Claim...will be resolved on an individual basis by arbitration in
accordance with this Arbitration Provision, applicable Oglala Sioux
tribal law, and Applicable Federal Law.
The agreements included delegation clauses providing that any
issues regarding the validity, effect and enforceability of this
Agreement to Arbitrate (or any provision thereof) shall be
determined solely by the Arbitrator.
The Court examined whether the arbitration provisions operated as a
prospective waiver of statutory rights. Under the prospective
waiver doctrine, an agreement that prospectively waives a party's
right to pursue statutory remedies is unenforceable as a violation
of public policy.
The Court found that the Loan Agreements do not, either explicitly
or implicitly, operate to prospectively waive the Plaintiffs'
federal statutory rights" because they provide for the application
of both tribal and federal law.
Regarding state law claims, the Court concluded that the
prospective waiver doctrine only applies to the waiver of federal,
not state, statutory rights. The Court explained that there is no
inconsistency...in invoking federal law regarding arbitration and
other federal rights, while also choosing certain other substantive
law...as controlling."
The Plaintiffs argued that the choice-of-law provisions preclude
consideration of state law, preventing them from establishing RICO
claims. The Court rejected this argument, noting it is undisputed
that the Plaintiffs can pursue their RICO claims at arbitration.
The Court emphasized that a plaintiff's chance of success plays no
role in the analysis deciding whether arbitration must be had. It
is enough that the plaintiff is not barred from bringing her claim,
even if it is bound for defeat.
The Plaintiffs contended the Tribal Credit Code prospectively
waives borrowers' rights and deprives them of any meaningful
opportunity to vindicate their federal claims. The Court found this
argument unpersuasive because the Defendants concede...that, under
the Loan Agreements, Federal law is equally available along with
tribal law in arbitration. Following Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.
Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, the Court determined there was no need to
speculate on how an arbitrator may interpret applicable federal
law.
The Court concluded that the choice-of-law provisions contained in
the Loan Agreements do not implicate the prospective waiver
doctrine." Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration and ordered the parties to arbitrate their
dispute in accordance with the terms of the agreements. The action
is stayed pending arbitration.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KN5h98 from PacerMonitor.com
WALMART INC: "Jacklick" Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Tarry Jacklick, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-CV-00436-MKD, Judge
Mary K. Dimke of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington(E.D.Wa) entered a Jury Trial Scheduling
Order on December 11, 2025.
The Court held a video scheduling conference on December 11, 2025.
April Rheaume appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Elizabeth Ashley
Paynter and Lauren S. Titchbourne appeared on behalf of Defendant.
The Court reviewed the Joint Status Report and heard from counsel.
The Court established the following deadlines: deadline to amend
pleadings and joinder deadline of February 2, 2026; deadline to
replace or add class representative of July 21, 2026; deadline to
disclose expert for class certification of July 21, 2026;
Plaintiff's motion for class certification due September 24, 2026;
Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion due October 29, 2026;
Plaintiff's reply due November 12, 2026; and class certification
hearing scheduled for December 2, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. in Spokane.
The Court noted that additional deadlines will be set after class
certification regarding discovery cutoff, Daubert motions,
dispositive motions, witness and exhibit lists, and trial dates.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1vC7pQ from PacerMonitor.com
WALTER KIDDE: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Fire Alarms
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Michael Stapelman and
Tammie Hays filed a class action lawsuit against Walter Kidde
Portable Equipment LLC d/b/a Kidde Safety Equipment and BRK Brands
Inc. d/b/a First Alert.
Why: Stapelman and Hays claim the companies falsely advertised
their smoke alarms as being able to provide timely warnings of
smoldering fires.
Where: The Kidde and First Alert class action lawsuit was filed in
Washington federal court.
Smoke alarms manufactured by Walter Kidde Portable Equipment and
BRK Brands are not capable of providing timely warnings of
smoldering fires, according to a new class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Michael Stapelman and Tammie Hays claim the companies
falsely advertised their smoke alarms as being able to detect
smoldering fires in a timely fashion.
"Despite knowing for decades that ionization-only devices do not
timely warn of smoldering fires, defendants continued to sell
millions of ionization-only devices annually to consumers in
Washington and throughout the United States," the Kidde smoke alarm
class action lawsuit says.
