260106.mbx

260106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 6, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 4 Headlines CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Sensitive Information, Stout Says CITIGROUP INC: Public Sector Appeals Denied Leave to Amend Order COLORADO: Appeals TRO and Class Cert. Orders in Gutierrez Suit COUNTRY CLUB: Tiwari Files Suit Over FLSA Violation FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Clark Says LENOVO: Gets Extra Time to Respond to "Liss" LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Watts Suit to 1st Cir. MOHNARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Hires DGIM Law PLLC as Counsel NIKE INC: Website Operates Tracking Software, Abdullah Alleges PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Loses Bid to Deny Detainee Bond Hearings POSIGEN PBC: Hires White & Case LLP as Legal Counsel RAY JONES: $450K Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Meraz Suit Removed to C.D. California STATE BAR OF MISSISSIPPI: Sued Over Due Process Rights Violations SYNGENTA CROP: Liashenko Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Link Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale SYNGENTA CROP: McCarthy Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution SYNGENTA CROP: Miller Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale SYNGENTA CROP: Ouzts Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising SYNGENTA CROP: Sanjurjo Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale SYNGENTA CROP: Spencer Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale SYNGENTA CROP: Walesch Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ULTA SALON: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Divens Says USAA GENERAL: $5MM Class Settlement Has Prelim Court Approval VERITY SCREENING: Maclin Files Suit Over FCRA Violation W&J SUBSHOPS: Hires Biz Depot Brokers as Real Estate Brokers ********* CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Sensitive Information, Stout Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CHASE STOUT and LISA ADDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01522-UNA (D. Del., December 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to use reasonable measures to protect the Sensitive Information entrusted to them. The complaint relates that CCHS required Plaintiffs to provide their Sensitive Information to obtain treatment and care. CCHS chose to allow Cerner access and control over its patients' highly sensitive personal and health information. On September 29, 2025, Cerner informed CCHS that CCHS's current and former patients may have been affected by the Data Breach, which occurred as early as January 22, 2025. The Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information ("PII"), including names and Social Security numbers, as well as personal health information ("PHI"), including patient medical records, medical record numbers, doctors, diagnosis, medicines, test results, images, care, and treatment. Despite their duties and alleged commitments to safeguard Sensitive Information, Defendants do not in fact follow industry standard practices in securing consumers' Sensitive Information, as evidenced by the Data Breach, asserts the complaint. Cerner itself has not sent Data Breach notices to Plaintiffs and Class Members, the complaint adds. In fact, it was reported that Cerner is telling hospitals, including CCHS, that it will not be notifying patients directly and that it is the hospitals' responsibility to determine if the stolen data violates Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") laws and whether they are required to send notifications. Defendants further breached their duties by failing to provide reasonably timely notice of the Data Breach to Plaintiffs and the Class Members, notes the complaint. As a direct and traceable result of Defendants' negligence and/or negligent supervision, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered or will suffer damages, including monetary damages and an increased risk of future harm, embarrassment, humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress, says the suit. Plaintiffs Chase Stout and Lisa Addi are patients of Defendant CCHS and Data Breach victims. Cerner Corporation is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations. Christiana Care Health Services, Inc. ("CCHS") is a private not-for-profit regional health care system.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Miller, Esq. BLEICHMAR, FONTI & AULD LLP 3411 Silverside Road Baynard Building, Suite 104 Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: (302) 499-2158 E-mail: mmiller@bfalaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com CITIGROUP INC: Public Sector Appeals Denied Leave to Amend Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the consolidated amended class action complaint in the lawsuit entitled In Re Citigroup Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-09132-LAP, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the CAC alleges securities fraud claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Citigroup, the Officer Defendants, and the Director Defendants, as well as control-person claims under section 20(a) against the Officer Defendants. The CAC brings two securities fraud claims: Count I alleges a violation of Rule 10b-5 against Citigroup and the Individual Defendants, and Count II alleges a Section 20(a) violation against the Officer Defendants as control persons. On June 4, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CAC and contend that the CAC should be dismissed because it: (i) fails to identify any actionable misstatements or omissions and (ii) does not plead a strong inference of scienter. On Mar. 24, 2023, Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Preska holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations fall short under either theory, especially since, when evaluating scienter, the Court must consider plausible opposing inferences. The Plaintiffs' allegations regarding scienter do not support a "powerful or cogent" inference that Individual Defendants harbored thoughts of fraud. As a result, there is also no intent that can be imputed to the Company. Consequently, the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims must also be dismissed based on lack of scienter. On May 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the CAC, which Judge Preska denied on Nov. 13, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments in the Complaint would fail to cure prior deficiencies to withstand a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) motion and therefore would be futile. The appellate case is captioned In Re Citigroup Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-3146, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Javier Bleichmar, Esq. Erin H. Woods, Esq. Benjamin F. Burry, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Ave, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 Email: jfonti@bfalaw.com jbleichmar@bfalaw.com ewoods@bfalaw.com bburry@bfalaw.com Defendants-Appellees CITIGROUP INC., et al. are represented by: David Maxwell Rein, Esq. Leonid Traps, Esq. Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558−4629 Facsimile: (212) 558−3588 Email: reind@sullcrom.com COLORADO: Appeals TRO and Class Cert. Orders in Gutierrez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN BALTASAR, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders granting the Petitioner's emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) and granting in part and denying in part the Petitioner's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Nestor Esai Mendoza Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Juan Baltasar, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, Aurora, Colorado, in his official capacity, et al., Respondents, Case No. 1:25-cv-02720-RMR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. On Sept. 2, 2025, Mr. Gutierrez filed his first amended class action complaint for vacatur and declaratory and habeas corpus relief. On Oct. 17, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Gutierrez's TRO, ordering his immediate release until he received a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge under Sec. 1226. The Court found that Mr. Gutierrez is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is unlawfully detained under Section 1225(b)'s mandatory detention authority, and Section 1226(a)'s discretionary detention scheme is more likely applicable. The Court deferred ruling on the motion for class certification at that time and scheduled a hearing on the motion for class certification. On Nov. 21, 2025, Judge Regina M. Rodriguez granted the Court conditionally certifies the following class for purposes of the Petitioner's declaratory judgment claim for relief: All people who are arrested or detained by the Respondents in Colorado pending a decision on whether they are to be removed from the United States based on alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an Immigration Court located in Colorado, where: (a) for the person's most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States; (b) for the person's most recent entry into the United States, the person was not paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry; (c) the person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at the border while they were arriving in the United States; and, (d) the person is being detained based on the Respondents' assertion that they are subject to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court denies without prejudice to certify the class for the Petitioner's vacatur claim for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The appellate case is captioned Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, et al., Case No. 25-1460, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on December 16, 2025. [BN] Petitioner-Appellee NESTOR ESAI MENDOZA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Anand Balakrishnan, Esq. Michael K.T. Tan, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 (212) 549-2600 - and - Conor Timothy Gleason, Esq. Hans Meyer, Esq. MEYER LAW OFFICE 1547 Gaylord Street Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (203) 856-5931 (303) 831-0817 - and - Annie Kurtz, Esq. Timothy Macdonald, Esq. Emma Kristine Mclean-Riggs, Esq. Scott Medlock, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, CO 80211 Telephone: (720) 402-3137 (720) 402-3151 (720) 248-8848 (720) 248-0553 Respondents-Appellants JUAN BALTASAR, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, Aurora, Colorado, in his official capacity, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Gibson, Esq. Timothy Bart Jafek, Esq. Brad E. Leneis, Esq. Office of the United States Attorney 1801 California Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0100 COUNTRY CLUB: Tiwari Files Suit Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------- PRIYESH TIWARI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. COUNTRY CLUB CENTER/HOMES, LLC c/o J. Jeffrey Holland P.O. Box 345 Sharon Center, OH 44274, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01490-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, December 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Priyesh Tiwari was employed by Defendant at its Marysville, Ohio facility as a non-exempt hourly Certified Nursing Assistant from approximately April 2024 to October 2025. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated were all hourly non-exempt employees, and all were subjected to and injured by Defendant's unlawful practice of failing to pay an overtime premium of one and a half times their regular rate for all hours that exceeded 40 in the workweek. All have the same claims against Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the suit. The Defendant owns and operates a web of related companies that are collectively referred to hereinafter as "Country Club Facilities" wherein the Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked for the Defendant within the last three years. Defendant Country Club Center/Homes, LLC holds itself out to the public as "Country Club Rehabilitation Campuses," offering the complete continuum of care under one roof including: independent and assisted living, rehabilitation, skilled and restorative nursing; and long term care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-308-1522 Facsimile: 888-604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Adam Lubow, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Clark Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEGRIA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06811 (W.D.N.Y., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 274,363 individuals' (including Plaintiff's) personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), including names, addresses, dates of birth, insurance member identification numbers, plan names, effective terms, and gender. Th complaint relates that the Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. On August 19, 2025, Fieldtex discovered an unauthorized third party gained access to its network systems and accessed and acquired files containing the PII/PHI of customers of Fieldtex's health plan clients, including Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Alegria Clark is a citizen and resident of Illinois. Her health plan contracts with Fieldtex for supplemental benefits administration services. In connection with obtaining such services from Fieldtex, Plaintiff's insurance provided Plaintiff's PII/PHI to Fieldtex. Fieldtex is a contract manufacturing, medical supplies fulfillment, and supplemental benefits administration company based in Rochester, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Pollock, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: 212-337-5361 E-mail: adam@pollockcohen.