260209.mbx

260209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 9, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 28 Headlines 530 FOOD: Bid for Conditional Cert. in Gallardo Partly OK'd ABBVIE INC: Faces Dabrasky Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ALASKA: Appeals Denied Motion to Dismiss Vail Suit to 9th Circuit ALBERT CORP: Final Court OK for $5.2MM Suit Settlement Set April 10 ALTON STEEL: Knight Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice AMAZON.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Refund Class Action for $309-Mil. AMERICAN TEXTILE: Santiago Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval AMHERST RESIDENTIAL: Clark Sues Over Illegal Background Check AVO'S & COMPANY: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BETSY ROSS: Class Certification Bids in Sorrell Suit Due August 14 BLARNEY CASTLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Blaylock Says BOARS NIGHT: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CALLONDOC.COM INC: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Garrigues Says CALYX ENERGY: Protective Order Hearing in Lerblance Set for Feb. 11 CAPITAL ONE: Ingraham Seeks OK of Interim Bid to Seal CAREMETX LLC: De Roulhac Sues Over Unlawful Web Visitor Tracking CATHOLIC HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Personal Info Disclosure Suit CENTRAL STATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Maddox Suit Says CENTRAL STATES: Hamblin Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: $2.5MM Atrium Health Suit Reached CHINA LIBERAL: Faces Shah Securities Suit Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme COLD WAR: Moulton Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status COMETEER INC: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims CORE PRODUCTS: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Wins Class Certification Bid COVANTAGE CREDIT: Yunk Files Suit Over Data Breach COWGIRL TUFF: Faces Hippe Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DELTA AIRLINES: P. Haley Granted More Time to File Reply Memorandum DESTINATION KNITTING: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Trial Date Extended to May 2026 EAGLE ROCK ER TEAM: Dupont Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. EDLOE FINCH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bowman Says ELEVATED STEEL: Alvarez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ENDPAK PACKAGING: Carrasco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Hearing in Copeland Set for June 18 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Hearing in Portable Set for June 18 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Hearing in Schuman Set for June 18 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Opposition Modified to March 6 ENOVIX CORPORATION: Amended Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for March 13 FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Defend Consolidated FICO Class Suit FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over "Bait-And-Switch" Tactics FLAME AND WAX: Faces Cruz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FLAMINGO TECHNOLOGIES: Tesch Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FRENCH CONNECTION: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Anderson Says FRESH CLEAN APPAREL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FUEGO SMOKE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Dial Suit Due April 9 FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Flores Files Suit in S.D. New York G & G FITNESS: Faces See Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GENERAL AUDIT CORP: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Appeals Class Cert. Order to 8th Circuit GIMME THE GOOD STUFF: Johnston Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California GLOBALPUNDITS TECHNOLOGY: Foreman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages GOODYEAR TIRE: Kiles Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ambbriz Suit Due July 28 GOOGLE LLC: Judge Denies Bid for $2BB Penalties in Privacy Suit GRIFOLS SHARED: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HALSTED FINANCIAL: Abalos Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California HARD EIGHT NUTRITION: Ade Suit Transferred to C.D. California HATFIELD INC: Kelly Suit Removed to N.D. California HELLO CAKE: Mitchell Balks at Unauthorized Sharing of Private Info HOME DEPOT: Rae-Ellis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HOYT ARCHERY INC: Goodall Suit Transferred to D. Colorado HRB TAX: B.W. Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. W. Va. HYDRO-QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Major Power Outage JC LICHT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Alleges JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses "Aronstein" Without Prejudice JOINT CORPORATION: Lee Files Suit in D. Arizona KALSHI INC: Jennings Balks at Mobile App's Illegal Sports Betting KELCO DADELAND: Pardo Sues Over ADA Breach KENNECOTT UTAH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bascom" FLSA Suit L3 CAPITAL: Siriani Sues Over Conspiracy to Steal Investors' Funds LA GRAN FARMACIA: Orellana Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LEGACY HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wright Due Jan. 8, 2027 LIVUNLTD LLC: Initial Case Management Conference Entered in Rivera LO HON CORPORATION: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property LOS ANGELES, CA: Baker Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LOUIS VUITTON: Winkler Files Suit in S.D. New York LPC SURVIVAL: Gaines Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline MATCH GROUP: Stevens Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach MDA SPACE: Faces Class Action Suit for Over Scrapped EchoStar Deal MEDGUARD ALERT: Landy Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut MIAMI PROPERTY: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation MID MICHIGAN MEDICAL: Johnson Files Suit in E.D. Michigan MIDLAND NATIONAL: Allowed Leave to File Overlength Brief MONROE UNIVERSITY: Gailliard Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONSANTO COMPANY: Auchard Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Dotson Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Goodman Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Guerrero Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Hawkins Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Holcomb Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution N. C. STATE BAR: Dant Sues for Constitutional Rights Deprivation NARDINI INTERNATIONAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property NATIONAL RURAL: Mullins Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Charging Borrowers Improper Fees, McCabe Says NEBRASKA FURNITURE: Martin Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Bid for Class Cert Administratively Closed NEXTPOWER INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit NK PROGRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Andreyeva Says OAKRIDGE GARDENS: Townsend Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation OVER THE MOON: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PANDORA JEWELRY: Grogg Files Suit in S.D. New York PANERA BREAD: Romero Files Suit Over Data Breach PARTNERS IN WINE: Juncos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PHIA GROUP: Faces Vickery Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Wallace Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties PINE HOSPITALITY: Desposati Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification PLAIN GREEN: Wood Files Suit Over Unlawful Loan Practices PORTOFINO III: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says PRECIOUS MOMENTS: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRIA GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Personal Info, Tanner Says PRIMERICA FINANCIAL: Campbell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PURAGAIN WATER: Zagury Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida QUEBEC: Disability Group Appeals Ruling in Accessibility Suit RADIANT AUTISM: Hector Seeks Behavior Technicians' Unpaid Overtime RADIOSHACK USA LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RAJUL PATEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Alleges RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Must File Class Cert Response by March 2 RAMACO RESOURCES: Faces Henning Class Suit Over Securities Fraud RAMACO RESOURCES: Henning Sues Over 9.6% Drop of Securities Price REV GROUP: Unified Government Sues Over Post‑Order Price Hikes RIO VISTA DEVELOPMENT: Cheeseboro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: $250MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 15 ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR: Taylor Suit Removed to E.D. California ROCKET COMPANIES: Waller Sues Over Unjust Enrichment SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hood Suit Due Nov. 18 SAM'S EXCAVATING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gillam Due April 17 SANDERLING RENAL: Silva Seeks Dialysis Technicians' Unpaid Wages SCHILL LANDSCAPING: Faces Gambill Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ohio SE-PORT-DELICATESSEN: Delgado Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit SEASONAL GRAMS INC: Anderson Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois SEMTECH CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 3 SENDAFRIEND LLC: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHOW-ME BBQ: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Alleges SOCAL RAMP: Court "Corona" Narrows Wage & Hour Suit SOUTH CENTRAL: Court OKs Notice in "Soto" STEAKERS & SHAKERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Sekerchak Claims STMICROELECTRONICS INC: Renteria Files Suit in D. Delaware STOCKX LLC: Schallert Sues Over Unlawful Private Data Sharing SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Byers Sues Over ERISA Violation SUPER7 OPCO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Alleges SUPERFOODS INC: Varela Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling TAMASHII INC: Faces Choe Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks to Certify Two Classes TEKSYSTEMS INC: Court Blocks Arbitration Rollout Over Emails TIDEWATER PROPERTY: Court Conditionally Certifies "Floyd" Class TOPPS COMPANY: Sanchez Sues Over Misleading Business Practices TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Class Suit Closed TPS GROUP: Mulvaney Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts TRANSUNION LLC: Bingham Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois TWEEDS SUIT: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store UNITED STATES: Appeals Judgment Order in Mansor Suit to 9th Circuit UNITED STATES: John Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit UNITED STATES: Pablo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes USA MINISO DEPOT: Wu Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California VENEZIA BULK: Fails to Secure Private Information, Kish Alleges VENEZUELA: Bid to Set Class Briefing Schedule Tossed VP AVIATION: Kinney Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WHEDCO DEVELOPMENT: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* 530 FOOD: Bid for Conditional Cert. in Gallardo Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isidro Gallardo, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. 530 Food Corp. d/b/a/ Key Food, 2401 Food Corp. Key Food UWS, Ted Y. Park, Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Subramanian entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for conditional certification. The case is a claim brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against two Upper West Side outposts of a chain of grocery stores. Isidro Gallardo worked at Key Food's Amsterdam Avenue location from 2016 until 2024, when he alleges that he resigned because of unpaid wages. Toward the end of his tenure, he worked a bit at the Broadway location as well, a few blocks away. At both locations, he says that he clocked in at around 3:00 every morning worked until 3:00 in the afternoon but that his timesheets instead showed that he clocked in at 6:30 or 7:00 in the morning and that he was told to clock out around noon, three hours before the actual end of his shift. Then, even though he worked seven days a week, his manager told him not to clock in sometimes, meaning that he got paid only for six of those days. Key Food is a cooperative of independently owned supermarkets. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXZyOJ at no extra charge.[CC] ABBVIE INC: Faces Dabrasky Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE E. DABRASKY, individually, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBVIE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-CV-00975 (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff seeking redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In September 2020, the Defendant started placing phone calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone number to provide the intended recipient with medication reminders. The Plaintiff has never been prescribed any medication that is manufactured by Defendant, including Defendant's Humira drug. Despite Plaintiff's request that Defendant cease its misguided calls, Defendant continued pounding Plaintiff's cellular phone with misguided medication reminder calls, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's repeated refusal to cease its invasive robocalls, the Plaintiff was forced to file this action to compel Defendant to cease its unlawful conduct. Abbvie, Inc. is a research-based pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical drugs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Timothy Hogan, Esq. Maxwell W. Brooks, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com thogan@sulaimanlaw.com mbrooks@sulaimanlaw.com ALASKA: Appeals Denied Motion to Dismiss Vail Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Rory Vail, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Dunleavy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00086-SAB, in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of prisoners' civil rights. On July 14, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Stanley Allen Bastian denied on Dec. 30, 2025. The appellate case is styled as Vail, et al. v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 26-631, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 2, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on February 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on February 11, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on March 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 22, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RORY VAIL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ruth Botstein, Esq. Anchorage Office of the Municipal Attorney 632 W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 730 Anchorage, AK 99501 - and - Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 915 15th Street, NW 7th Floor, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 - and - Doron Levine, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA FOUNDATION 1057 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99503 - and - John A. Freedman, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Susan Carol Orlansky, Esq. REEVES AMODIO, LLC 500 L. Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 Defendants-Appellants MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, Governor of Alaska, et al. are represented by: Margaret Paton-Walsh, Esq. Jenna Lorence, Esq. ALASKA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Department of Law 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 ALBERT CORP: Final Court OK for $5.2MM Suit Settlement Set April 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Albert has agreed to a $5.2 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the company offered payday loans with illegal interest rates to active-duty military servicemembers. The Albert Instant class action settlement with defendants Albert Corporation and Albert Cash, LLC, received preliminary approval from the court on December 12, 2025 and covers anyone who, between December 1, 2024 and December 12, 2025, received an Albert Instant advance on which they paid an Instant Transfer Fee while they were either an active-duty servicemember or the spouse or eligible dependent of an active-duty servicemember. The court-approved website for the Albert Instant settlement can be found at MLASettlement.com. Albert Instant settlement class members will automatically be sent a cash payment of approximately $30 for each eligible Albert Instant transaction, the settlement website says. Settlement payouts will be delivered by check to the address Albert Instant has on file for each class member. Class members who wish to receive their payment electronically can visit the page of the class action settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. Albert Instant has also agreed, per the settlement website, to withhold transfer fees that would be assessed on instant advances to active-duty military servicemembers or their eligible dependents for a two-year period, or until September 30, 2027. A hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2026 to determine whether the Albert Instant class action settlement will receive final approval from the court. Payments will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Albert Instant class action lawsuit alleged that the company assessed illegal transfer fees, which the plaintiffs argued were effectively interest, on payday loans to active-duty military servicemembers, in violation of the federal Military Lending Act and Truth In Lending Act, and the Georgia Payday Lending Act. ALTON STEEL: Knight Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- TYSON KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTON STEEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00099 (S.D. Ill., January 29, 2026) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendant, his employer for WARN Act purposes. On January 31, 2026, the Defendant abruptly terminated at least 253 employees, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees, and at least 33% of active full-time employees, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of the plant closing on January 31, 2026, and within 90 days of that date who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. Alton Steel, Inc. operates a plant located in Alton, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenandmalad.com AMAZON.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Refund Class Action for $309-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Amazon.com Inc. agreed to pay $309 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by consumers. Why: Consumers alleged Amazon shortchanged them on refunds for returned items. Where: The Amazon class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court. How to Make a Claim: Details on how to file a claim were not immediately available. Amazon.com has agreed to pay $309 million, in addition to approximately $570 million already issued to customers, to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the e-commerce giant shortchanged customers on refunds for returned items. Amazon, which denies the allegations of wrongdoing, has issued about $570 million in unpaid refunds as of Dec. 1 and agreed to pay $309 million into a settlement fund for millions of customers who claim they tried to return products but were improperly denied refunds. A motion seeking preliminary approval of the Amazon class action settlement was filed on Jan. 23 in Washington federal court. As part of the proposed agreement, Amazon will also implement changes to its return and refund practices, including regular monitoring to make sure returns are processed within the company's return policy timelines and providing clearer notifications to customers when refunds are approved or denied, the motion says. Amazon return policy settlement provides more than $1B in benefits to consumers The proposed Amazon class action settlement would benefit anyone who initiated the return of a physical product bought through Amazon from Sept. 5, 2017, to the time class data is prepared and who either did not receive a refund, received an incorrect refund or were later improperly charged after a refund was issued, according to the agreement. "After years of litigation and months of negotiation, the parties have agreed to a resolution of plaintiffs' claims concerning Amazon's return policy and refund practices, providing in excess of $1 billion of benefits for the class," the motion says. The monetary relief from the Amazon class action settlement will likely represent a full recovery for every class member, plus interest. The motion comes after U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead in October stayed the proceedings in light of the parties having reached a tentative resolution. The court in 2023 merged multiple proposed class actions brought by shoppers who alleged Amazon promised "free, no-hassle returns" but routinely failed to refund customers who had sent back items. The customers asserted that items are often misidentified or separated while processing refund requests, and that the retailer does not correct these errors because most customers do not notice. Early this year, Amazon agreed to a $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission to resolve claims that it failed to provide simple mechanisms for consumers to cancel their Prime memberships. The Amazon customers are represented by Alicia Cobb, Matthew Hosen, Nolan K. Anderson, Andrew H. Schapiro, Adam Wolfson, Justin C. Griffin and Alyssa G. Olson of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Aaron M. Zigler, Lawrence Ashe and Nidya S. Gutierrez of Zigler Law Group LLC. The Amazon return policy settlement is In re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01372, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] AMERICAN TEXTILE: Santiago Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TEXTILE COMPANY INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:23-cv-01811-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting: (1) final approval of the class action settlement, and (2) final certification of the settlement class. American Textiles manufactures and supplies bedding products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zY2Jwh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com AMHERST RESIDENTIAL: Clark Sues Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------- LORENZO CLARK, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMHERST RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02074-MSN-ATC (W.D. Tenn., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. The Defendant's actions in violation of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals. As such, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, files this class action complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. The Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Amherst Residential Holdings LLC is engaged in the business of real estate development throughout the United States, including Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Payne, IV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105, PMB #161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 Facsimile: (646) 417-4967 E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com AVO'S & COMPANY: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avo's & Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01014 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://adiamor.