Stapelman and Hays argue the companies' smoke alarms are
"technologically unsuited" for providing timely warnings of
smoldering fires and fail to provide timely warnings in real-world
settings.
The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class and Washington
subclass of consumers who purchased a product with ionization
technology as its only means of detecting smoke or fire that was
made, marketed, distributed and/or sold by Kidde or First Alert and
labeled as a smoke alarm.
Kidde, First Alert allegedly violate state consumer law
Stapelman and Hays argue smoke alarms with ionization technology do
not provide timely warnings of smoldering fires, which they claim
are a common and deadly type of residential fire.
"Ionization-only devices do not sound or sound too late, often when
an initially smoldering fire is in the process of transitioning or
has already progressed to a hot, flaming fire," the smoke alarm
class action lawsuit says.
Stapelman and Hays claim Kidde and First Alert are guilty of breach
of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment and of violating the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory,
exemplary and punitive damages for themselves and all class
members.
In 2023, consumers sued Kidde and First Alert for the same reason
of selling ionization smoke alarms that only sense flames and
related heat but do not detect smoke.
Have you ever purchased a smoke alarm from Kidde or First Alert?
Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael K. Ross of Aegis Law
Group LLP, Sean Eskovitz of Eskovitz Law LLP and Martin Woodward
and Scott Kitner of Kitner Woodward PLLC.
The Kidde and First Alert smoke alarm class action lawsuit is
Stapelman, et al. v. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-02413, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington. [GN]
WK KELLOGG: Discovery Stayed in Froot Loops Labeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Thomas Harvey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WK Kellogg Co. and
Walmart Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-03984 (SJB)
(JMW), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the
Defendant's motion to stay discovery in its entirety.
The Plaintiff commenced this consumer class action asserting causes
of action for violations of New York General Business Law Sections
349, 350, and breach of express and implied warranties of
merchantability against the Defendants for their alleged
misrepresentation and false advertising statements made on labels
of Kellogg's Froot Loops with Marshmallows Cereal 16.2 oz, 9.3 oz,
and 23.7 oz boxes. The Plaintiff contended that he purchased the
16.2-ounce box of cereal in reasonable reliance on the label's
advertising that 1 1/3 cups of the cereal is equivalent to 39 grams
of the cereal and that the cereal contains about 12 servings per
container, both of which the Plaintiff avers are erroneously stated
metrics.
The Plaintiff's action centers around the alleged
misrepresentations and falsely advertised statements made by the
Defendants in the Nutritional Facts Panel section of the Product's
label. According to the Plaintiff, the NFP on the back of the 16.2
oz Product states that the Product provides about 12 servings per
container, and that the serving size for the Product is 1 1/3 cups,
which the Defendants falsely state is equivalent to 39 grams of the
ready-to-eat cereal Product. Based on the Plaintiff's independent
laboratory testing, however, a 1 1/3 cup serving of the Product
weighs over 45 grams, not the 39 grams claimed on the NFP of the
Product's label. Therefore, as the Plaintiff contends, the label
should have stated about 10 servings so as to make a truthful
statement on the NFP of the Product.
The parties appeared before the Court for an Initial Conference on
November 4, 2025. Following the Initial Conference, the Court
entered a discovery schedule. Two days later, the Defendants filed
their motion for a premotion conference on their anticipated motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim which
the Plaintiff opposed on November 13, 2025. An in-person premotion
conference has been set before the Hon. Sanket J. Bulsara on
January 12, 2026. The Defendants filed the present motion
requesting a partial stay of discovery including all custodial
discovery and all discovery from Walmart pending the resolution of
the Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss which the Plaintiff
opposed.
The Court found that the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's
claims are preempted by the FDCA because the Plaintiff seeks to
impose liability under state law based on testing that does not
comport with the FDA's regulatory framework. The FDCA expressly
preempts any requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not
identical to the requirement of section 343(q). However, taking the
Plaintiff's allegations as true, it appears at this stage that the
Plaintiff's claims would not be preempted because it appears that
the Product's labels do not comply with the FDCA.
The Court determined that the Plaintiff precisely alleges that
reasonable consumers will continue to plausibly rely on the
Product's labeling and advertising and be misled and deceived into
believing that they are purchasing Product containing the number of
servings of ready-to-eat cereal stated on the label. Accordingly,
it appears that the Plaintiff's claim for violations of N.Y. Gen.