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-621-2000 Facsimile: 312-641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com LENOVO: Gets Extra Time to Respond to "Liss" -------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Stephen Liss, Joshua Taylor, and Giaunie Hendrix, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Defendant, No. 3:25-cv-05840-JNW (W.D. Wash.), Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle granted the parties' stipulated motion to extend deadlines for filing a consolidated complaint and responsive briefing. The Court previously consolidated the proposed class action on November 25, 2025, and granted Plaintiffs 30 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The deadline fell on December 26, 2025, during end-of-year holidays. The parties stipulated to extend the deadline to allow Plaintiffs sufficient time to draft a consolidated amended complaint without interfering with holidays. The Court ordered that the time for Plaintiffs to file the consolidated amended complaint is extended through and including January 9, 2026. The Defendant shall have up to and including February 6, 2026, to respond to the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including March 10, 2026, to file any opposition that might be required. The Defendant shall have up to and including March 26, 2026, to file any reply to Plaintiffs' opposition. The parties agreed that good cause exists under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to extend and set the deadlines. The parties previously sought and obtained prior extensions of time in the underlying actions before consolidation. This is the first extension the parties sought concerning the consolidated amended complaint and response. A copy of the Court's decision signed on December 12, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0jf6Wd from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiffs are represented by Jonas B. Jacobson and Martin Brenner of Dovel & Luner, LLP; Cody Hoesly of Barg Singer Hoesly PC; Walter Smith of Smith & Dietrich Law Offices PLLC; Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli, LLP; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons, and Ian R. Bensberg of CohenMalad, LLP; and J. Gerard Stranch, IV and Michael C. Tackeff of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC. The Defendant is represented by Lauren B. Rainwater, Rachel Herd, Caleah N. Whitten, and Katie Chan of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Watts Suit to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Diane Watts, Anthony Watts, and Adam Pizzitola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case arises from claims brought by three insureds, Plaintiffs, who allege that Liberty breached its personal automobile policies and acted in bad faith by purportedly terminating their rental coverage benefits prematurely. On May 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Brian E. Murphy granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 2, 2025. The Court certifies the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(3) class and denies certification of the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2) class. The appellate case is captioned Diane Watts, Anthony Watts, and Adam Pizzitola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Case No. 25-8032, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on December 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Javier Bleichmar, Esq. Erin H. Woods, Esq. Benjamin F. Burry, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Ave, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 Email: jfonti@bfalaw.com jbleichmar@bfalaw.com ewoods@bfalaw.com bburry@bfalaw.com Defendant-Petitioner LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: James A. Morsch, Esq. Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 161 North Clark, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: Jim.Morsch@saul.com Elizabeth.Thompson@saul.com - and - Stephanie L. Denker, Esq. Ryan M. Jerome, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1270 Ave. of the Americas, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10020 Email: Stephanie.Denker@saul.com Ryan.Jerome@saul.com - and - Bridgitte E. Mott, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 912-0905 Email: Bridgitte.Mott@saul.com MOHNARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Hires DGIM Law PLLC as Counsel ------------------------------------------------------- Mohnark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida to employ DGIM Law, PLLC as counsel. The firm will provide these services: a. advise the Debtor generally regarding matters of bankruptcy law in connection with this Case; b. advise the Debtor of the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, applicable bankruptcy rules, including local rules, pertaining to the administration of the Case and U.S. Trustee Guidelines related to the daily operation of its business and administration of this estate; c. prepare motions, applications, answers, proposed orders, reports and any other papers necessary in connection with the administration of the estate; d. negotiate with creditors, prepare and seek confirmation of a plan of reorganization and related documents, and assist the Debtor with implementation of any plan; e. review executory contracts and unexpired leases. f. negotiate and document any debtor-in-possession financing and exit financing; and g. render such other advice and services as the Debtor may require in this Case. The firm will be paid at these rates: Partners $605 to $645 per hour Paralegals $215 to $260 per hour The firm was paid a general retainer, in the amount of $20,000 by the Debtor as follows: (a) $3,000 on November 12, 2025, (b) $4,000 on November 21, 2025 (c) $3,000 on November 26, 2025 and (d) $10,000 on December 16, 2025. The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Daniel Y. Gielchinsky, a partner at DGIM Law, PLLC, disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Daniel Y. Gielchinsky, Esq. DGIM Law, PLLC 2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 705 Aventura, FL 33180-2834 Tel: (305) 763-8708 Email:dan@dgimlaw.com About Mohnark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mohnark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the development and commercialization of drug products. The company focuses on identifying, developing, and advancing therapeutic solutions intended to address unmet medical needs. Mohnark Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. Case No. 25-25193) on December 23, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets between $0 and $100,000 and estimated liabilities between $100,001 and $1,000,000. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein handles the case. The Debtor is represented by Daniel Gielchinsky, Esq. NIKE INC: Website Operates Tracking Software, Abdullah Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SALEHA ABDULLAH, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10882-LB (N.D. Cal., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for surreptitiously installing and operating tracking software on its website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.nike.com, a website that Defendant owns and operates. The complaint relates that the tracking software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance. According to the complaint, a pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. When triggered, the pixel transmits data from the user's browser to a third-party server. When users visit the Website, Defendant causes tracking technologies to be embedded in visitors' browsers. These include, but are not limited to, the following: Google Trackers (G4, DoubleClick, Analytics), Facebook Tracker, and The Trade Desk Tracker. The third parties who operate these trackers use pieces of User Information collected via the Website for their own independent purposes tied to broader advertising ecosystems, profiling, and data monetization strategies, which go beyond Defendant's direct needs, for their own financial gain. Because the Trackers capture and transmit users' IP addresses, full page URLs, referrer headers, device identifiers, and other categories of User Information, they operate as "pen registers" and/or "trap and trace devices" within the meaning of California Penal Code, says the suit. Plaintiff SALEHA ABDULLAH is a California citizen residing in Contra Costa County. The Plaintiff was in California when she visited the Website to view NIKE products on December 1, 2025. NIKE, INC. is an Oregon corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website which is an online platform that offers goods and services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Loses Bid to Deny Detainee Bond Hearings --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Petitioner-Plaintiff, v. Antone Moniz, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents-Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on December 19, 2025. The Court declared that certain immigration detainees are entitled to bond hearings and are being unlawfully detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Plaintiff, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2013. He lives in Massachusetts with his family, including his one-year-old U.S. citizen daughter. He has no criminal record. On September 18, 2025, DHS (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) arrested the Plaintiff during a vehicle stop in Everett, Massachusetts. DHS served the Plaintiff with a notice to appear charging him as inadmissible under Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the United States without admission or parole and under Section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i) for lacking valid entry documents. The government asserted that it was detaining the Plaintiff as an applicant for admission under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Based on the government's position, the Plaintiff was subject to mandatory detention and ineligible for a bond hearing before an immigration judge under the BIA's decision in Matter of Hurtado. The Court explained that this class action concerns the scope of the government's authority to detain noncitizens pending their removal proceedings without the opportunity for release on bond under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Since July 2025, DHS has asserted that all noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection and are later apprehended inside the country must be detained without a bond hearing during their removal proceedings, regardless of how long they have resided in the United States or whether they have a criminal history. The Court addressed the question of statutory interpretation involving the interplay between Sections 1225 and 1226. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides that in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for removal proceedings. The Court held that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory detention pending removal proceedings for noncitizens who enter the United States without inspection and are later apprehended while residing within the country. The Court's conclusion rested on the plain and ordinary meaning of Section 1225(b)(2)(A)'s text, namely the requirement that the noncitizen be seeking admission. The Court found that the government's construction of the statute would improperly render meaningless the phrase seeking admission in Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court noted that DHS's recent application of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and the BIA's decision in Matter of Hurtado are contrary to the longstanding agency interpretation that mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens seeking admission at the border or a port of entry. The Seventh Circuit and most district courts to have addressed the issue have rejected the government's new, more expansive interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff on his claim that the government lacks statutory authority to subject the class members to mandatory detention without a bond hearing. The detention of any such noncitizen during the pendency of his removal proceedings is instead governed by Section 1226(a), unless he is subject to the expedited removal process under Section 1225(b)(1), humanitarian parole revocation under Section 1182(d)(5)(A), or mandatory detention based on criminal or terrorist grounds under Section 1226(c). The Court issued a declaratory judgment stating that the members of the certified class are not subject to detention under Section 1225(b)(2). The Defendant's policy of subjecting members of the certified class to detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) without consideration for bond and a custody redetermination hearing is unlawful and violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and its regulations. The members of the certified class are subject to detention under Section 1226(a), including access to consideration for release on bond before immigration officers and Immigration Judges. The Court ordered the Defendant to provide individualized notice to class members and post notice in detention facilities. The Court modified the class definition to exclude any noncitizen who was paroled into the United States pursuant to Section 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry or after continuous detention upon arrival. The Court entered partial final judgment on Count I. A copy of the Court's decision Dated December 19th is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=g6dmpu from PacerMonitor.com POSIGEN PBC: Hires White & Case LLP as Legal Counsel ---------------------------------------------------- PosiGen, PBC and affiliates seek approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas to employ White & Case LLP as counsel. The firm's services include: a. advising the Debtors with respect to their