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Davis and other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Davis browsed and intended to make an online purchase of jewelry on the website on November 7, 2025. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Specifically, the website failed to provide a functional "Skip to Content" mechanism, and Davis was not given any means to bypass repeated blocks of content. As a result, she was required to navigate through the same repetitive navigation elements on each page before reaching the main content, says the suit. Plaintiff Davis seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Avo's & Company, Inc. operates the website that offers jewelry products, including engagement rings, wedding bands, earrings, necklaces, pendants, and bracelets, along with custom jewelry design services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law BETSY ROSS: Class Certification Bids in Sorrell Suit Due August 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amber Sorrell, et al., v. Betsy Ross Operations, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01501-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before Feb. 27, 2026. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before March 31, 2026. -- All discovery is to be completed on or before May 3, 2027. -- Class certification motions are to be filed on or before Aug. 14, 2026. -- Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by May 15, 2026. Betsy offers 24-hour skilled nursing and rehabilitation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nH1QEv at no extra charge.[CC] BLARNEY CASTLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Blaylock Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TINA BLAYLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLARNEY CASTLE OIL COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00288 (W.D. Mich., January 27, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's premium pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an assistant manager from approximately August 2024 to December 2025. Blarney Castle Oil Company is a petroleum and propane distribution company that owns and operates over 130 convenience stores and 10 branch offices in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49008 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com BOARS NIGHT: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOARS NIGHT OUT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00688 (S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.boarsnightout.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 January, 12, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Aces Wild The 4 Queens Seasoning from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the 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. She 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, asserts the complaint. Through this complaint, 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. Boars Night Out LLC operates the website that retails barbecue seasonings.[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 CALLONDOC.COM INC: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Garrigues Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAWN GARRIGUES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALLONDOC.COM INC. d/b/a CALL-ON DOC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00233-L (N.D. Tex., January 29, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its patients, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. The Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. CALLONDOC.COM INC. d/b/a Call-On-Doc is an online telehealth provider that offers virtual medical consultations, prescriptions, and laboratory services to patients across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CALYX ENERGY: Protective Order Hearing in Lerblance Set for Feb. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lerblance, et al., v. Calyx Energy III, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00047 (E.D. Okla., Filed Feb. 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge John F. Heil, III entered an order that Calyx's Motion for Protective Order shall be heard at the previously scheduled Evidentiary Hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. on February 11, 2026, in Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Jackson. Along with argument regarding Docket Nos.126 &129 , argument as to Docket No.152 shall precede the hearing as to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Opening Brief in Support Thereof. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. Calyx operates as an oil and gas exploration company.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Ingraham Seeks OK of Interim Bid to Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY INGRAHAM, and DEIA WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, N.A., d/b/a CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting interim motion to seal. The Plaintiffs file this interim motion to seal to indicate that the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming omnibus sealing motion. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vSQ99J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. Emily D. Herrin, Esq. Mallory Schiller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com ltoops@cohenmalad.com llafornara@cohenmalad.com eherrin@cohenmalad.com mschiller@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Brittany N. Resch, Esq. Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com bresch@straussborrelli.com agunem@straussborrelli.com CAREMETX LLC: De Roulhac Sues Over Unlawful Web Visitor Tracking ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIRE DE ROULHAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAREMETX, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00983 (C.D. Cal., January 30, 2026) asserts claims for intrusion upon seclusion and for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law, and for unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. Allegedly, the Defendant embedded data brokers 6sense's and LiveRamp's anonymous visitor tracking programs on its website to collect and combine consumer personal data across contexts and use it for commercial purposes, often outside the consumer's awareness or control. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not authorize Defendant to deploy third-party visitor identification mechanisms on her device or to transmit her visitor-identifying information and visit data to data brokers for recognition, matching, targeting, or monetization, says the suit. Headquartered in Bethesdam, MD, CareMetx, LLC provides health care software services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: jparkkinen@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com CATHOLIC HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Personal Info Disclosure Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Catholic Health System has agreed to a class action settlement that offers privacy monitoring services and cash payments to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged it disclosed its patients' sensitive personal information to Meta (formerly Facebook) without consent. The CHS MyChart class action settlement received preliminary court approval on December 11, 2025, and covers anyone who sought and/or received treatment from Catholic Health System (CHS) or who logged into CHS's MyChart patient portal between January 1, 2020 and December 11, 2025. The court-approved website for the CHS MyChart settlement can be found at CatholicHealthSettlement.com. Settlement documents state that CHS has identified approximately 300,000 people eligible to participate in the class action settlement. Catholic Health settlement class members who logged into the CHS MyChart portal during the relevant time period and file a timely, valid claim form can receive a cash payout of up to $20 from the deal, the settlement website says. Class members who otherwise sought and/or received treatment from CHS during the relevant time frame may file a claim form to receive a 12-month subscription to Dashlane Premium privacy monitoring services, which includes: -- A virtual private network (VPN) to encrypt subscribers' data and mask their IP addresses; -- A private search engine that does not store personally identifiable information; -- Automatic requests to data brokers to remove subscribers' personal information; -- A multi-device password manager; and -- An encrypted digital vault for sensitive records and documents. To submit a MyChart settlement claim form online, class members can visit CatholicHealthSettlement.com page of the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All CHS MyChart settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by April 10, 2026. CHS has also agreed, as part of the settlement, to remove third-party tracking technologies such as Google Analytics and the Meta Pixel from the CHSbuffalo.org and/or CHCareOnDemand.org websites, if the trackers are present. A hearing is scheduled for April 23, 2026 to determine whether the Catholic Health System MyChart settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The CHS MyChart class action lawsuit claimed that the healthcare provider installed third-party tracking tools on its websites and MyChart patient portal, which shared patients' sensitive personal data to tech companies, including Meta, without consent. [GN] CENTRAL STATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Maddox Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BILL MADDOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL STATES DERMATOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, doing business as DOCS DERMATOLOGY GROUP and as DOCS and as DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00092-DRC (S.D. Ohio, January 29, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, who are current and former patients of Defendant. As a condition of receiving services from Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their sensitive and confidential private information. Upon information and belief, between November 19, 2025, and November 27, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's network and exfiltrated sensitive private information. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of its patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen, says the suit. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to its impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the private information that remains in Defendant's possession. Central States Dermatology Services, LLC operates dermatology offices across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CENTRAL STATES: Hamblin Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- TONY HAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL STATES DERMATOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES and as DOCS and as DOCS DERMATOLOGY GROUP, Case No. 1:26-cv-00093-DRC (S.D. Ohio, January 29, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, who are current and former patients of Defendant. As a condition of receiving services from Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their sensitive and confidential private information. Between November 19 and November 27, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's network and exfiltrated sensitive private information. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of its patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to its impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the private information that remains in Defendant's possession. Central States Dermatology Services, LLC operates dermatology offices across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: $2.5MM Atrium Health Suit Reached ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority (CMHA) has agreed to a $2,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a notice that patients of its Atrium Health Urology clinic received, informing them that they may have been exposed to infectious diseases. According to the complaint, the clinic allegedly discovered that some of its reusable medical instruments had incomplete records pertaining to sterilization and high-level disinfection. The Atrium Heath Urology class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 5, 2025 and covers all individuals who were treated at the urology clinic owned and operated by CMHA between April 1, 2021 and September 22, 2022, who were notified that it was advisable for them to be tested for any new or contracted infections as a result of their treatment, and received testing that indicated no new infections. Court documents estimate approximately 1,300 patients are covered by the Atrium Health Urology class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Atrium Health Urology sterilization settlement can be found at AHUSettlement.com/. According to the website, Atrium settlement class members do not need to do anything to automatically receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement. This payment, the agreement details, is estimated to be approximately $1,000 per class member, and will be equal share of what remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs and lead plaintiff service awards. Each Atrium class member will receive their cash payout from the settlement administrator, which will be sent via check to the most recent mailing address on file. Consumers who would like to request a change of their mailing address -- or who have any outstanding questions about the settlement -- are recommended to contact the settlement administrator to receive further direction. Class members who would like to be excluded from, or object to, the Atrium settlement must send the settlement administrator written notice of their decision by March 23, 2026. Notices must include the class member's name, address, contact information, and approximate date of treatment, among other information. The court will determine whether to grant the Atrium Health Urology settlement final approval at a hearing on April 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Atrium Health Urology class action lawsuit alleged that the clinic, which is owned and operated by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, failed to keep adequate records of its sterilization and disinfection procedures for some of its reusable medical equipment and was consequently unable to determine if this proper sterilization occurred. As a result, the case argued that patients may have wrongfully been exposed to infectious diseases from contaminated medical instruments due to the negligence and recklessness of the urology clinic. [GN] CHINA LIBERAL: Faces Shah Securities Suit Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- ATUL SHAH, AMITA SHAH, SHAILENDRA PRASAD, JOSHUA BOUCK, SHENWEI ZHAO, and ADAM SPRING, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHINA LIBERAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS LTD., NGAI NGAI LAM, WENHUAI ZHUANG, FANGZHONG SUN, NGO YIN TSANG, WANDONG CHEN, XIAONAN LIU, XINYU DENG, TRANSHARE CORPORATION, ASCENT INVESTOR RELATIONS LLC, TINA XIAO, EVER ALPHA GLOBAL LIMITED, LIM XIANG JIE CEDRIC, MING-SHEN CHENG, KING SUNG WONG, KO SEN CHAI, SIONG WEE VUN, CHIEN LUNG MA, KOK WAH WONG, and YAN ZHAO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00823 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2026) arises from an alleged fraud carried out by a criminal syndicate of scammers using social media to orchestrate pump-and-dump schemes involving NASDAQ-listed shares of China Liberal Education Holdings Ltd. (CLEU), with the active cooperation of the company's management and service providers. Shortly after its public listing, CLEU's business faltered due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, regulatory changes in China that sharply curtailed the cross-border partnerships with international universities that were central to CLEU's business, and a failed attempt to diversify into operations of domestic Chinese universities. In or around the fall of 2024, the Defendants determined to utilize CLEU shares in one such pump-and-dump scheme. In furtherance of the scheme, CLEU management caused the Company to issue millions of shares of CLEU stock and warrants to the scammers in December 2024 through a non-bona fide offering. CLEU management then agreed on December 31, 2024 to exchange the previously issued warrants for 240 million additional CLEU shares, giving the scammers a stockpile of more than 250 million shares to use in their fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves to seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. China Liberal Education Holdings Ltd. is a Chinese educational services and technology company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The company conducts its operations through its wholly owned subsidiaries, China Liberal (Beijing) Education Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Oriental Wisdom Culture Development Co., Ltd. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. William H. Spruance III, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 431-7473 E-mail: aaron@moka.law andrew@moka.law william@moka.law - and - Leo Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 780-3993 E-mail: leo@moka.law - and - Tyler Highful, Esq. HIGHFUL LAW PLLC 5900 Balcones Drive, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 666-7426 E-mail: tyler@highful.com COLD WAR: Moulton Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheryl Moulton, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. Cold War Citizens Care, LLC, Cold War Citizens Healthcare of America, Cold War Citizens Health Care, LLC, Olin Martin, David Babatope, and Jacob T. Smith, Case No. 1:25-cv-09891-MGL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's Proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action class pursuant to FLSA Section 216(b), to include: "All individuals who worked for the Defendants Cold War Citizens Health Care, LLC; Cold War Citizens Car, LL; and/or Defendant Cold War Citizens Healthcare of America from August 2021 through the present; and 2. Directing the CWC Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff's counsel, in a usable electronic format, identifiers for all FLSA Class Members including each individual's (i) full legal name, (ii) mailing address, (iii) cellular telephone number; and (iv) email address. Cold War provides home care services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P4s8VG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack E. Cohoon, Esq. Lydia Robins Hendrix, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7914 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 E-mail: jcohoon@burnetteshutt.law lhendrix@burnetteshutt.law COMETEER INC: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cometeer, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00949 (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://cometeer.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Davis browsed and intended to make an online purchase of coffee capsules on the website on November 14, 2025. Despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff Davis was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The complaint alleges that the website's barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Davis seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Cometeer, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of coffee products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated (NASDAQ: CORT) resulting from allegations that Corcept may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Corcept securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51868 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On December 31, 2025, Corcept filed a Current Report with the Securities Exchange Commission on Form 8-K announcing in a press release that "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has issued a Complete Response Letter (CRL) regarding the New Drug Application (NDA) for relacorilant as a treatment for patients with hypertension secondary to hypercortisolism." The press release stated that "[w]hile the FDA acknowledged that Corcept's pivotal GRACE trial met its primary endpoint and that data from the company's GRADIENT trial provided confirmatory evidence, the Agency concluded it could not arrive at a favorable benefit-risk assessment for relacorilant without Corcept providing additional evidence of effectiveness." On this news, Corcept's stock price fell $35.40 per share, or 50.42%, to close at $34.80 per share on December 31, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CORE PRODUCTS: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Core Products International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-145 (E.D. Wis., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://www.coreproducts.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cruz and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Cruz browsed and intended to make an online purchase of an orthopedic pillow on the website on October 15, 2025. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Cruz seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Core Products International, Inc. operates the website that offers therapeutic comfort and orthopedic products, including support pillows, joint and back braces, therapy packs, cushions, positioning aids, massage tools, pain relief devices and massagers.[BN] 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 COSTA DEL MAR: Reed Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton, Jr. entered an order that the Rule 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements satisfied, thus: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted. 2. The Court certifies the following class: "All citizens of the United States who purchased non-prescription, non-promotional Costa sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and who were charged a fee by Costa, from four years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint to the present, to repair or replace components of their sunglasses that Costa determined were damaged as a result of accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse." The class excludes Florida citizens. 3. The Court appoints Gerald E. Reed, IV, as Class Representative. 4. The Court appoints Peter P. Hargitai, Esq., Joshua H. Roberts, Esq., Laura B. Renstrom, Esq., and Michael M. Gropper, Esq., of Holland & Knight, LLP as Class Counsel. 