Bus. Law Sections 349, 350 is meritorious as to WK Kellogg Co.
Conversely, with respect to Walmart, the Court found that merely
authorizing the sale of an allegedly mislabeled product ordinarily
does not suffice for a meritorious GBL claim under Sections 349,
350. Similar to claims against Retailer Defendants in other cases,
the Plaintiff's claims against Walmart do not allege that Walmart
had any role in the labeling of the product or the calculation of
the number of servings. Absent such a showing, it appears that the
Plaintiff's claim for violations of the N.Y. Gen Bus. Law Sections
349, 350 would fail as to Walmart.
The Court found that the Plaintiff makes solely conclusory
assertions that notice was provided to the Defendants regarding
breach of express warranty. Without more, it appears that the
Plaintiff's express warranty of merchantability claim would fail.
Given the absence of any allegation as to privity between WK
Kellogg and the Plaintiff, it is likely that the implied warranty
claim would not survive a motion to dismiss.
The Court concluded that as the majority of the claims could result
in dismissal, this factor weighs in favor of granting the stay. The
potential scope of discovery weighs in favor of granting a stay of
discovery. The Court found that there exists little to no prejudice
if a stay is granted because the case is still in its nascent
stages and minimal discovery has taken place. Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion to stay discovery was granted. In the event the
motion to dismiss is denied in part or in full, the parties are
directed to meet and confer and file a joint proposed schedule for
discovery within 10 days of the ruling on the motion to dismiss.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5c9fn9tt from PacerMonitor.com
XCLUSIVE TRADING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Puerto Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PUERTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XCLUSIVE TRADING KS, LLC; XCLUSIVE TRADING
HOLDINGS, LLC; and XCLUSIVE TRADING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:25-cv-06105 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 17, 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 Puerto was employed by the Defendants as a mobile
expert.
Xclusive Trading KS, LLC is a telecommunications company located in
Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
8826 Santa Fe, Suite 307
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 322-3528
Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
Email: mark@duganschlozman.com
heather@duganschlozman.com
ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Faces McFarlane Wiretapping Suit in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE MCFARLANE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAPPOS.COM LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:25-cv-10547 (N.D. Cal., December 9, 2025) is a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and
navigated www.zappos.com and whose electronic communications were
intercepted or recorded by advertising and marketing technologies
provided by Meta Platforms, Inc.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's promise to its
customers that it will not use information which on its own
identifies them, such as name or e-mail address, to serve
Interest-based ads is false. Despite its representations of
privacy, Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables
Meta Platforms, Inc. to eavesdrop on communications sent and
received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the website that
Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain
personally identifiable information and purchase information,
asserts the complaint.
By failing to procure consent before disclosing these
communications to Meta, the Defendant violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access and Fraud Act, and the
California Constitution, the complaint adds.
Zappos.com LLC is an e-commerce company, selling shoes, clothing,
handbags, accessories, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131-2800
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
ZOA ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Energy Drink Class Action for $3-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that ZOA Energy agreed to a $3 million
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that its energy
drinks contain preservatives despite being marketed as having "0
preservatives."
The ZOA Energy settlement benefits consumers who purchased any ZOA
Energy drink labeled with "0 preservatives" between March 1, 2021,
and Nov. 21, 2025.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that ZOA energy drinks
contain preservatives despite being marketed as having "0
preservatives." According to the lawsuit, ZOA Energy drinks contain
citric and ascorbic acids, which are chemical preservatives.
ZOA Energy is an energy drink brand co-founded by Dwayne "The Rock"
Johnson. The brand sells a variety of energy drinks in different
flavors.
ZOA Energy has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3
million class action settlement to resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the ZOA Energy settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the number of ZOA energy drinks
they purchased and whether they have proof of purchase.
With proof of purchase, class members can receive $1 per unit
purchased, up to a maximum of $150 per household.
Without proof of purchase, class members can receive $1 per unit
purchased, up to a maximum of $10 per household.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 13, 2026.
The final approval hearing for the ZOA Energy drinks preservatives
settlement is scheduled for March 26, 2026.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 20, 2026.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased any ZOA Energy drink with a label stating
"0 Preservatives" in the United States for personal use and not for
resale or distribution between March 1, 2021, and Nov. 21, 2025.