powers and duties as debtors in possession in the continued management and operation of their businesses and properties; b. advising and consulting on the conduct of these chapter 11 cases, including all of the legal and administrative requirements of operating in chapter 11; c. attending meetings and negotiating with representatives of creditors and other parties in interest; d. taking all necessary actions to protect and preserve the Debtors' estates as the Debtors request, including prosecuting actions on the Debtors' behalf, defending any action commenced against the Debtors, and representing the Debtors in negotiations concerning litigation in which the Debtors are involved, including objections to claims filed against the Debtors' estates; e. preparing pleadings in connection with these chapter 11 cases, including motions, applications, answers, orders, reports, and papers necessary or otherwise beneficial to the administration of the Debtors' estates; f. representing the Debtors in connection with obtaining authority to obtain debtor in possession financing; g. representing the Debtors in connection with any potential sale of assets; h. appearing before the Court and any appellate courts to represent the interests of the Debtors' estates; i. advising the Debtors regarding tax matters; j. advising the Debtors in connection with corporate governance, transactional matters, other agreements with creditors and equity holders, the review and preparation of any necessary documents and agreements, and related actions; k. advising the Debtors in connection with any disputes or litigation that may arise in connection with these chapter 11 cases, including with respect to the automatic stay, claims matters, the pursuit of claims by the Debtors against third parties, and otherwise; l. advising the Debtors with legal issues related to the Debtors' financial circumstances, including with respect to restructuring, financing, corporate, tax, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, and employment issues, in each case as may be necessary or appropriate; m. performing all other ancillary necessary legal services for the Debtors in connection with the prosecution of these chapter 11 cases, including assisting the Debtors in: (i) analyzing the legal aspects of the Debtors' leases and contracts and the assumption and assignment or rejection thereof; (ii) analyzing the validity of liens against the Debtors (if any); and (iii) advising the Debtors on corporate and litigation matters; n. taking any necessary action on behalf of the Debtors as the Debtors request to obtain approval of a disclosure statement and confirmation of a chapter 11 plan, and all documents related thereto; and o. performing all other necessary legal services for the Debtors in connection with these chapter 11 cases. The firm will be paid at these rates: Partners $1,690 to $2,500 per hour Counsel $1,630 per hour Associates $870 to $1,580 per hour Paraprofessionals $355 to $700 per hour The firm received payments from the Debtors in the aggregate amount of $2,850,000 to fund the evergreen retainer. The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Aaron Colodny, Esq. a partner at White & Case LLP, disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Aaron E. Colodny, Esq. White & Case LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 620-7700 Email: aaron.colodny@whitecase.com About PosiGen, PBC PosiGen, PBC is a residential solar energy company. PosiGen PBC and its debtor-affiliates sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 25-90787) on Nov. 24, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets and liabilities between $100 million and $500 million each. The Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Alfredo R. Perez handles the case. The Debtors have hired at White & Case as counsel; FTI Consulting, Inc., as financial advisor; and Kroll Restructuring Administration, LLC as claims and noticing agent. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has retained McDermott Will & Schulte LLP and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as counsel. RAY JONES: $450K Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Samuel Back, as Class Representative, Plaintiff, v. Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00005-GNS-HBB, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Litigation Costs, and Service Award. The Court granted final approval of the class action settlement on December 17, 2025. Under the Agreement, the gross settlement amount is $450,000, and, after deducting fees, costs, and awards, the net settlement amount is approximately $275,000. The average payment to a class member would be approximately $5,100.54. The Settlement Class includes fifty-four individuals, and no one objected to the Agreement or opted out. Plaintiff brought this suit on January 10, 2022, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Defendants. Ray Jones is a Kentucky corporation that transports commercial materials including coal within the state of Kentucky. Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver for Ray Jones, and he contends that he and many other employees were denied overtime compensation due to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. The Court conditionally certified the Settlement Class under Rule 23. The Settlement Class is comprised of all current and former truck driver employees of Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. who were not paid at an overtime rate of pay for such employee's work in excess of forty hours in one or more workweeks from January 8, 2017, through November 20, 2024. The Court previously certified a Rule 23 class with the same class-member definition as the proposed Settlement Class. The Court found that all four Rule 23(a) requirements were satisfied: (1) numerosity, as the Settlement Class consists of fifty-four members; (2) commonality, as questions regarding whether the MCA exception applies and whether the proposed class of plaintiffs were wrongfully denied overtime compensation are common issues among class members; (3) typicality, because all proposed class members were employees of Ray Jones during the specified period and were allegedly injured in the same way by being denied overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and KHWA; and (4) adequacy of representation, as the Court found Plaintiff to be an adequate representative. The Court also found that the class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that the class action is superior to other available methods to adjudicate the controversy fairly and efficiently. The Court found the settlement agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). The Court determined that the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class, noting that Plaintiff and Foster have litigated the case for over three years and reached a settlement only after very substantial discovery and motion practice. Settlement was only reached through