5. By Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026, the parties are directed to meet-and-confer and then file a joint notice that: (1) describes the proposed identification of class members and their contact information; (2) describes the method of disseminating class notice; and (3) proposes a notice to be disseminated to the class. To the extent the parties cannot agree, their positions should be described in the notice, supported by relevant authority. The Defendant operates as an optical products wholesaler company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jJhELt at no extra charge.[CC] COVANTAGE CREDIT: Yunk Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- KATHY YUNK and DIANE DZILVELIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COVANTAGE CREDIT UNION, UNIVERSITY CREDIT UNION, and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00108 (E.D. Tex., January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information (PII) of Plaintiffs and other customers of Marquis's financial institution clients, including their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, taxpayer identification numbers, and dates of birth. The complaint relates that as a condition of membership and providing financial services to Plaintiffs, the Defendants required them to provide their PII. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. However, Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or sharing PII with third parties that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. On August 14, 2025, Marquis discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to its network systems and acquired files containing the PII of Marquis's clients' customers, including Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed, says the suit. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Class members, assert claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Yunk is a former member of CoVantage. Plaintiff Dzilvelis is a member of UCU. Defendant CoVantage Credit Union ("CoVantage") is a credit union based in Wisconsin with branch locations in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. Defendant University Credit Union ("UCU") is a credit union whose members are students, employees, faculty, and alumni of certain universities and colleges. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a compliance and marketing service provider to banks and credit unions, including the Credit Union Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 972-387-4040 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.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 COWGIRL TUFF: Faces Hippe Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- XINYUE HIPPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COWGIRL TUFF CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00163-SCD (E.D. Wis., January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, http://cowgirltuff.com/,contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Cowgirl Tuff Co. is a company that sells online goods and services in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law DELTA AIRLINES: P. Haley Granted More Time to File Reply Memorandum ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Patrick Haley, Randal Reep, individually and Benjamin Best, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), Judge Sarah E. Geraghty of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification is extended from February 9, 2026 to February 13, 2026. A copy of the order issued on February 3, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zph94x from PacerMonitor.com The consolidated plaintiff Randal Reep is represented by Brian Joseph Lawler of Pilot Law, P.C. (866-512-2465; blawler@pilotlawcorp.com), Gene J. Stonebarger and Crystal L. Matter of Stonebarger Law, P.C. (916-235-7140; gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com and cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com; Andrew Joseph Coomes of the Law Office of A. Joseph Coomes, LLC (404-285-1745; ajc@jcoomeslaw.com; Peter Romer-Friedman of Gupta Wessler PLLC (202-888-1741; peter@guptawessler.com; and Robert Daniel Friedman (202-888-1741; robert@guptawessler.com The defendant, Delta Airlines, Inc., is represented by Lindsey B. Mann, James A. Washburn, and William N. Withrow, Jr. of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP (404-885-2743 / 404-885-3000 / 404-885-3244; lindsey.mann@troutman.com; james.washburn@troutman.com; william.withrow@troutmansanders.com, along with Benjamin Alexander Stone of Munger & Stone (404-815-1884; ben.stone@mungerandstone.com. The named plaintiff, Patrick Haley, is represented by Thomas Gregory Jarrard of the Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard, PLLC (425-239-7290; tjarrard@att.net), Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden LLP, R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP (202-734-7046; jbarton@blockesq.com), Matthew Z. Cotty and Matthew Zachary Crotty of Crotty & Son Law Firm, PLLC (509-850-7011; matt@crottyandson.com), Peter Romer-Friedman of Gupta Wessler PLLC, and Robert Daniel Friedman. DESTINATION KNITTING: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Destination Knitting LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04025-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.woolandcompany.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Cole browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a knitting kit on the website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Destination Knitting LLC operates the website that offers a selection of fiber-arts products including yarn, knitting and crochet patterns, project kits, needles, hooks, tools, notions, books, project bags, accessories.[BN] 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 DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Trial Date Extended to May 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2026, that the Superior Court of the State of California extended the trial date for a securities class suit to May 2026. On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. The putative class of plaintiffs includes former shareholders of Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) who exchanged their CSC shares for the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021. Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order permitting additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint. In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In March 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for September 2025. The trial date has since been extended to May 2026. In May 2024, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In July 2024, notice was provided to potential class members. DXC Technology Company is an information technology services and consulting company based in Ashburn, Virginia.[BN] EAGLE ROCK ER TEAM: Dupont Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Rock ER Team, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jennifer Dupont, Individually and On behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eagle Rock ER Team, LLC, Case No. 2681CV00251 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Jan. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts." Eagle Rock Animal Emergency -- https://erae.vet/ -- is a privately woman-owned curbside animal emergency hospital proudly serving Los Angeles and the surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW Offices 373 Winch St Framingham, MA 01701 Phone: (508) 872-1261 - and - John Richard Yasi, Esq. YASI AND YASI TWO SALEM GREEN Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (978) 741-0400 EDLOE FINCH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bowman Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edloe Finch, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00951 (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://www.albanypark.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 10, 2025, while researching modern sectional sofas online, she came across Albanypark.com and browsed Defendant's collection with the intention of purchasing the products. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Bowman and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bowman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Edloe Finch, LLC operates the website that retails modern home furnishings, including sofas, sectionals, loveseats, armchairs, and ottomans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ELEVATED STEEL: Alvarez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Lorenzo Alvarez, individually and for others similarly situated v. ELEVATED STEEL, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00023-WMR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 23, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers worked for Defendant as construction workers. The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week. But Defendant did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant improperly classified The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers as independent contractors ineligible for overtime, and paid them straight time for overtime. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Defendant's decision not to pay overtime compensation to The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers was neither reasonable nor in good faith. Rather, Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Workers overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Elevated Steel from November 2021 until September 2025 throughout the United States, including in California, Florida, Georgia, and New York. Elevated Steel, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company engaged in steel fabrication, welding, and installation throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie H. Burke, Esq. HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP 3625 Cumberland Blvd., SE, Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA 30339-6406 Phone: 770-953-0995 Email: jb@hkw-law.com - and - Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal ENDPAK PACKAGING: Carrasco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Endpak Packaging Inc. The case is styled as Leodan Robaina Carrasco a/k/a Felix Robaina Dominguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Endpak Packaging Inc., Case No. 26STCV02995 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Endpak Packaging -- https://www.endpak.com/ -- is a company that makes packaging bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Hearing in Copeland Set for June 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order modifying class certification briefing schedule: Event New Deadline Class certification opposition: March 6, 2026 Class certification reply: May 15, 2026 Omnibus motion for sealing: May 29, 2026 Class certification hearing: June 18, 2026 Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q5p2Wy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Hearing in Portable Set for June 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC., AND GLOBAL EXPORTS U.S.A., INC., dba MICROPOWER BATTERY, CO., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order modifying class certification briefing schedule: Event New Deadline Class certification opposition: March 6, 2026 Class certification reply: May 15, 2026 Omnibus motion for sealing: May 29, 2026 Class certification hearing: June 18, 2026 Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mvtKr6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Hearing in Schuman Set for June 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order modifying class certification briefing schedule: Event New Deadline Class certification opposition: March 6, 2026 Class certification reply: May 15, 2026 Omnibus motion for sealing: May 29, 2026 Class certification hearing: June 18, 2026 Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d9A4bc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert Opposition Modified to March 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule and hearing date related to the Motions as follows: Event Deadline Class certification opposition: March 6, 2026 Class certification reply: May 15, 2026 Omnibus motion for sealing: May 29, 2026 Class certification hearing: June 18, 2026 Despite the parties' cooperative and diligent efforts regarding scheduling, certain depositions of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' experts are ongoing and are not scheduled to be completed until at least Feb. 17, 2026. The Parties would mutually benefit from having additional time to review such deposition testimony, and to solidify and clarify their arguments in opposition to and in support of the Motions, and each seek two-week extensions of their opposition and reply deadlines related to the Motions, as well as a corresponding extension of the hearing date on the Motions, in the Scheduling Order. The Parties' contemplated extension to the class certification briefing schedule and hearing date will not impact any other date in the Scheduling Order. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SfuDJ1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENOVIX CORPORATION: Amended Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for March 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order as follows: -- The Defendants' sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification shall be due Feb. 13, 2026. The Defendants' sur-reply shall be limited to seven pages and to responding to the Plaintiffs' price impact arguments. -- The Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification shall be set for hearing on March 13, 2026, at 10:00 AM PT. Enovix designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells in the United States and internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CKWWqh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Marc B. Kramer, Esq. Nicole T. Castiglione, Esq. Shane Kunselman, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mkramer@rksllp.com ncastiglione@rksllp.com skunselman@rksllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily C. Kapur, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Sasha Boutilier, Esq. W. Jackson Vallar, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 E-mail: emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com sashaboutilier@quinnemanuel.com jackvallar@quinnemanuel.com FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Defend Consolidated FICO Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Fair Isaac Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated FICO class suit over antitrust claims related to FICO scores distribution. FICO is a defendant in consolidated putative class action lawsuits brought in the Northern District of Illinois against FICO and the credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, alleging antitrust claims in connection with the distribution of FICO Scores. On November 24, 2024, the court ruled on FICO’s and the credit bureaus' motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaints. The court dismissed with prejudice all claims in the lawsuit other than a Sherman Act Section 2 claim and accompanying state law claims against FICO, which were allowed to proceed through the discovery stage of the litigation. FICO intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this proceeding. Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company that focuses on credit scoring services, with its principal place of business located at 181 Metro Drive, Suite 700, San Jose, California. [BN] FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over "Bait-And-Switch" Tactics -------------------------------------------------------------- OnlyFans is facing mounting legal pressure after a new class-action lawsuit filed in California alleges the subscription-based platform uses "bait-and-switch" tactics that mislead customers about what they're actually paying for. The lawsuit, filed on January 26, claims that OnlyFans markets paid subscriptions as offering "full access" to a creator's content, while much of that content remains locked behind additional paywalls, according to Mashable. When users click "subscribe" on a paid account, they're shown a pop-up that promises "full access to this user's content" and the ability to direct message the creator. According to the complaint, those representations don't reflect the reality many subscribers encounter after paying. The suit alleges that "millions of Fans have bought subscriptions only to discover that, behind OnlyFans's paywalls, Creators' exclusive content remains inaccessible." Instead, subscribers are often met with teaser posts and repeated prompts to pay extra to unlock the material they believed was included. In some cases, the complaint claims the only real benefit of subscribing is receiving mass direct messages advertising additional paid content. "In essence, OnlyFans promises a buffet, but provides only a menu," the complaint states. The case includes more than 100 class members and alleges violations of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, which prohibits deceptive business practices, including false advertising, as well as Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The plaintiff, Los Angeles resident David Gardner, says he subscribed to two creators he discovered on X, only to find non-explicit teaser content and persistent upsell messages. According to the filing, Gardner said he would like to subscribe to creators in the future but "cannot rely on OnlyFans' representations" when deciding whether to do so. While the California lawsuit moves forward, a separate class action in New York is still recruiting participants. That investigation is being led by Greenbaum Olbrantz LLP, which is examining whether OnlyFans misrepresented subscription offerings and violated consumer-protection laws. The New York investigation focuses on subscribers who paid monthly fees -- typically $4.99 to $19.99 -- only to cancel after discovering the content didn't match the advertised content. The firm is assessing whether these practices violate laws governing recurring billing and digital subscriptions, including the FTC's Negative Option Rule and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, both of which require clear disclosure of material terms before charging consumers. Greenbaum Olbrantz has taken a similar approach in other consumer cases, including recent lawsuits against Delta Air Lines and United Airlines over allegedly misleading "window seat" sales. In the OnlyFans matter, the firm is currently collecting accounts from affected subscribers to determine eligibility for the New York-based class action. [GN] FLAME AND WAX: Faces Cruz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flame And Wax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-144 (E.D. Wis., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://voluspa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Cruz browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a scented candle on the website. Despite her efforts, however, Cruz was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The website's barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the complaint. Plaintiff Cruz seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Flame And Wax, Inc. operates the website that offers scented candles, luxury home fragrances, gift sets, and bath and body accessories.[BN] 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 FLAMINGO TECHNOLOGIES: Tesch Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flamingo Technologies LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00103 (N.D. Ind., January 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://flamingo.shop to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Tesch and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 10, 2025, Plaintiff Tesch searched online for jeans and came across Defendant's website. She wanted to browse available products, review item details, and make an online purchase. However, while navigating the site with her screen reader, Tesch encountered accessibility barriers that made the website difficult or impossible to use. Specifically, the website lacked a "Skip to Content" link. As a result, she was unable to effectively explore product details, compare options, or make an informed purchase. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Flamingo Technologies LLC operates the website that offers a variety of women's fashion apparel and accessories, including jeans, dresses, tops, swimwear, activewear, and intimates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law FRENCH CONNECTION: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Anderson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRENCH CONNECTION GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01113 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, http://usa.frenchconnection.com/,contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. French Connection Group, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law FRESH CLEAN APPAREL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fresh Clean Apparel, Inc. d/b/a Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-00785-LMP-JFD (D. Minn., Jan. 28, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.freshcleantees.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, sweatshirts, hoodies, joggers, undergarments, activewear, hats, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FUEGO SMOKE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Dial Suit Due April 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dial v. Fuego Smoke & Vape, LLC et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00551 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File. The deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification is extended to April 9, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Fuego is a retail establishment specializing in a wide range of smoke and vape products.[CC] FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Flores Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FullBeauty Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FullBeauty Brands, Inc, Case No. 1:26-cv-00670-AT (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. FULLBEAUTY Brands -- https://www.fbbrands.com/ -- is the most trusted, comprehensive resource for plus-size women and men seeking fashion inspiration, style advice, and clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 350-8851 Fax: (212) 350-8860 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com G & G FITNESS: Faces See Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. G & G FITNESS EQUIPMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00171-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://livefit.