Potential Award
Up to $150
Proof of Purchase
Proof of purchase can include a receipt or purchase record from a
released party, a removed UPC code or other documentation from a
third-party commercial source reasonably establishing the fact and
date of purchase of the applicable product during the class period
in the United States.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
02/20/2026
Case Name
Gershzon v. ZOA Energy LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-5444-JD, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District Of California
Final Hearing
03/26/2026
Settlement Website
ZoaSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Gershzon v. ZOA Energy LLC
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
(833) 890-6436
Class Counsel
Michael D. Braun
KUZYK LAW LLP
Peter N. Wasylyk
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
Defense Counsel
Stephanie Schuster
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN]
[] Oil Railway Contamination Class Suit Stays in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Riquelmy, writing for Courthouse News Services, reports that a
class action filed by Clark County, Nevada, employees who claim
they faced chemical exposure from an old railyard will remain in
federal court, a two-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled Monday,
December 29.
A lower federal court had remanded the class action to state court,
leading defendants -- which include Monsanto Company -- to appeal.
At issue was the "local controversy exception" found in the Class
Action Fairness Act. The lower court judge decided the exception
applied, sending the class action back to state court.
The two-judge appeals panel ruled Monday, it didn't apply, as the
main injury claimed in the litigation didn't happen in Nevada and
the plaintiffs made no accusations that they faced greater injuries
than people in other states.
That means the action filed by some 170 people will stay in federal
court.
"Because the principal injuries resulting from that conduct were
not incurred in Nevada, we reverse the district court's order
remanding the case to state court," U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller,
a Donald Trump appointee, said in the ruling.
The plaintiffs have argued that the Clark County Government Center,
where they worked in Las Vegas, sat on the prior site of a
railyard. Union Pacific Railroad Company dumped waste like diesel
fuel on the site, and some of that waste contained polychlorinated
biphenyls, called PCBs, which Congress banned from production in
the 1970s. Monsanto manufactured over 99% of all PCBs sold
nationally.
Miller said in the ruling that the appeal hinges on the local
controversy exception. A plaintiff must meet certain criteria to
establish the exception fits.
The lower court ruled that the exception applied because the case
focused on people who worked at the government center, which sat on
contaminated land. While the PCBs could have led to injuries
elsewhere, the injuries in the case were local.
Miller disagreed.
"The statute requires the principal injuries from the alleged
conduct 'of each defendant' to have been incurred in the forum
state," he said. "In other words, each defendant's conduct must be
analyzed independently."
The panel had to examine injuries suffered in Nevada and other
states, determining if those in Nevada were more significant. It
also had to look at the defendants' conduct, seeing if the most
harm happened in the Silver State.
Miller said the conduct by Monsanto's precursor, which led to the
supposed injuries, didn't happen in Nevada. The plaintiffs have
argued that precursor company sold PCBs as liquid mixtures to a
variety of customers for many different uses. The mixtures went
into other products, some of which were used at railyards.
Following that logic, Miller said it's inferred that any injuries
would have happened in many different states.
"Crucially, plaintiffs make no allegations suggesting that the
injuries from PCBs in Nevada were more significant than those in
other states," Miller said. "For example, plaintiffs do not allege
that PCBs were primarily sold or used in Nevada, that PCBs were
unusually likely to be released into the environment in Nevada, or
that PCBs caused particularly severe injuries in Nevada."
Miller determined that examining the complaint alone is enough to
rule that the local controversy exception didn't apply. The panel
didn't need to see any other evidence in making its decision to
reverse the lower court's decision and remand the case.
"As we have explained, plaintiffs allege that Old Monsanto engaged
in a single, nationwide course of conduct, including selling PCBs
to 'a variety of industrial customers,' and ultimately selling
'more than 99% of all PCBs . . . ever sold and used in the United
States,' all without providing adequate warnings of the dangers of
PCBs," Miller said. "The principal injuries resulting from that
conduct were not incurred in Nevada, so [the act's] local
controversy exception does not apply."
U.S. Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw, a Bill Clinton appointee, rounded
out the panel. U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush
appointee and originally the panel's third member, died Dec. 7.
Attorneys on both sides couldn't be reached for comment. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***