the efforts of the Magistrate Judge conducting a full day settlement conference in Bowling Green, and thereafter the parties attending a separate mediation before an experienced independent mediator, Thomas Williams, in Louisville, and the parties engaging in further arm's-length negotiations thereafter. The Court found the relief provided to the class adequate, considering the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal. The settlement avoids the multitude of risks to establishing liability and recovering damages, and provides an immediate, certain, and meaningful cash recovery of unpaid wages and overtime. The Court noted that class members are not required to submit claim forms or other documents to participate in the recovery, so payment may be made automatically. Therefore, no portion of the settlement amount will revert to Defendants. Settlement funds will be distributed based on a formula that assigns class members point values based on employee tenure. The point values also reflect factual differences between time periods and whether the class member opted-in to assert FLSA claims. The Court found this type of formula acceptable, noting that neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Supreme Court requires that settlements offer a pro rata distribution to class members. The Court approved attorney's fees of $150,000, which is one-third of the total settlement fund. The Court employed the percentage-of-the-fund method to assess the reasonableness of Plaintiff's request and used the lodestar method to cross-check. The Court found that courts within this circuit have found one-third common fund attorney's fee awards to be reasonable in similar complex failure-to-pay-overtime cases. A lodestar cross-check supported Foster's fee request. Foster's firm incurred $97,055.83 in time-based charges, based on Foster's rate of $375 per hour for 240.9 hours and his non-attorney employees' rate of $50 per hour for 248.9 hours. The lodestar multiplier necessary for Foster's requested attorney's fees would be approximately 1.5. In wage and hour collective and class actions, lodestar multipliers between 1 and 3 are common. The Court approved reimbursement of Foster's costs in the amount of $4,571.10 for costs incurred litigating the settled claims, which is less than the $5,000 that the Agreement permits Foster to seek. Foster's expenses included the cost of filing fees, postage, depositions, mediation, and attorney travel. The Court approved a service award of $20,000 to Plaintiff. Plaintiff worked with his counsel to achieve a successful resolution to this litigation, which took significant effort and time (at least fifty hours). Plaintiff was involved in every step of the litigation. Moreover, Plaintiff risked retaliation from Defendants and harm to his reputation, which could impact future employment opportunities. The requested service award is around 4% of the total settlement amount and less than ten times the average payment to class members. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 17th is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qiO83d from PacerMonitor.com REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Meraz Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julian A. Meraz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, LLC; YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31668 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12199. The Complaint contains eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment-Related Losses/Expenditures; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment; Unfair Business Practices; and Failure to Pay Overtime Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Facsimile: 916.561.0828 Email: njenkins@littler.com - and - Cirrus B. Jahangiri, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: cjahangiri@littler.com STATE BAR OF MISSISSIPPI: Sued Over Due Process Rights Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABBY ROBINSON, individually, ABBY ROBINSON & ASSC. LAW FIRM PLLC, VANESSA JONES, individually, VANESSA J JONES & ASSOCIATES LLC, And on behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS v. STATE BAR OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION STATE BAR OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, JEREMY LUKE BIRDSALL, individually and in his official capacity, MELISSA SELMA SCOTT, individually and in her official capacity, KATHRYN LITTRELL individually and in her official capacity, Honorable Judge Faye Peterson (Declaratory Judgment Only), John and/or Jane Doe, John Doe Company[s], DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00976-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., December 21, 2025) challenges the process and MOTIVATION BEHIND all of DEFENDANTS' unconstitutional violations of Plaintiffs' rights. In July 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed with each defendant a Mississippi code 11-46-1, Notice of claims intent to sue. Plaintiffs asserted that this protective procedural was personally delivered to each defendant of the Mississippi Bar including Jeremy Birdsall, Mellisa Scott, and Kathryn Littrell, as well as the MS Bar registered agent Jeremy Birdsall and all on July 7, 2025. The Mississippi Bar's Counsel Jeremy Birdsall confirmed the protection of the Mississippi Bar as being an arm of the state of Mississippi in an email on July 25, 2025. The complaint relates that the Defendants began the unconstitutional behavior when all defendants arbitrarily required plaintiffs to be silent in asserting and arguing their protected U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment right of free speech, which violated their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that the following state claims are the result of the unconstitutional behavior from all defendants: intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, physical, Invasion of Privacy and the Rights thereof harm, property damage, negligent Emotional distress, domestic terrorism, Embarrassment, Humiliation, Depression, Insomnia, headaches, worry, fright and shock, negligent hiring and retention, conflict of interest, Interfering with a Business, Slander, Defamation by posting on social media confidential information, Breach of Confidentiality, and Violation of Mississippi Disciplinary Rules. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for injuries including but not limited to economic loss, loss of property, and other legally cognizable damages; injunctive relief; declaratory relief clarifying the parties' rights and obligations under federal law, including that declaratory relief from the honorable court complained hereof; and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Abby Robinson is a top-rated attorney practicing in the Jackson, Mississippi area. Vanessa J. Jones is a lawyer in 6088 Hwy 49 Hattiesburg, MS. Jeremy Luke Birdsall is a lawyer serving Jackson in Casualty Insurance Defense, Commercial Litigation and General Liability cases. Melissa Scott is a lawyer in 643 N. State Street Jackson, MS. Kathyrn Littrell is a lawyer in 643 N. State Street Jackson, MS.