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 25, 2025, See was searching for fitness equipment for personal training and discovered Defendant's website. While exploring livefit.com offerings, he decided to purchase a modular power rack for performing a wide variety of exercises. However, during this process, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his ability to complete a purchase. Specifically, the navigation menu did not allow repeated content to be collapsed when it received keyboard focus. Additionally, on the product pages, different images of the same product contained similar alternative text. As a result, Plaintiff See could not determine what options he was selecting or how those selections would affect the product. These accessibility barriers rendered the Livefit.com website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. G & G Fitness Equipment, LLC operates the website that offers a range of residential and commercial fitness solutions, including cardio machines, strength equipment, free weights, functional performance training tools, and storage racks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law GENERAL AUDIT CORP: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Audit Corp. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. General Audit Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-00207-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. General Audit Corp in Lima is dedicated to increasing medical revenue through a patient-centered approach, with a focus on helping people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. GILES & HARPER-CINCINNATI 7247 Beechmont Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45230 Phone: (513) 379-2715 Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a Sherman Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval architects and marine engineers from each other. The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at any time since January 1, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive and other equitable relief. On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed an earlier decision of the District Court dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. On September 11, 2025, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the current status of this matter, the Company is unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss. Depending on the outcome of this matter, there could be a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions, shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, and technologies. [BN] GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Appeals Class Cert. Order to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SEARCY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Searcy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gilead Sciences (GILD), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Missouri law. On Dec. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Mar. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed motions to exclude the testimony of Akhilesh Nagaich and W. David Bradford. On Sept. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand case to State Court. On Jan. 22, 2026, Judge Matthew T. Schelp entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court concluded that class certification is not appropriate. Plaintiffs Jonathan Searcy and Ervin Kirk, two HIV-positive men, were prescribed and took medications manufactured by Gilead that worked exactly as prescribed, effectively managing their HIV. The medications did so safely; neither the Plaintiff alleges that he suffered any personal injury from taking them. The Plaintiffs' operative complaint claims that they overpaid for Gilead's medications based on its alleged misconduct. They sought to represent a class of individuals who purchased the relevant medications in Missouri. The Court also ordered that the Defendant's motions to exclude testimony are denied without prejudice. The Court finally ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for remand is denied. The appellate case is entitled Jonathan Searcy, et al. v. Gilead Sciences (GILD), Case No. 26-8003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JONATHAN SEARCY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: J. Toji Calabro, Esq. CALABRO LAW OFFICE Two Pershing Square, 9th Floor 2300 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (888) 585-1247 - and - David A. Hickey, Esq. Todd E. Hilton, Esq. Patrick Joseph Stueve, Esq. Kasey Youngentob, Esq. STUEVE & SIEGEL 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Defendant-Respondent GILEAD SCIENCES (GILD), INC. is represented by: Eric Anielak, Esq. SHOOK & HARDY 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 - and - David Ryan Carpenter, Esq. Sean A. Commons, Esq. Adriane Kayoko Peralta, Esq. SIDLEY & AUSTIN 350 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 - and - William Michael Corrigan, Jr., Esq. SHOOK & HARDY 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1350 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 690-0200 - and - Susan L. Gutierrez, Esq. PROSKAUER & ROSE 2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-5624 - and - Jennifer A. Hill, Esq. Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Esq. SHOOK & HARDY 1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 - and - Charles Noah Insler, Esq. HEPLER & BROOM 130 N. Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-1204 - and - James N. Kramer, Esq. ORRICK & HERRINGTON 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 - and - Michael L. Lisak, Esq. Michelle A. Ramirez, Esq. SIDLEY & AUSTIN 1 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 - and - Thomas Joseph Magee, Esq. HEPLER & BROOM 701 Market Street, Suite 1400 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-6160 - and - Lisa B. Markofsky, Esq. PROSKAUER & ROSE Suite 421 Atrium 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 241-7400 - and - Tyler Schwettman, Esq. BLITZ & BARDGETT 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (573) 579-2080 - and - Marc R. Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK & HERRINGTON 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-3546 GIMME THE GOOD STUFF: Johnston Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gimme The Good Stuff, Inc. The case is styled as Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Gimme The Good Stuff, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00378-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gimme the Good Stuff -- https://gimmethegoodstuff.org/ -- is an online resource that specializes in non-toxic product reviews and features a diverse marketplace for natural and eco-friendly products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com GLOBALPUNDITS TECHNOLOGY: Foreman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Foreman, individually and for others similarly situated v. GLOBALPUNDITS TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANCY, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00256-JFA (D.S.C., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant pays its Straight Time Employees by the hour. The Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and its other Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant pays them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked after 40 in a workweek (the Defendant's "straight time for overtime pay scheme"). the Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees of "time and a half" overtime wages they are owed for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Straight Time Employees as a computer aided designer (CAD) from June 2025 through September 2025. Globalpundits is "a staffing firm with specialized expertise in ERP applications and technologies."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Christopher Tuck, Esq. ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Building A Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: (843) 727-6500 Fax: (843) 216-6509 Email: ctuck@rpwb.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Travis J. Grefenstette, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tgrefenstette@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com GOODYEAR TIRE: Kiles Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tabitha Kiles, individually and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Health and Welfare Plan for Salaried Employees and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Health and Welfare Plan for Hourly Employees v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-00027 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Jan. 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00179-CAB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Recover Pension & Profit Sharing. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, commonly known as Goodyear, is an American multinational tire manufacturer headquartered in Akron, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert R. Sparks, Esq. Richard S. Wayne, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO. LPA Federal Reserve Building 150 E. 4th Street, 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 621-2120 Email: rrsparks@strausstroy.com rswayne@strausstroy.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (414) 828-2372 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM, PLLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 592 Boca Raton, PL 33498 Phone: 561-299-6334 Email: tchirinos@chirinoslawfinn.com GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ambbriz Suit Due July 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISAEL AMBRIZ, JIMMY NIMMO, CHRISTOPHER BISSONNETTE, AHMAD MEHDIPOUR, EUGENE ERLIKH, JAMES FOX, and PETER SAMISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-05437-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order: Event Deadline Disclosure of the Plaintiffs' expert(s) June 15, 2026 and subject matter: Disclosure of the Defendant's expert(s) July 27, 2026 and subject matter: Close of fact/expert discovery: Dec. 7, 2026 Motion for Class Certification, including July 28, 2026 any expert reports upon which the Plaintiffs rely on: Opposition, including any counter expert Oct. 20, 2026 reports upon which the Defendant relies: Reply, including any rebuttal expert Nov. 19, 2026 reports upon which the Plaintiffs rely: Class certification hearing: Dec. 15, 2026 at 10:00 AM Google is a provider of search and advertising services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tL2bEU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq. Matan Shacham, Esq. Christina Lee, Esq. Ian Kanig, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: bberkowitz@keker.com mshacham@keker.com clee@keker.com ikanig@keker.com GOOGLE LLC: Judge Denies Bid for $2BB Penalties in Privacy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Google persuaded a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday, January 30, to reject a bid by consumers for more than $2 billion in penalties over the company's past collection of data from users who had switched off a key privacy setting. Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied, the request to order Google to disgorge $2.36 billion in alleged profits and to stop certain ad-related data practices. Google had urged Seeborg not to add the penalty to a jury's verdict in September that found the company liable for secretly collecting app activity data from millions of users who had disabled a tracking feature. The jury in September awarded about $425 million in damages to the class action plaintiffs -- far below the $31 billion they sought -- and issued an advisory verdict that disgorgement was unwarranted. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. David Boies, a lead attorney for the consumers, said they were thankful Seeborg's ruling confirmed the jury's verdict. Google has denied any wrongdoing and said it will appeal the September verdict. Seeborg rejected Google's request to decertify the class of 98 million users and 174 million devices. In their request for disgorgement, the plaintiffs said they were entitled to Google's allegedly ill-gotten gains from its data tracking. Despite the verdict, Google has not changed its privacy disclosures or data collection practices, the plaintiffs said. Google countered that an order blocking it from collecting users' account-related data would "cripple" an analytics service relied on by millions of app developers. Seeborg ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show any "prospective, irreparable harm" that would justify a permanent injunction barring Google's data collection practices. The judge said the consumers had not shown an entitlement to disgorgement, and also that their estimate of Google's profits was "insufficiently supported." The case is Rodriguez v. Google LLC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:20-cv-04688. For plaintiffs: David Boies and Mark Mao of Boies Schiller Flexner; Bill Carmody and Shawn Rabin of Susman Godfrey; and John Yanchunis and Ryan McGee of Morgan & Morgan For Google: Michael Attanasio, Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci of Cooley [GN] GRIFOLS SHARED: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ALESSANDRA MARTINEZ, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRIFOLS SHARED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1-50, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-0090 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2026) arises from Grifols' illegal bonus pay scheme that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and various provisions of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Martinez and the hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Grifols does not pay the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rate of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a Phlebotomist in Las Cruces, New Mexico, from approximately December 2023 until February 2025. Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc. is a Los Angeles, California-based subsidiary of the global healthcare company Grifols, that manufactures plasma-derived biopharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Franklin, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: lfranklin@mybackwages.com HALSTED FINANCIAL: Abalos Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial Services, LLC. The case is styled as Aron Bern Abalos, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00537-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Halsted Financial Services, LLC -- https://halstedfinancial.com/ -- is an accredited provider of customized, performance-driven receivables management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com HARD EIGHT NUTRITION: Ade Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kemi Ade, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hard Eight Nutrition LLC doing business as: BulkSupplements.com, Case No. 1:25-cv-01656 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00774-JFW-KS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Hard Eight Nutrition LLC doing business as BulkSupplements -- https://www.bulksupplements.com/ -- offers pure bulk supplements, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbal extracts, sweeteners and protein powders. pure bulk powders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sydney Fairchild Williamson, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A 3333 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (678) 553-2100 Email: sydney.williamson@gtlaw.com HATFIELD INC: Kelly Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sterling Kelly, individually, on behalf of all other similarly situated v. HATFIELD, INC. d/b/a GRID and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-630145 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00888. Although Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service with the San Francisco Superior Court on October 21, 2026, Defendant did not receive the pleadings in the State Court Action until January 9, 2026.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melissa A. Meister, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 Email: mmeister@kcozlaw.com HELLO CAKE: Mitchell Balks at Unauthorized Sharing of Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ WAYNE MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HELLO CAKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00241-JDP (E.D. Cal., January 29, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all patients who accessed and used Defendant's website, www.hellocake.com to purchase prescription and over-the-counter sexual health medication and related products. Despite protections of state and federal laws, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, the sensitive, personal information communicated through the website was intercepted by some of the largest advertising and social media companies in the country, including Meta Platforms, Inc. The Defendant disclosed patients' protected information through tracking technology embedded on the website, including software development kits and tracking pixels, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their personal information, including prescription information, to Defendant with the expectation that this information would remain confidential and private. The Defendant's disclosure of this information without explicit consent constitutes an extreme invasion of Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions. Hello Cake, Inc. offers patients convenient and discrete access to sexual wellness medications and products, including medications for erectile dysfunction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com HOME DEPOT: Rae-Ellis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Rae-Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign profit corporation; DANIEL SWORY, an individual; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-13905-6 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05070. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and putative class members brought the State Court Action for "damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief on behalf of all current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Home Depot for its failure to: provide compliant meal and rest periods; compensate for missed and noncompliant meal and rest periods; and furnish accurate wage statements."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - James B. Pizl, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 39th Avenue SW, Suite 14 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Phone: (253) 446-7668 Email: jim@ententelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: ashley.paynter@ogletree.com HOYT ARCHERY INC: Goodall Suit Transferred to D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Justen Goodall, and all others similarly situated v. Hoyt Archery, Inc., Archery Trade Association, Inc.; BowTech Inc.; BPS Direct LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops; Cabela's LLC; Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.; Jay's Sports, Inc. doing business as: Jay's Sporting Goods; Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc.; Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc.; NeuIntel LLC doing business as: PriceSpider formerly known as: Oris Intelligence; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; Mathews Archery, Inc.; Trackstreet Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-14094 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00345-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Hoyt Archery -- https://hoyt.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of recurve and compound bows located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, P.C. 2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 649-5667 Fax: (248) 731-7313 Email: tstauber@gustafsongluek.com HRB TAX: B.W. Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. W. Va. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as B.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HRB TAX GROUP, INC. and H&R BLOCK SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. CC-20-2025-C-1493, was removed from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on January 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00064 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges the Class includes: "All West Virginia citizens whose personal information was used by Defendant's employee(s) to generate fictitious insurance policies identified by the United States Postal Inspection Services in its September 17, 2024 correspondence to Plaintiff." The complaint also includes allegations that Defendants did not adequately protect Plaintiff's sensitive information, and that the Plaintiff's sensitive information, along with thousands of others, has been breached. HRB Tax Group, Inc., based in Kansas City, Missouri, is a subsidiary of H&R Block Inc. that provides comprehensive tax preparation, e-filing, and audit services for consumers.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carte P. Goodwin, Esq. Dylan J. George, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP 500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 1100 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 348-2422 E-mail: cgoodwin@fbtgibbons.com dgeorge@fbtgibbons.com HYDRO-QUEBEC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Major Power Outage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Montreal City News reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Hydro-Quebec following a major power outage that left thousands of residents in Montreal's west end without electricity for days during extreme cold. The outage, caused by a failure at the aging Hampstead substation, knocked out power to large parts of Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Cote-Saint-Luc and Cote-des-Neiges—Notre-Dame-de-Grace beginning the morning of Jan. 24, when temperatures plunged to as low as –26 Celsius. For some residents, service disruptions lasted up to three days, with intermittent outages continuing even longer. The deaths of two seniors that occurred during the outage are now under investigation by Quebec's Coroner's Office. Residents describe extensive damage Among those affected is Notre-Dame-de-Grace resident Jane Critchlow and her husband, Stan, who were without electricity and running water for 62 hours following a separate power outage that began Thursday, Jan. 22. "I believe at some point they have to be accountable for actions like this," Critchlow said. During that outage, the couple dealt with burst pipes that caused flooding in their basement, extensive water damage in their garage, and damage to ceilings and personal belongings. In video recorded inside the home, water can be seen dripping steadily from the ceiling. Critchlow described the damage in detail. "We had a burst pipe running all the way along the garage ceiling, and so that spilled water everywhere again just like a river," she said. "So now the plaster is coming off and we've got major water, extensive water damage in the garage." She says Hydro-Quebec must take responsibility. "The company, the corporation, Hydro-Quebec has got to be held accountable for these types of incidences," Critchlow said. Legal action launched On Wednesday, January 28, a Westmount-based law firm filed a class action lawsuit against the utility company on behalf of residents who say they suffered damages due to the outage. According to the filing by Lex Group Inc. with Quebec Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges Hydro-Quebec failed to meet its obligations and knowingly allowed aging infrastructure to remain in service despite signs of failure. Attorney David Assor says his firm has already heard from numerous residents affected by the outage. "A lot of people are signing up on my website giving me the details of their damages," Assor said. "Some of them had spoiled food that they had to throw out in the refrigerator or freezer. Others had, like I said, hotel costs, other types of costs." He added that the consequences extended beyond financial losses. "Some people lost their pets. There have been at least two deaths that we know of that have occurred during, people who were staying in their home while this was going on," Assor said. On Jan. 24, Saturday, roughly 15,000 customers in Cote-Saint-Luc, Cote-des-Neiges and N-D-G lost power as temperatures dropped to –25 C. About 2,000 customers remained without electricity until Monday, with some outages continuing into Tuesday. Hoping to be included Critchlow and her husband say they hope to be included in the class action lawsuit, citing the significant costs they are now facing. "Just the cost of the plumber alone is going to be through the roof," she said. "The repairs that are going to be needed, we're going to need a cleaning company, dryers, drywall redone, possibly pipes fixed, who knows what this is going to cost." She says the responsibility should not fall solely on homeowners and insurers. "It cannot simply be passed along to other people and other companies like insurance companies and us who ultimately pay the price for that," Critchlow said. Hydro-Quebec response In a written statement to CityNews, Hydro-Quebec said it is reviewing the legal filing and would not comment further on the matter. The utility reiterated that customers must contact their insurer to seek compensation for property damage related to power outages. "We maintained constant communication with the communities affected by the outage," said Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Pascal Poinlane. Poinlane said the company took several steps, including informing municipal emergency services early Jan. 24 afternoon shortly after the outage began, implementing automated calls to contact customers multiple times, conducting door-to-door outreach in the neighbourhood, publishing targeted social media messages, keeping municipal and borough administrations and elected officials informed, and maintaining a sustained media presence. [GN] JC LICHT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JC Licht, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01034 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://jclicht.