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abby Robinson, Esq. Vanessa J. Jones, Esq. ABBY ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM PLLC. P.O. BOX 14 Jackson, MS 39205 Telephone: 601-321-9343 E-mail: arobinsonlawfirm@yahoo.com And Vanessajjlawoffice@gmail.com SYNGENTA CROP: Liashenko Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Liashenko, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-447 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: Link Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Andrew Link, on behalf of the Estate of Frances Lawson, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-452 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 Scott Andrew Link is a natural person and is the Representative of Frances Lawson, deceased, who 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: McCarthy Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Conrad McCarthy, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-444 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: Miller Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Shirlene Miller, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-441 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: Ouzts Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Rodney Ouzts, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-438 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: Sanjurjo Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Sanjurjo, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-458 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: Spencer Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Spencer, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-467 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: Walesch Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Jelene Walesch, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-12-461 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 ULTA SALON: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Divens Says ------------------------------------------------------ K'MISHA A. DIVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-38539-6 SEA (Super. Ct., King Cty., Wash., December 19, 2025) is a wage-and-hour class action brought under the Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA") and the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA") seeking injunctive relief and damages for Defendants' failure to provide and pay for legally required meal and rest breaks; failure to compensate employees for all hours worked due to off-the-clock work; failure to pay proper overtime wages; and failure to pay properly calculated sick leave. The complaint relates that during the Class Period, Plaintiff and each of the Class Members worked for the Defendants in the State of Washington. The Defendants assigned Plaintiff to work at one of their Ulta Beauty store locations in Lacey, Washington. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff typically worked shifts lasting more than five hours. At times, Plaintiff worked more than forty hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was compensated with a base hourly rate that began at approximately $27.00 per hour in July 2024. Plaintiff's hourly rate increased to approximately $27.55 per hour effective in March 2025; to approximately $28.00 per hour effective April 2025; and to approximately $29.93 per hour effective June 2025. In addition to Plaintiff's hourly compensation, Plaintiff periodically earned non-discretionary bonus/incentive compensation. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have been deprived of compensation in amounts to be determined at trial, and pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW), are entitled to recover such amounts, including exemplary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the suit. Plaintiff K'Misha A. Divens is a citizen of the State of Washington. Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. owns, operates, manages, and/or staffs employees to work at various beauty retail stores and salon service locations and/or other facilities in Washington State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com USAA GENERAL: $5MM Class Settlement Has Prelim Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Walter Black, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USAA General Indemnity Company, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 8:21-cv-01581-LKG (D. Md.), Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Plaintiffs' consent motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditionally certified the Proposed Settlement Class, appointed the Proposed Class Counsel, and preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants illegally collected certain late fees from more than 127,000 Maryland insurance policyholders, including the Plaintiffs, between June 27, 2011, and September 30, 2019, in violation of Maryland Insurance Code Section 27-216(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii)(2). The Plaintiffs sought to recover the gains, profits, interest and/or otherwise increased value of these wrongly assessed late fees which they contended the Defendants improperly obtained from their policyholders. The Plaintiffs asserted the following two claims in the amended complaint: (1) money had and received (Count I) and (2) unjust enrichment (Count II). In 2018, a USAA member filed a consumer complaint against the Defendants with the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) about an unrelated matter. During the investigation, the MIA investigated the Defendants' alleged violation of the Maryland Insurance Article and found that the Defendants had improperly assessed late fees on their policyholders. The MIA concluded that the Defendants had improperly collected millions in late fees from their policyholders during the period June 2011 and September 2019. In March of 2020, the Defendants refunded these late fees to their policyholders, including the Plaintiffs. But the Defendants did not return to their policyholders the gains, profits, interest and/or otherwise increased value of the wrongly assessed late fees. In July of 2020, the Defendants and the MIA entered into a final consent order, which documented the MIA investigation, internal audit, and refunds issued to the Defendants' policyholders. According to the Settlement the Defendants will deposit $5 million into an escrow account to be used to compensate the Settlement Class members. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Defendants will separately pay all administration costs associated with the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement further provides that the Settlement Administrator shall distribute the Net Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members through credits to Current Policyholders' Accounts or checks to Former Policyholders. The Settlement Agreement provides that Class Counsel shall be entitled to request an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and request reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be determined by the Court. Any award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel shall be payable solely out of the Settlement Fund and together with the Service Awards shall not exceed $2 million, resulting in at least $3 million of the Settlement Fund being distributed as Settlement Class Member Payments. The Court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) had been met. The numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a) was satisfied because the Plaintiffs showed that several thousand individuals fall within the proposed Settlement Class. The proposed Settlement Class includes all individuals who, per the Consent Order, received Late fee refunds from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs represented to the Court that more than 127,000 people received such late fee refunds. The commonality requirement was also satisfied because the money had and received and unjust enrichment claims in this case arose from the same common nucleus of operative facts related to the Defendants' improper assessment of late fees and raised common questions of law. The claims of the named Plaintiffs were also typical of the claims of the Proposed Settlement Class Members because the named Plaintiffs' claims and the proposed Settlement Class members' claims arose out of the same course of conduct. The Court was satisfied that the named Plaintiffs and proposed Class Counsel will adequately represent the Proposed Settlement Class Members. The Court observed that each of the proposed Class Counsel had significant experience handling complex civil litigation and/or federal class action matters. These attorneys had also ably represented the Plaintiffs in this case for more than four years. According to the Court "The Settlement Agreement was fair because the Settlement Agreement was the product of good faith bargaining at arm's length, as the parties engaged in arm's length settlement negotiations through a mediator, the Honorable Benson E. Legg (Ret.). The posture of this case also favored approving the Settlement Agreement, because the parties had engaged in significant discovery for approximately one year before reaching a settlement. The Court found that the proposed Settlement Agreement was adequate because the parties acknowledged that there were strengths and weaknesses to the Plaintiffs' case. The Defendants contested liability and the Plaintiffs also acknowledged that there were some litigation risks if this case were to trial. The parties also agreed that further litigation of this case would be very expensive. The Court approved the parties' proposed Notice to the Settlement Class Members, finding that this Notice complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties proposed that the Settlement Administrator will send individualized notices to the Settlement Class Members via Email Notice, Postcard Notice, and Long Form Notice. Accordingly, the Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for April 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ordered that all objections must be made no later than 30 days before the original date scheduled for the Final Approval hearing. The Court further ordered that all Opt Out Requests must be made no later than 30 calendar days before the original date scheduled for the Final Approval Hearing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t1wPDG from Pacer Monitor.com VERITY SCREENING: Maclin Files Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MACLIN, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERITY SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-1560 (M.D. Fla., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for omission of relevant information in its consumer report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was offered employment with Bluesky in February 2024. However, the Plaintiff's job offer was withdrawn after Bluesky received a copy of a consumer report produced by the Defendant. The Consumer Report fails to mention that Plaintiff successfully completed his probation, well before he applied for a position with Bluesky. The omission of relevant information in the Consumer Report misrepresents Plaintiff's character. The consumer reports produced by Defendant contain items which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment. As a result, Plaintiff had no opportunity to explain or correct the adverse information prior to Defendant providing it to Bluesky or other potential employers, the complaint asserts. The Defendant's violations of the FCRA, combined with its knowledge of the requirements of the FCRA, are evidence that Defendant was in negligent and reckless disregard of the law, it adds. Plaintiff David Maclin is a resident of Jacksonville, Florida. Defendant Verity Screening Solutions is a consumer reporting agency engaged in the business of producing consumer reports for employment purposes and can be served through its registered agent, Laurie Heath, 6834 S. University Blvd., Centennial, CO 80122.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 W. Dixie Highway, Ste. 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com W&J SUBSHOPS: Hires Biz Depot Brokers as Real Estate Brokers ------------------------------------------------------------ W&J Subshops LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California to employ Biz Depot Brokers as real estate brokers. The firm will market and sell the Debtor's Subway Franchise described as Store #2547 located at 15319 Palmdale Rd., Victorville, CA; Store #49305 located at 16251 N. D St., Victorville, CA; and Store #625528 located at La Paz Dr., Victorville, CA. The firm will be paid a commission of 10 percent of the purchase price. As disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Rajinder Golee Biz Depot Brokers 109 Hidden Cove Hercules, CA 94547 Tel: (510) 661-3350 About W&J Subshops LLC W&J Subshops LLC, a restaurant company based in Victorville, California, operates multiple sub shop locations including 16251 N D Street, 14712 La Paz Drive, Suite 99, and 15319 C. Palmdale Road. The Company is engaged in the preparation and sale of sandwiches and related food products, serving local customers across its stores. W&J Subshops LLC sought relief under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. Case No. 25-18331) on November 19, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports total assets of $425,591 and total liabilities of $1,458,962. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Scott H. Yun handles the case. The Debtor is represented by Michael Jay Berger, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL JAY BERGER. ********* 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 ***