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Evans and other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Evans browsed and intended to make an online purchase of interior finishes on the website on May 22, 2025. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff Evans was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Evans and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. JC Licht, LLC operates the website that offers a range of interior and exterior paints, wallpapers, primers, stains, sealers, cleaners, painting tools and brushes, rollers and trays, surface preparation and maintenance products, as well as services such as booking an in-home consultation for window treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses "Aronstein" Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JO ARONSTEIN et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Kenvue, Inc., the United States District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On February 2, 2026, Judge Michael A. Shipp ordered the dismissal without prejudice, granting Plaintiffs forty-five days to file an amended complaint. The Court decided the motion without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1(b) after reviewing the parties' submissions. Following this order, the Clerk of Court closed the matter, subject to any timely refiling by Plaintiffs A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3wqf8O from PacerMonitor.com The defendants—Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., and Kenvue, Inc.—are each represented by Nexus Uzoma Sea of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York (212-326-2262; nsea@omm.com). Zachary A. Jacobs (PHV), Dennis Allen Lienhardt, and E. Powell Miller (PHV) are listed for notice purposes only. The named plaintiff, Jo Aronstein, is represented by Christopher L. Ayers, Christopher A. Seeger, and Justin Smigelsky of Seeger Weiss LLP, Parsippany, New Jersey (973-639-9100 / 973-639-5340; cayers@seegerweiss.com; cseeger@seegerweiss.com; jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com). The consolidated plaintiffs include Brandi Baldwin-Jones and Mary Jane Castle, both represented by James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C., Roseland, New Jersey (973-994-1700; jcecchi@carellabyrne.com), and Sharnay Moultrie, represented by Philip Lawrence Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., New York, New York (646-837-7150; pfraietta@bursor.com). JOINT CORPORATION: Lee Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joint Corporation. The case is styled as Ernest Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joint Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00586-SMB (D. Ariz., Jan. 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Joint Corp. -- http://thejoint.com/-- is a franchisor of chiropractic clinics that operates on a non-insurance, cash-based model.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP - SCOTTSDALE, AZ 14648 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762 Phone: (480) 285-2165 Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Mark Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP - NEW YORK, NY 33 Whitehall St., 27th Fl. New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com KALSHI INC: Jennings Balks at Mobile App's Illegal Sports Betting ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALSHI INC., KALSHIEX LLC, KALSHI KLEAR INC., KALSHI KLEAR LLC, KALSHI TRADING LLC, SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP, AND SUSQUEHANNA GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00071 (M.D. Ala., January 29, 2026) is a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against Kalshi for evading Alabama gaming laws by offering illegal, unconstitutional, and untaxed sports betting on its mobile app and website throughout the State of Alabama. To protect its residents from any harm, Alabama prohibits gambling related activities within its borders. Namely, Alabama's Constitution outlaws it and -- more than that -- strips the Alabama Legislature of any power to enact a law which would otherwise allow gambling. Kalshi operates a "prediction market" in Alabama whereby Alabama residents can buy and sell "event contracts" related to, among other things, sporting outcomes all while not registering to do business in Alabama or paying any taxes to the State of Alabama. According to the complaint, Kalshi claims its offerings are legal because they are simply "futures" or "swaps" or "options" intended to hedge financial risks. But Kalshi has admitted there is no sports contracts "serve no commercial purpose at all." Alabama residents, including Plaintiff, regularly gamble large sums of money on Kalshi's platform based on Kalshi's misrepresentation that it is legal in Alabama, the complaint alleges. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to enforce Alabama's strong, constitutional prohibition against sports gambling by permanently enjoining Kalshi from offering its services in Alabama and seeking damages under Alabama's Loss Recovery Statute. Kalshi Inc. provides financial exchange and prediction market solutions. The Company offers a platform where both retail and institutional traders can place trades on various future events, including economic indicators, weather patterns, awards, as well as political and legislative outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Mitchell Williams, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Str, Ste 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Jonathan D. Wynn, III, Esq. THE CLEVELAND FIRM, LLC 707 McQueen Smith Road S. Prattville, AL 36066 Telephone: (334) 365-6266 Facsimile: (334) 365-6818 E-mail: Jonathan@clevelandgroup.legal KELCO DADELAND: Pardo Sues Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. KELCO DADELAND ASSOCIATES, LTD. D/B/A HAMPTON INN MIAMI DADELAND, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20660-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2026) is an action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the commercial hotel property subject to this complaint is open to the public and is located in Miami, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial hotel property, to include visits to the commercial hotel property and businesses located within the commercial hotel property on October 17-19, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial hotel property and hotel business therein. The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial hotel property. The barriers to access at the property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the place, and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, has likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to him and others similarly situated. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial hotel property, as prohibited by the ADA. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Defendant KELCO DADELAND ASSOCIATES, LTD. D/B/A HAMPTON INN MIAMI DADELAND owns, operates and/or oversees the subject Commercial hotel property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant businesses in the property and all other common areas open to the public located within the Commercial hotel property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com KENNECOTT UTAH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bascom" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Austin Bascom, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Kennecott Utah Copper LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00505-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Kennecott Utah Copper LLC's Motion to Dismiss a collective action complaint brought by Plaintiff Austin Bascom and other similarly situated employees alleging violations of overtime wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kennecott has employed Plaintiff Bascom as a haulage operator since 2021. Bascom and the other similarly situated Kennecott employees frequently work more than 40 hours a week. Kennecott pays Bascom and the other employees an hourly wage and other non-discretionary bonuses, such as production and safety bonuses and shift differentials. Kennecott pays the employees overtime at 1.5 times their hourly wage, but does not include the non-discretionary bonuses in their calculations for overtime purposes. The terms of Bascom's and the other similarly situated employee's pay are set by a collective bargaining agreement between Kennecott and a union. On June 24, 2025, Bascom sued Kennecott for failing to pay overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Bascom alleges that the FLSA requires Kennecott to include the non-discretionary bonuses as part of the employee's regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. The Complaint makes no mention of the collective bargaining agreement, and Bascom does not claim that he is not receiving the correct amount of pay under the agreement. Kennecott sought to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: first, arguing that the National Labor Relations Act preempts Plaintiff's claims under Garmon preemption; and second, arguing that the Labor-Management Relations Act("LMRA") preempts Plaintiff's claims. The Court found that Plaintiff's claims do not arguably fall within the prohibitions of Section 7 or 8 of the NLRA. The Court explained that congressionally granted FLSA rights take precedence over conflicting provisions in a collectively bargained compensation arrangement. The Court noted that an employee's FLSA rights to a minimum wage and to overtime pay under the Act cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived and that FLSA rights are independent of the collective-bargaining process. The Court rejected Kennecott's contention that Plaintiff is essentially claiming a failure to pay overtime in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, stating that this argument relies on a misstatement of Plaintiff's claim. The Court explained that Plaintiff does not dispute his pay under the CBA. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that he was not paid for overtime as required under the FLSA based on the amount he was actually paid. The Court also rejected Kennecott's assertion that a ruling in Plaintiff's favor would require it to pay opt-in employees a higher overtime rate than others covered by the same agreement, creating unequal pay that would constitute an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. The Court stated that Defendant's possible future liability under the NLRA for granting any court-ordered relief does not excuse Defendant from compliance with the FLSA. Regarding LMRA preemption, the Court found that Plaintiff's claim depends on what was actually paid to him, not what was owed to him under the collective bargaining agreement. The Court explained that Contractual stipulations as to the regular rate are not controlling, because the regular rate is an actual fact, rather than an arbitrary label chosen by the parties. The Court concluded that because Plaintiff's FLSA rights are not created by the CBA, and Kennecott has not shown that the FLSA claim requires interpretation of the CBA, LMRA Section 301 preemption does not apply. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KGNtAF from PacerMonitor.com In this action, the defendant, Kennecott Utah Copper LLC, is represented by Tyson C. Horrocks, Steven W. Suflas, Olivia Cronquist, and Kody Lynn Condos of Holland & Hart LLP. The plaintiff, Austin Bascom, is represented by Alyssa J. White and Andrew W. Dunlap of Josephson Dunlap LLP, along with April L. Hollingsworth of Hollingsworth Law Office LLC. L3 CAPITAL: Siriani Sues Over Conspiracy to Steal Investors' Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY SIRIANI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID FEINGOLD, Defendants, and L3 CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC, et al., Nominal Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for conversion, civil theft, violations of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraud, racketeering, negligence, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and judicial dissolution of three private equity funds (L3 Funds). The case arises from a conspiracy among the Defendants who used their control and influence over the L3 Funds to enrich themselves at the expense of unsuspecting investors, including the Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the schemes of the Defendants include laundering investors' money through investment companies the Defendants owned or had an ownership interest, telling investors the distributions they were receiving was interest earned on their investments when in fact the Defendants knew they were paying the investors back with their own money, and taking the assets purchased with the investors' funds and transferring them to an entirely different company so that the investors could not benefit from any income being generated from those assets or the appreciated value of those assets. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of approximately $150 million of investor funds and assets that the Defendants have stolen, hijacked, diverted, commingled, and/or wrongfully hidden through an ongoing conspiracy of fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair acts. L3 Capital Income Fund, LLC is a private equity fund, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew M. Greenidge, Esq. EPPERSON &GREENIDGE, PA 20 South Olive Street, Suite 304 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (877) 445-9261 Email: service@eppersongreenidge.com LA GRAN FARMACIA: Orellana Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Gran Farmacia, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Xavier Orellana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. La Gran Farmacia, Inc. d/b/a La Gran Farmacia; SAN JOSE PHARMACY INC d/b/a San Jose Pharmacy; Ulises Vargas JR.; Dilaine Perez; Jised Rivera, Case No. 702576/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Jan. 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Commercial (NYLL Class Action. La Gran Farmacia Inc is a well-established pharmacy located in the heart of New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com LEGACY HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wright Due Jan. 8, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEON RAMSEY-WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEGACY HEALTH, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05965-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order as follows: Deadline for joining additional April 14, 2026 parties and to amend pleadings: Deadline to file motion for class Jan. 8, 2027 certification: Deadline to file opposition to Feb. 5, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline to file reply in support March 5, 2027 of motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class To be set by the certification: Court Class notice and opt-out period, To be set by the expert disclosures, fact Court after ruling on discovery, dispositive motions, class certification pre-trial and trial deadlines: Legacy provides revenue cycle management (RCM) services to hospitals, ASC practices, physicians and other medical practices in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NqiDOe at no extra charge.[CC] LIVUNLTD LLC: Initial Case Management Conference Entered in Rivera ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIRSON RIVERA, v. LIVUNLTD LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01348-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order scheduling initial case management conference. Unless the parties advise the Court that a settlement has been reached, an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on April 8, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The counsel must meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management conference. No later than April 1, 2026, one week prior to the conference, the parties must file a Pre-Conference Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties. The Statement, which will constitute the written report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2), must contain the following information: LivUnLtd provides consumer services for residential and commercial properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EqEKwu at no extra charge.[CC] LO HON CORPORATION: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. LO HON CORPORATION and FRITANGA AIRPORT, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-20478-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation.. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. LO HON CORPORATION, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Baker Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BAKER, ROMAN DE LA TORRE, ANTHONY GAMBOA, RODOLFO GUTIERREZ, ANDRES SAENZ, III, and JAN-ERIK SWARTZ, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-1016 (C.D. Cal., January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its Early Relief Practice, and for denying payment of wages and overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant's Early Relief Practice involved Los Angeles Fire Department ("LAFD") employees who were working 24-hour shifts (aka "platoon" shifts), during which those employees were scheduled to begin work at 8:00 a.m. and end work at 8:00 a.m. the following day. However, due to Defendant's Early Relief Practice, Plaintiffs and other members of the LAFD Collective were required to perform work-related tasks for Defendant at 6:30 a.m., which included but was not limited to performing inspections of apparatuses, donning safety gear, preparing to respond to emergency calls, and responding to emergency calls. As a result, during the Collective Action Period, Defendant effectively changed the starting and ending time of the 24-hour platoon shift for Plaintiffs and other members of the LAFD Collective from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. Under Defendant's Early Relief Practice, Plaintiffs and other members of the LAFD Collective were regularly held over and forced to work past their 6:30 a.m. end-of-shift time whenever (a) members of the next shift had not arrived to relieve that employee, (b) Defendant ordered a recall, and/or (c) Defendant made a unilateral staffing decision to hold employees past their shift. In both situations, Defendant prohibited Plaintiffs and other members of the LAFD Collective from leaving their station and required those individuals to continue working, without payment, until Defendant permitted them to stop working and allowed them to go home. The Plaintiffs and other members of the LAFD Collective are initiating this action to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other available relief from Defendant pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiff Stephen Baker, a resident of Riverside County, California, is currently a Captain I with the LAFD. Plaintiff Roman De La Torre, a resident of Los Angeles County, California, is currently a Firefighter/Paramedic with the LAFD. Plaintiff Anthony Gamboa, a resident of Los Angeles County, California is currently an Apparatus Operator with the LAFD. Plaintiff Gutierrez, a resident of San Bernardino, California, is currently a Firefighter III/Dispatcher with the LAFD. Plaintiff Andres Saenz, III, a resident of Riverside County, California, is currently a Captain I with the LAFD. Plaintiff Jan-Erik Swartz, a resident of Los Angeles County, California, is currently a Firefighter/Paramedic with the LAFD. As members of the LAFD Collective, all Plaintiffs were subjected to Defendant's Early Relief Practice, which resulted in them regularly working for Defendant without pay after he completed a 24-hour shift.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana S. Martinez, Esq. BUSH GOTTLIEB, a Law Corporation 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 950 Glendale, CA 91203-1260 Telephone: (818) 973-3200 Facsimile: (818) 973-3201 E-mail: dmartinez@bushgottlieb.com - and - Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C. 1620 Eye Street, NW, STE 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-783-0010 Facsimile: 202-7883-6088 E-mail: ssugiura@mooneygreen.com LOUIS VUITTON: Winkler Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. The case is styled as Adriana Winkler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00702 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Louis Vuitton -- https://www.louisvuitton.com/ -- is one of the world's leading international fashion houses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com LPC SURVIVAL: Gaines Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN GAINES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. LPC SURVIVAL, LTD D/B/A US BERKEY FILTERS, Case No. 2:25-cv-09291-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its ex parte application for order to continue class certification deadline. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order setting the following deadlines with respect to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: a. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert disclosures relevant to class certification shall be filed on or before June 9, 2026. b. The Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert disclosures relevant to class certification shall be filed on or before July 7, 2026. c. The Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be filed on or before July 21, 2026. d. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be set for Aug. 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Based on Defendant's responses, the Plaintiff will require time to meet and confer over the Defendant's objections and ultimately resolve those objections through agreement or motion practice before discovery that is important to the Court's class certification analysis– like logs of the allegedly unlawful text messages that the Defendant sent to the Class––will be produced. Compounding this task is the Defendant's position that the text message logs at issue are in the possession of a third-party, Counter-Defendant Podium Corporation, Inc. This means that the Plaintiff will likely have to pursue discovery from Podium as well. In addition to written discovery, the Plaintiff submits that it will not be feasible for the Plaintiff to take the deposition of the Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) designees in advance of the February 10 deadline, as the Defendants' document production will not yet be substantially complete. LPC provides water filtration system, water filters and water purification systems. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UZphzw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mahyar Ghassemian, Esq. GHASSEMIAN LAW GROUP, APC 27405 Puerta Real Suite 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Telephone: (949) 436-2785 Facsimile: (949) 371-8076 E-mail: mghassemian@glgattorneys.com - and - Stephen T Kitagawa, Esq. GHASSAMIAN LAW GROUP PC 27405 Puerta Real Suite 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Telephone: (949) 436-2785 Facsimile: (949) 371-8076 E-mail: skitagawa@glgattorneys.com MATCH GROUP: Stevens Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATCH GROUP, INC.; MATCH GROUP AMERICAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00255-G (N.D. Tex., January 30, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, including user IDs, transaction details, IP addresses, dating profiles, and other information contained on internal corporate documents. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information in Defendants’ possession was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' posted on a popular hacking forum in or around January 2026, that it stole over 10 million records of Hinge, Match, and OkCupid usage data from Appsflyer and hundreds of internal documents. However, the Defendants have not provided, and do not appear to have provided, any notice regarding the data breach to individuals whose PII was compromised, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Match Group, Inc. owns and operates a portfolio of dating platforms, including Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, Hinge, and Plenty of Fish. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone. (214) 855-1850 Facsimile: (214) 720-6075 E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com MDA SPACE: Faces Class Action Suit for Over Scrapped EchoStar Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Riehl, writing for betakit, reports that in August, Canadian space hardware manufacturer MDA Space signed a short-lived, $1.8-billion CAD contract with American telecom EchoStar. A class-action lawsuit now alleges that the company failed to disclose the risks associated with that contract and that insiders "unjustly enriched" themselves in the month before it was terminated. The class-action suit, which was launched by two retail investors, one in British Columbia and one in Québec, has yet to be certified. It's seeking up to $340 million in damages, plus costs, from MDA and its leadership for allegedly misrepresenting the contract's risks while insiders financially benefited from the company's stock price hitting an all-time high while it was in effect. Toronto law firm Sotos filed the class-action documents with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in October and November. The allegations have yet to be proven in court, and MDA has not filed its defence. MDA CEO Mike Greenley did briefly acknowledge the proposed class action before the company's Q3 earnings call in November. Greenley said that "MDA Space believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself," according to a transcript. In a statement to BetaKit, an MDA spokesperson noted that the company publicly disclosed it had received notice of the proposed lawsuit in its Q3 earnings, before it had been served a formal statement of claim. "MDA Space strongly believes that all the claims that have been alleged are unfounded and without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself and the named defendants through the process," the spokesperson said. The Brampton, Ont.-based company was selected as the prime contractor for EchoStar's new satellite constellation, setting it up to design, manufacture, and test more than 100 satellites in August. The contract was terminated in September when EchoStar sold its wireless spectrum licenses to Elon Musk's SpaceX. The sale followed a US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into EchoStar, launched after SpaceX complained the company "barely" used its spectrum for satellite connectivity. That probe is the basis of the lawsuit. In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that MDA knew that EchoStar was in a regulatory battle with the FCC but didn't disclose the possibility of the contract being cancelled. The allegations state that the only mention came when Greenley was questioned about it on an August earnings call, where he downplayed any risk as "very, very small." When the contract was cancelled, MDA claimed it was due to a "sudden change" in EchoStar's business strategy. The proposed lawsuit disputes this, instead posing that it "was the foreseeable and likely outcome of EchoStar's months-long regulatory battle with the FCC." After nabbing the contract, MDA's stock traded at an all-time high of around $44 per share on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). The lawsuit alleges that, throughout August 2025, Greenley and other insiders became "unjustly enriched" as they sold tens of millions of dollars worth of MDA shares with the undisclosed knowledge that the contract could be impacted by EchoStar's FCC battle. When the contract was terminated in September, MDA's stock price declined over a period of days to just under $31 per share, "causing MDA shareholders millions of dollars of losses" while insiders, including Greenley, "made tens of millions," the filings state. The class action is looking to represent those who purchased shares of MDA Space after the contract was announced, but before it was cancelled. Despite losing the contract, MDA reported 45 percent year-over-year revenue growth in its Q3 earnings in November. The company went on to become one of the first recipients of a contract under the Canadian government's new Defence Investment Agency in December, and signed a contract with the US Department of War this month to potentially help with the "Golden Dome" missile defence project. MDA shares are trading at $38.37 per share on the TSX as of January 30 afternoon, not too much less than the approximately $38.80 per share MDA was trading at before it signed the EchoStar contract. [GN] MEDGUARD ALERT: Landy Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MedGuard Alert, Inc. The case is styled as Brennan Landy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MedGuard Alert, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00122 (D. Conn., Jan. 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MedGuard Alert, Inc. -- https://www.medguardalert.com/ -- provides medical alert systems for seniors. Offerings include devices designed for safety and well-being, supporting independence at home and on the go.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd Litchfield, CT 06759 Phone: (917) 656-0569 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com MIAMI PROPERTY: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. MIAMI PROPERTY SEVENTH LLC and ROSA RESTAURANT HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A LA ROSA RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20659-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2026) is an action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the subject commercial property and restaurant are open to the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and restaurant regularly, to include visits to the commercial property and business located within the commercial property on October 21, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access have each denied and diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to him and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Defendant/landlord, MIAMI PROPERTY SEVENTH LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the restaurant business operating within the commercial property and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. Defendant ROSA RESTAURANT HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A LA ROSA RESTAURANT owns, operates and oversees the restaurant within its commercial property, to include the entrance and interior to its commercial restaurant business therein and all other interior pathway and aisles, access to commercial goods and services, and restroom areas, which are open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com MID MICHIGAN MEDICAL: Johnson Files Suit in E.D. Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid Michigan Medical Billing Service, Inc. The case is styled as Trevon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mid Michigan Medical Billing Service, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-10256-SKD-APP (E.D. Mich., Jan. 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mid Michigan Medical Billing Service, Inc. -- https://www.mmmbs.net/ -- is a full spectrum revenue cycle management company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 609-6910 Fax: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Allowed Leave to File Overlength Brief -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zimmerman v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345 (S.D. Iowa., Filed Sept. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger entered an order granting motion for leave to file overlength brief in support of resistance to plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant may file their overlength brief and attachments. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Midland offers life insurance & annuity products.[CC] MONROE UNIVERSITY: Gailliard Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as James Gailliard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 801682/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Data Breach). Monroe University -- https://www.monroeu.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Auchard Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD AUCHARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-01-441 MON (Del. Super., January 27, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Dotson Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Timberley Dotson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-444 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Goodman Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- REID GOODMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-01-432 MON (Del. Super., January 27, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Guerrero Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------- Torivio Guerrero, Jr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-440 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hawkins Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Michael Hawkins, on behalf of the estate of Kathleen Hildebrandt, on behalf of the estate of Julie Brelsford-Hawkins, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-438 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Stephen Michael Hawkins is a natural person and is the Representative of Julie Brelsford-Hawkins, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Holcomb Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Holcomb, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-445 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com N. C. STATE BAR: Dant Sues for Constitutional Rights Deprivation ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR MORGAN DANT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Official Capacity; CARMEN BANNON, Individual and Official Capacity; KELLEY DEANGELUS, Individual and Official Capacity; J. CAMERON LEE, Individual and Official Capacity; and PETER BOLAC, Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00038-FL (E.D.N.C., January 28, 2026) is a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to recover treble damages, and other relief, from the Defendants conspiring in racketeering/organized conduct with income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and for alleged deprivation of constitutional rights as protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff is a North Carolina-licensed attorney who reported serious attorney misconduct, sexual harassment, forced labor; and amongst other mandatory reporting requirements, Plaintiff pursued protected grievance and litigation activity. After the Plaintiff reported misconduct by male attorney, the Defendants failed to act timely on Plaintiff's grievance, while advancing retaliatory grievances against Plaintiff and escalating proceedings against her, says the suit. Allegedly, the Defendants then pursued disability-based proceedings in Alamance County and publicly disseminated allegations framing Plaintiff as "mentally ill," despite the absence of any disciplinary finding of misconduct against Plaintiff and without a medical license. The Defendants' actions harmed Plaintiff and harmed the public; including indigent Defendants, and other vulnerable clients. These clients were left without counsel or meaningful safeguards after Defendants restricted Plaintiff's practice without appointing the trustee protections Defendants invoked, the suit alleges. The North Carolina State Bar is an agency of the State of North Carolina, sued in official capacity.[BN] The Plaintiff, of Greensboro, North Carolina, appears pro se. NARDINI INTERNATIONAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. NARDINI INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT, LLC and MM ASOCIADOS, LLC D/B/A MANANTIAL MERCADO COLOMBIANO, Case No. 1:26-cv-20495-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property , supermarket and restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. NARDINI INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT, LLC owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the supermarket and restaurant business operating within the commercial property and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com NATIONAL RURAL: Mullins Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MULLINS and THOMAS SUNDERLIN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 401(k) Pension Plan, v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION and the INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00994-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed Class (or such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate) under Rule 23(a) and (b)(1): "All participants and beneficiaries of the NRECA 401(k) Pension Plan who were charged administrative fees from Aug. 1, 2020, through the date of judgment." In addition, the Plaintiffs move to appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives for the proposed Class, and the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). National represents the consumer-owned, consumer-governed, nonprofit sector of the industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vLF6hD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelsey Elling, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. Isaac Miller, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 E-mail: kelling@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com imiller@baronbudd.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 708-1450 E-mail: don@donbivens.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Charging Borrowers Improper Fees, McCabe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Madeline McCabe and John Blair, and any plaintiffs added by amendment or substitution, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper now d/b/a/ Rocket Mortgage, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00264 (N.D. Ohio, February 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for charging a third party reconveyance preparation fee to Plaintiffs and class members. The complaint relates that the when or after named Plaintiffs Madeline McCabe and John Blair paid off their mortgage loans, they and their escrow or other account with Defendant were wrongly charged by Defendant (which was their servicer and escrow agent/escrowee) a $20 third-party-release-preparation fee in relation to a mortgage recorded in Ohio, in connection with McCabe's account number 0645773912 and Blair's account number 0729996264. The other class members and their escrow or other accounts were also wrongly charged by Defendant in relation to mortgages recorded in the following 36 jurisdictions (jurisdictions that require lenders to release satisfied mortgages and do not provide for the charging of other than actual government recording fees): Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. According to the complaint, the Defendant's parent's SEC filings said it originated some loans (which were sold), was a servicer or sub-servicer, most of its assets were "servicing rights," and its only loans were "mortgage loans held for sale." Defendant owned and owns very few mortgage loans it services and almost none (if any) when paid off. The Defendant did not provide accurate statements of the total outstanding balances that would be required for Plaintiffs' and the class's loans to be paid in full as of a specified date, but instead wrongly added third-party-release-preparation fees to what it wrote were the balances due, and Plaintiffs and the class were injured by paying the inflated payoff amounts (inflated by improper third-party-release-preparation fees) which were received by Defendant as Plaintiffs' and the class's servicer and escrow agent/escrowee and then wrongly charged to them or deducted from their escrow or other accounts by Defendant. As a result, Plaintiffs' and the class's mortgage loans were paid in full but, in addition, Plaintiffs' and the class's escrow or other accounts had balances in the amounts of the third-party-release-preparation fees remaining (or that should have remained), which money was within Defendant's control. The Defendant wrongly transferred this money to itself or used it for its own benefit, says the suit. Plaintiffs Madeline McCabe and John Blair are borrowers of Defendant. Defendnant Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a mortgage servicer and financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Ruschel, Esq. 1701 E 12 St Apt 23B Cleveland OH 44114 Telephone: 216-621-3370 E-mail: bruschel@aol.com NEBRASKA FURNITURE: Martin Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nebraska Furniture Mart Inc. The case is styled as William Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nebraska Furniture Mart Inc. doing business as: NFM, Case No. 8:26-cv-00165 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nebraska Furniture Mart doing business as NFM -- https://www.nfm.com/ -- is a home furnishing store in North America that sells furniture, flooring, appliances, and electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Bid for Class Cert Administratively Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCCONNELL DORCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order administratively closing the motion for class certification. In the event the parties do not settle this case at the Conference, the Plaintiffs may refile the Motion. On Oct. 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendants opposed the motion. On April 23, 2025, given the parties' continued efforts to mediate, the Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon "stayed this matter during the mediation process" and ordered that "should mediation be unsuccessful, the Court will reschedule the adjourned deadlines, including for the reply briefs for the Motion." On Jan. 15, 2026, the parties filed a joint letter advising the Court that they have made "substantial progress" towards settlement but requested a settlement conference before the undersigned to assist in "resolving the remaining issues and to facilitate the process of finalizing the settlement agreement." Accordingly, we scheduled an in-person settlement conference for March 4, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. ET, and extended the stay of this case sine die pending the Conference. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6uDu25 at no extra charge.[CC] NEXTPOWER INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nextpower Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 27, 2024, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by a purported stockholder in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants Nextpower and certain of the Nextpower officers, alleging that defendants made false and misleading statements about our business, financial results and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the purported class. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint and that motion is currently under submission with the court. Nextpower Inc. is a leading solar technology platform provider used in power plants around the world. NK PROGRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Andreyeva Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ANASTASIA ANDREYEVA, Plaintiff vs. NK PROGRESS, INC., NATA'S KIDS, INC., and NATALYA KASHUK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00541 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2026) is a class action seeking recovery against Defendants for their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended and the New York Labor Law. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff Andreyeva began working for NKI in or around July 2014, as a "monitoring coordinator/IEP coordinator," and worked approximately 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was offered a position in NKPI as "Service Coordinator" on a contractor basis in addition to her current position at NKI. In 2018, Plaintiff was told by the Joint Employers that she would be part-time at both companies - in NKPI as a service coordinator and at NKI as a coordinator. Under this arrangement, the total salary which Plaintiff would receive is equivalent to the salary she received in her previous position at NKI. Although Plaintiff is not amenable to this change in position, she did not speak up due to fear of retaliation and termination. From 2018 until 2024, Plaintiff continued in both roles. Throughout her tenure at NKPI, Plaintiff was the only service coordinator carrying a significant caseload as well as assisting with daily operating tasks. Over the course of the last six years, the Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiff for all worked hours as required by law, including non-payment of overtime pay, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff has therefore commenced this case to recover unpaid wages she had been deprived of, plus interest (pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff Anastasia Andreyeva was employed by the Defendants in the State of New York during the period of July 2014 to June 2017. Defendant NK PROGRESS, INC. is a business entity organized under the laws of New York with principal office address at 1733 Sheepshead Bay Road, Suite 16, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Defendant NATA'S KIDS, INC. is a business entity organized under the laws of New York with principal office address at 1733 Sheepshead Bay Road, Suite 36, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Defendant Natalya Kashuk opened the NKI in June 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Office: (718) 412-2421 Cellular: (917) 807-7819 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc OAKRIDGE GARDENS: Townsend Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Townsend, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OAKRIDGE GARDENS NURSING CENTER, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00139-BBC (E.D. Wis., Jan. 28, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, most recently working in the position of Housekeeper, at Defendant's Menasha, Wisconsin location. The Defendant is a rehabilitation and memory care facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com OVER THE MOON: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Over The Moon Blog LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00988 (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://overthemoon.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 10, 2025, while searching online for fashion accessories as a gift for a celebration she was invited to, Plaintiff Anderson came across Defendant's website. After reviewing multiple customer reviews describing the website's registry offerings, she decided to visit the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to complete the transaction. As she navigated the primary menu using a keyboard, the sub-menu elements within the website's drop-down navigation were not accessible, preventing her from accessing available options and disrupting the navigation flow. These accessibility barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Over The Moon Blog LLC operates the website offers a selection of registry items for various occasions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law PANDORA JEWELRY: Grogg Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pandora Jewelry, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lynn Grogg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pandora Jewelry, LLC, Pandora Jewelry, A/S, Case No. 1:26-cv-00703 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Pandora Jewelry LLC -- https://us.pandora.net/ -- designs, manufactures and markets hand-finished and modern jewelry made from genuine materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com PANERA BREAD: Romero Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ CARLOS ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00129 (E.D. Mo., January 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the personally identifiable information ("PII") that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, usernames, work and personal emails, phone number, home address, and date of birth. The complaint relates that as required and in order to obtain services from Defendant, the Plaintiff provided Defendant with highly sensitive personal information who then possessed and controlled it. As a result, Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third-party in a data breach. The complaint alleges the Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include: time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach; time spent exploring identity theft insurance options; time spent self-monitoring their accounts with heightened scrutiny and time spent seeking legal counsel regarding their options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek an Order of the Court requiring Defendant to refund, disgorge, and pay as restitution any profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by Defendant from its wrongful conduct and/or the establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members may seek restitution. Plaintiff Carlos Romero a resident and citizen of Los Angeles, California and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Panera Bread Company is an American chain of bakery-cafe restaurants headquartered at 3630 S Lindbergh Blvd, Sunset Hills, MO 63127.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady,, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: 816-888-8010 Facsimile: 816-332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com PARTNERS IN WINE: Juncos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ PABLO JUNCOS, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PARTNERS IN WINE LLC, d/b/a SOSPIRO NATURAL WINE BAR, and FABRIZIO GALLINA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20518 (S.D. Fla., January 27, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover from the Defendant monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that Defendants, in this case, violated FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every regular and overtime hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate. Plaintiff Juncos was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee during two periods. In both periods, the Plaintiff had duties as a server and performed general restaurant work. Partners in Wine LLC, d/b/a Sospiro Wine Bar, is an Italian restaurant and bar located in Coral Gables, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. Katherine Montaner-Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Facsimile: (305) 503-9657 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com PHIA GROUP: Faces Vickery Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------- KANESHA VICKERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10530 (D. Mass., February 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between July 8, 2024 and July 9, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. The Phia Group, LLC is a provider of healthcare consulting services, with its principal place of business in Canton, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Wallace Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- YOHANNA WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, JBS USA HOLDINGS, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, JBS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00371 (D. Colo., January 30, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan to be invested in a Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company (GWL&A) Guaranteed Investment Contract. The GWL&A GIC carried more risk and provided a significantly lower rate of return than other comparable stable value funds that Defendants could have made available to Plan participants. Moreover, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence by allowing a party-in-interest, Great-West, to benefit from its provision of services to the Plan by receiving excessive compensation for managing the GWL&A GIC, says the suit. Headquartered in Lynchburg, VA, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation produces, processes, markets and distributes fresh, frozen and value-added chicken and pork products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com PINE HOSPITALITY: Desposati Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DESPOSATI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PINE HOSPITALITY, INC., d/b/a RACANELLI RESTAURANT GROUP, SPIGA NEW CANAAN GROUP, INC, GENNARO RACANELLI, and ALEX RACANELLI, Case No. 3:25-cv-01896-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for conditional certification and the issuance of notice, pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to a collective of similarly situated employees, defined as: "All current and former employees of any Racanelli Restaurant Group restaurant who worked as bartenders, servers, or both, at any of Defendants' restaurant locations at any point from Nov. 12, 2022, through the date notice is authorized by the Court, and who were paid a subminimum hourly wage at any point during this period." The suit says that Plaintiff's allegations and the declarations demonstrate that the Plaintiffs and Collective Members were all paid a subminimum hourly wage; and were all subject to uniformly enforced policies, including the underreporting of hours worked (and thus failing to pay for all hours worked); unlawful deductions for mandatory uniforms and other business-related items; and payment of a subminimum hourly wage for all hours spent performing non-tipped job duties and side-work unrelated to their tipped occupation as bartenders and servers. On Nov. 12, 2025, Desposati filed a collective action and class action complaint against the Defendants for violations of the FLSA and Connecticut state wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff Desposati worked primarily as a bartender and server at two of Defendants' restaurants (Spiga and Waveny) between August 2024-November 2024, and again between December 2024-March 2025. Pine operates a multi-location restaurant group throughout Connecticut and New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2L4nIv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vishal H. Shah, Esq. SHAH LITIGATION, PLLC 867 Boylston St., 5th Fl. No. 1893 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 334-5825 E-mail: vishal@shahlitigation.com - and - Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. ZLR LITIGATION, PLLC 680 E Main Street, Suite A #638 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 212-9983 E-mail: zach@zlrlitigation.com - and - Drew N. Hermann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC Burnett Plaza 801 Cherry Street, Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth A. Votre, Esq. VOTRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 90 Grove Street, Suite 209 Ridgefield, CT 06877 Telephone: (203) 498-0065 Facsimile: (203) 821-3595 E-mail: votrelaw@votreandassociates.com PLAIN GREEN: Wood Files Suit Over Unlawful Loan Practices --------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAIN GREEN, LLC; PLAIN GREEN SPV1, LLC; RECEIVABLES FUNDING II, LLC; and METASOURCE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00050-GNS (W.D. Ky., January 30, 2026) is a class action seeking to secure redress from predatory and unlawful loans issued and enforced by Defendants. The complaint relates that on its website, Plain Green advertises that most of its customers "turn to Plain Green as an emergency solution to avoid more costly forms of credit like payday loans or penalties from bounced checks or overdraft fees." In truth, Defendants take advantage of people at their most vulnerable, in desperate moments of financial hardship, and thumbs their nose at the statutory laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky by employing a scheme to charge customers illegal usurious interest rates of 198 percent to 547 percent. To do this, the Defendants represents that Plain Green is a tribal lending entity that is wholly owned by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe. In reality, Defendants operate a "rent-a-tribe" scheme in order to circumvent state usury laws, including the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the loans are void, and damages pursuant to the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS). Plaintiff Adam Wood obtained loans from Defendants. Defendant Plain Green, LLC operates an online lending website https://www.plaingreenloans.com/ and makes loans at interest rates of up to 547% to consumers in many states, including Kentucky. Defendant Plain Green SPV 1, LLC is a limited liability company located at 93 Mack Road, Suite 500, Box Elder, MT. Defendant Receivables Funding II, LLC is a limited liability company with its registered agent and office is Vcorp Services, LLC, 108 West 13th Street, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19801. Defendant Metasource, LLC provides document processing and process management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. Abigal C. Wearden, Esq. LOCKABY PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: 859-263-7884 Facsimile: 859-406-3333 E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com alockaby@lockabylaw.com awearden@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: 773-554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com PORTOFINO III: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. PORTOFINO III, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20663-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2026) is an action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the subject commercial plaza is open to the public and are located in Miami, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial plaza, to include visits to the commercial plaza and businesses located within the commercial plaza on October 20, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial plaza and the tenants' businesses therein. The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial plaza has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, which is set forth below, has likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to him and others similarly situated. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza, as prohibited by the ADA. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Defendant PORTOFINO III, INC. is the owner of the commercial plaza and landlord.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com PRECIOUS MOMENTS: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Precious Moments Family Of Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01106 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.preciousmoments.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reader-users. As a result, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, says the suit. Headquartered in Carthage, MO, Precious Moments Family Of Companies, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers collectible porcelain figurines, decorative ornaments, home decor and giftware, plush toys, jewelry, keepsake boxes, and personalized gifts for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PRIA GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Personal Info, Tanner Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIA GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10519 (D. Mass., February 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach from May 13, 2024 through June 17, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Landmark Admin, LLC is a third-party administrator for insurance carriers, with its principal place of business in Brownwood, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PRIMERICA FINANCIAL: Campbell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KASHAWN CAMPBELL and MINNIE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES INSURANCE MARKETING, INC.; GLENN J. WILLIAMS; PETER W. SCHNEIDER; TRACY TAN; LISA A. BROWN; ROBERT H. PETERMAN, JR.; BRETT A. ROGERS; JULIE A. SEMAN; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV35757, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00352 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Defendants violated various California state laws by, amongst other things, failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals minimum wage and overtime, failing to provide meal and rest periods, and failing to provide timely wage statements. Primerica Financial Services Insurance Marketing, Inc. develops and sells term life insurance and investment and financial services headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Emily Sauer, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: jcripps@gibsondunn.com lblas@gibsondunn.com esauer@gibsondunn.com PURAGAIN WATER: Zagury Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puragain Water, LLC. The case is styled as Natalie Zagury, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Puragain Water, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20454-BB (S.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Puragain Water -- https://www.puragainwater.com/ -- is a family owned business that takes pride in offering the very best in water filtration systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. 1650 SE 17th Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com QUEBEC: Disability Group Appeals Ruling in Accessibility Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Magder of Montreal Gazette reports that a group representing people with mobility challenges is appealing a Superior Court decision that ruled in favour of the region's transit agencies. This week, lawyers for Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec (RAPLIQ) filed a notice of appeal of the class-action lawsuit that was heard in 2023. The suit claimed that transit agencies discriminated against people with disabilities in not providing adequate accessibility options. It noted a lack of investment in stations on Exo's suburban train network, the slow pace of investment in elevators in the STM's metro network, and the long waits to book trips with paratransit services. The lawsuit included any person residing in Quebec who, after April 15, 2012, faced obstacles accessing metros, city buses, commuter trains or paratransit services because of physical disabilities. RAPLIQ asked the court to order $50,000 in moral damages and $25,000 in punitive damages to each group member. Last month, the court ruled against RAPLIQ, saying the agencies have recognized the issue and are investing to the best of their abilities within their limited budgets. However, RAPLIQ argues that accessibility projects are given a lower priority than any other projects. This has become clear in the cuts made to the capital programs of the STM and Exo, which have both eliminated nearly all future plans to make more train and metro stations universally accessible because of a lack of funds. "As soon as there is a budget cut to be made, it is done on the backs of people with disabilities," Steven Laperriere, the director general of RAPLIQ, said in a phone interview. "But what also shocks me is the 'who cares' attitude. This attitude really pisses me off." He said the problems are likely to get worse before there is any improvement, as the STM recently put in place a cost-saving measure by cancelling its minibus fleet and subcontracting the paratransit service to the private sector. The measure is expected to save $8 million, as 90 per cent of transit rides were already handled by private taxis. Laperriere said the STM explains that this measure was included in the cost-cutting program imposed by the provincial government. With provincial funding of transit at an all-time low, the STM said it can't guarantee that it will be able to continue its policy of zero refusals for paratransit requests in 2027. He believes the cost savings won't remain within the paratransit budget, so as a result that budget will be decreased in 2027. "They are predicting an increase in adapted transit by five per cent, and there is no increase predicted in the budget, so for sure the service is going to be cut for adapted transit, and nobody seems to care," he said. "It means that if you want to go see a show at the Bell Centre, then maybe you'll be able to get there, but there will be no way to come back, so you won't be able to attend at all." The STM has also fallen short on its goals to outfit its metro stations with elevators. There is just one such project underway at this point at the edouard-Montpetit station, and after construction is completed, there are no other elevator projects being planned. There are currently 29 stations outfitted with elevators, out of 68. The STM had initially given itself a goal to outfit 41 stations with elevators by 2025, and then extended that date to 2030. According to the most recent capital project, there are no plans to build any new elevators in the next 10 years. As for Exo, plans to make train stations more accessible have been cancelled over the years. Most regional buses continue to be operated by the private sector and the coach-style layout doesn't allow wheelchairs to board. Even mothers with babies are told they have to store their strollers in cargo holds when boarding regional buses. In a statement, the Autorite regionale de transport metropolitain (ARTM), which governs and allocates funds to transit groups in the region, said it is working hard to "provide the best service possible with the available resources." "For example, the four adapted transit services are going to be united under one unified metropolitan agency," said Maxime Duchesne, a spokesperson for the ARTM. "A working group will be established in the coming weeks to come up with a road map with public transit agencies and the non-profit sector. "Despite (funding challenges), universal accessibility remains integrated in the planning of large projects, notably the SRB Pie-IX, the extension of the metro's Blue Line and the REM." [GN] RADIANT AUTISM: Hector Seeks Behavior Technicians' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFERY HECTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIANT AUTISM CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00112 (E.D. Tex., January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked as a behavior technician for Radiant from March 2025 until December 2025. Radiant Autism Center, LLC is a healthcare services provider, with its principal place of business in Frisco, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66206 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com - and - Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, PC 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com RADIOSHACK USA LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radioshack USA, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-00667 (D. Minn., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.radioshack.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers consumer electronics for sale including, but not limited to, radios, computers, gaming products, headphones, speakers, electronic toys, chargers, batteries, home and office products, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RAJUL PATEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rajul Patel Professional Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01096 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://puredentalspa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff now seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Rajul Patel Professional Corporation owns and operates the website which allows customers make online bookings for dental and oral health services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Must File Class Cert Response by March 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hicks v. Raleigh Ophthalmology, P.C., Case No. 5:24-cv-00465 (E.D.N.C., Filed Aug. 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard E. Myers, II entered an order that Defendant has up to and including March 2, 2026, within which to respond to the Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Raleigh provides comprehensive and subspecialty medical and surgical eye care.[CC] RAMACO RESOURCES: Faces Henning Class Suit Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Henning v. Ramaco Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00846, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ramaco Resources, Inc. ("Ramaco" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: METC) securities between July 31, 2025 and October 23, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR RAMACO INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On October 23, 2025, Wolfpack Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Ramaco's Brook Mine in northern Wyoming is a "hoax" and a "Potemkin Mine" which was not, in fact, mined after its July groundbreaking. The report alleges that the Company "built this mine for show," and reveals that, as shown by drone footage taken three months after the mine's opening, no active work appears to have occurred. The report states that "[d]espite multiple site visits during working hours over several weeks" Wolfpack researchers "never observed the equipment mentioned in news reports or any active work." On this news, Ramaco's stock price fell $3.81, or 9.6%, to close at $36.01 per share on October 23, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Defendants had not commenced any significant mining activity at the Brook Mine after groundbreaking; (2) that no active work was taking place at the Brook Mine; (3) that, as a result, the Company overstated development progress at the Brook Mine; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ramaco securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] RAMACO RESOURCES: Henning Sues Over 9.6% Drop of Securities Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- LYNN HENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAMACO RESOURCES, INC., RANDALL W. ATKINS, and JEREMY R. SUSSMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00846 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Ramaco's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Ramaco securities at artificially inflated prices between July 31, 2025 and October 23, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Defendants had not commenced any significant mining activity at the Brook Mine after groundbreaking; (2) that no active work was taking place at the Brook Mine; (3) that, as a result, the company overstated development progress at the Brook Mine; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the price of Ramaco's stock price fell $3.81, or 9.6 percent, to close at $36.01 per share on October 23, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Ramaco Resources, Inc. is a mining company, with its principal executive offices located in Lexington, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 REV GROUP: Unified Government Sues Over Post‑Order Price Hikes ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, PLAINTIFF v. REV GROUP, INC.; OSHKOSH CORPORATION; PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.; ROSENBAUER AMERICA, LLC; ROSENBAUER SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC; ROSENBAUER MINNESOTA, LLC, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:26-cv-02057 (D. Kan., January 29, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the antitrust and consumer protection laws of the various states. The complaint relates that the Unified Government has purchased multiple Fire Apparatus from Defendants during the relevant period. In January 2022, the Unified Government purchased a Pierce Pumper from Pierce authorized dealer Conrad Fire Equipment for a base price of $530,667 and a final purchase price of $702,694. That vehicle was finally delivered to the KCKFD in February 2024 after a 25-month wait. And in February 2023, the Unified Government purchased a Pierce Pumper from Pierce authorized dealer Conrad Fire Equipment for a base price of $671,796 and a final purchase price of $857,500. That vehicle was delivered in July 2025 after a 29-month wait. The Defendants also have unilaterally imposed "floating" price clauses that allow them to increase prices from the date of order to account for increased costs incurred during the extended wait time for new Fire Apparatus. Because of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has experienced lengthy wait times and paid artificially-inflated prices for Fire Apparatus. Plaintiff has suffered antitrust injury as a direct result of the antitrust violations alleged in this Complaint, says the suit. Plaintiff the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas is a consolidated city and county government located on the eastern border of the State of Kansas. Wyandotte County is home to the cities of Kansas City, Bonner Springs, and Edwardsville. Kansas City is the third largest city in Kansas with approximately 153,345 residents. The Kansas City Kansas Fire Department ("KCKFD") is the fire protection arm of the Unified Government. It has 80 vehicles in its fleet and operates 18 fire stations. The KCKFD serves as the primary protector of approximately 128 square miles of response area, providing emergency services to the citizens of Kansas City, Kansas, as well as multifuel tank farms, manufacturing plants, and other high-risk facilities. Defendant REV Group, Inc. currently is the largest manufacturer of Fire Apparatus in the United States. Defendant Oshkosh Corporation is a global industrial technology company focused on innovating purpose-built vehicles and equipment. Defendant Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. is the leading North American manufacturer of custom Fire Apparatus. Defendant Rosenbauer South Dakota, LLC manufacturers Fire Apparatus for sale in the United States including aerials, pumpers, pumpers-tankers/tenders, and special service vehicles. Defendant Rosenbauer Minnesota, LLC manufactures Fire Apparatus for sale in the United States including wildland and brush apparatus, aerials, pumpers, pumpers-tankers/tenders, ARFF vehicles, special service vehicles, and electric/alternative fuel apparatus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean M. Sturdivan, Esq. Jamie Powell, Esq. SANDERS WARREN & RUSSELL LLP 11225 College Blvd, Suite 450 Overland Park, KS 66210 Direct: (913) 234-6137 Telephone: (913) 234-6100 Facsimile: (913) 234-6199 E-mail: s.sturdivan@swrllp.com j.powell@swrllp.com - and - Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq. James R. Martin, Esq. Sabrina A. Nelson, Esq. Noah Wolfenstein, Esq. Desmond Sims, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 375 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 899-4100 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: jmartin@zellelaw.com jhackett@zellelaw.com snelson@zellelaw.com nwolfenstein@zellelaw.com dsims@zellelaw.com - and - Basel J. Musharbash, Esq. Anureet Sandhu, Esq. Domenic Powell, Esq. ANTIMONOPOLY COUNSEL 500 Clarksville Street P.O. Box 795 Paris, TX 75461 Telephone: (903) 205-8422 Facsimile: (903) 347-2917 E-mail: basel@antimonopoly.us anu@antimonopoly.us domenic@antimonopoly.us RIO VISTA DEVELOPMENT: Cheeseboro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rio Vista Development Company LP. The case is styled as Alisha Cheeseboro, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Rio Vista Development Company LP, Case No. 26STCV02714 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Rio Vista Development Company LP is a privately-held company that operates in the hotels, resorts, casinos & cruise lines industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: $250MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC. CLASS A COMMON STOCK BETWEEN NOVEMBER 10, 2021, AND MARCH 10, 2022, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Sjunde AP-Fonden and James Stephen Muhl (together, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Classes in the securities class action ("Action"), have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Rivian Automotive, Inc., Robert J. Scaringe, Claire McDonough, Jeffrey R. Baker, Karen Boone, Sanford Schwartz, Rose Marcario, Peter Krawiec, Jay Flatley, Pamela Thomas-Graham, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Allen & Company LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Piper Sandler & Co., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Wedbush Securities Inc., Academy Securities, Inc., Blaylock Van, LLC, Cabrera Capital Markets LLC, C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc., Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC, and Tigress Financial Partners LLC (collectively, "Defendants") for $250,000,000 in cash that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on May 15, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time, before the Honorable Josephine L. Staton, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, either in person in Courtroom 8A, 8th Floor of the First Street U.S. Courthouse, 350 W 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things: (i) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Classes, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice (defined below)) should be granted; and (iii) whether Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 24% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $6.9 million (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred by Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Classes in an aggregate amount not to exceed $125,000) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website, www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (i) Proposed Settlement; (ii) Settlement Hearing; and (iii) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the case website, www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain a copy of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at Crews v. Rivian Automotive Securities Litigation, c/o Verita Global, LLC, P.O. Box 301170, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170; by calling toll free 1-888-298-2026; or by emailing info@RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be found on the website for Class Counsel, www.ktmc.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online via www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com no later than April 20, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses must be submitted to the Claims Administrator, Verita Global, LLC. Objections must be received no later than April 24, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. As the Classes were previously certified and, in connection with class certification, Class Members had the opportunity to request exclusion from the Classes, the Court has exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion in connection with the Settlement proceedings. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: Crews v. Rivian Automotive Securities Litigation c/o Verita Global, LLC P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 1-888-298-2026 info@RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel: KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Sharan Nirmul, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 - or - Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 info@ktmc.com www.ktmc.com Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions. DATED: February 3, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Central District of California ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR: Taylor Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Marcus Taylor, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; JUMP EMPLOYEE SERVICES LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0056197 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00237-CKD. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to indemnify in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide compensation at the final rate of pay for unused vested paid vacation days in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq. Mollie R. Kraus, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Emails: sshadi@bakerlaw.com ROCKET COMPANIES: Waller Sues Over Unjust Enrichment ---------------------------------------------------- Barbara Waller, Elizabeth Johnson, and Randel Clark, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, AMROCK HOLDINGS, LLC, and ROCKET HOMES REAL ESTATE LLC, Michigan Corporations, Case No. 2:26-cv-10270-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought for the Defendants' the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") violations and unjust enrichment. The Rocket Defendants2 have exploited the vulnerability of home buyers for profit. The Rocket Defendants compel and reward real estate agents to steer clients to use Rocket's mortgage company to finance the purchase of homes even though Rocket Mortgage's terms are disadvantageous to the clients. In exchange, the Rocket Defendants funnel leads (in the form of interested buyers or sellers) to real estate agents who, in turn, steer clients to Rocket's mortgage company. Much of Rocket's illegal conduct came to light because of a four-year investigation by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"). Based on this investigation, it was revealed that consumers were directly harmed by the steering practice because Rocket Mortgage and its predecessor, Quicken Loans offered substandard loan packages that charged higher interest rates and offered fewer cost-saving opportunities for home buyers. As a result of these substandard loans, "Rocket Mortgage charged higher rates and fees to consumers who went through the Rocket Homes network compared with consumers who didn't go through the network"--a clear sign of illegal steering under the RESPA. Even after the July 2025 acquisition, Defendants continue to illegally steer mortgage business to Rocket Mortgage. Although the acquisition provided Rocket with a network of real estate agents, Rocket still makes referrals to third party agents. Rocket charges these third-party agents a higher referral fee if these agents do not steer their clients to Rocket Mortgage, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a home financed by Rocket Mortgage or Quicken Loans from 2019 to the present. Rocket Companies, Inc. is a holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hood Suit Due Nov. 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hood, et al., v. City of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order modify the scheduling order as follows: Fact discovery shall be completed by Aug. 12, 2026 Expert disclosures shall be completed by Sept. 11, 2026 Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by Oct. 9, 2026 Expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 23, /2026 Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 18, 2026 The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Discrimination. Sacramento is the capital city of California and the seat of Sacramento County.[CC] SAM'S EXCAVATING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gillam Due April 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER GILLIAM, v. SAM'S EXCAVATING UNLIMITED, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01514-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an scheduling order as follows: -- The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by March 2, 2026. -- The motion for class certification shall be filed by April 17, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Sept. 30, 2026. -- Dispositive motions shall be filed by Oct. 30, 2026. -- Primary expert reports shall be produced by June 30, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports shall be produced by August 14, 2026. The Plaintiff has filed a complaint for collective action against the Defendants Sam’s Excavating and its owner William Cline. Plaintiff alleges that employees were not paid overtime on their trip back to the office after projects or during lunch. Defendant denies the allegations and makes defenses associated with payment of overtime and proper clocking procedures. Sam's provides land and lot clearing, excavation, site prep, and grading services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TFniiv at no extra charge.[CC] SANDERLING RENAL: Silva Seeks Dialysis Technicians' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- OMAR SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANDERLING RENAL SERVICES - USA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00985 (N.D. Cal., January 30, 2026), seeks recovery of unpaid wages, restitution, civil penalties, and all appropriate relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt Dialysis Technician working out of Defendants' Watsonville, California facility beginning in early July 2022 and continues as a current employee. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees regularly worked shifts exceeding eight hours per day and forty hours per week, frequently requiring overtime work. In addition, the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were not provided with all legally mandated ten-minute rest periods for every four hours worked. They were not properly compensated for all hours they worked over extended periods of time, in violation of California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, says the suit. Based in Nashville, TN, Sanderling Renal Services - USA LLC provides healthcare services including dialysis treatment for patients with kidney disease. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com SCHILL LANDSCAPING: Faces Gambill Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER GAMBILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHILL LANDSCAPING AND LAWN CARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00095-MRB (S.D. Ohio, January 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Revenue Code. The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as a crew member/foreman. Schill Landscaping and Lawn Care Services is a provider of commercial landscaping, maintenance, and snow and ice removal services throughout Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6659 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 Email: matt@finneylawfirm.com SE-PORT-DELICATESSEN: Delgado Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Delgado, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SE-PORT-DELICATESSEN, CORP., DAKWAR ENTERPRISES, INC., and WISAM DAKWAR, Case No. 2:26-cv-00497 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff at his regular rate for all hours worked each workweek, including those hours worked after 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff regularly worked a daily shift that exceeded 10 hours per day from its start to its finish. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay for each workday that exceeded 10 hours in violation of the NYLL. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a proper notice and acknowledgement of his wage rate upon hire as required by NYLL. The Defendants paid Plaintiff's wages entirely in cash and failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement each pay period as required by NYLL. The Defendants failed to post notices regarding the payment of wages required by federal and state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' deli from 2013 until December 2025. The Defendants own and operate a delicatessen located in East Setauket, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Seagate Technology Holdings plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending January 2, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation. On July 10, 2023 and July 26, 2023, two securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Seagate Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca Romano. The cases were consolidated on September 25, 2023. On September 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed the currently operative complaint, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and a class period between September 14, 2020 and April 19, 2023, inclusive. The operative complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On May 12, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint. The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the case. Seagate Technology Holdings Public Limited Company is an American data storage company. It was incorporated in 1978, as Shugart Technology. Since 2010, the company is incorporated in Dublin, Ireland, with operational headquarters in Cupertino, California, United States. SEASONAL GRAMS INC: Anderson Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seasonal Grams, Inc. The case is styled as Lisa Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seasonal Grams, Inc., d/b/a Pajamagram, Case No. 1:26-cv-00995 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seasonal Grams, Inc. doing business as Pajamagram -- https://pajamagram.com/ -- has the best matching family pajamas, perfect for creating cherished memories.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SEMTECH CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 3 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colleen Kleovoulos, v. Semtech Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01474-MCS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered a scheduling order: The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report and sets the dates below. The Court will set additional dates, including pretrial and trial dates, after a ruling on class certification is issued. To the extent applicable, the Court orders the parties to comply with the Order Re: Jury/Court Trial available on the Court’s website, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-mark-c-scarsi. Event Date Non-expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 16, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 21, 2027 Deadline to file a motion for class Feb. 6, 2026 certification: Deadline to file an opposition to the Apr. 3, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support of May 8, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class June 1, 2026, certification: at 9:00 a.m Semtech is a semiconductor, IoT systems and Cloud connectivity service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0qBJIY at no extra charge.[CC] SENDAFRIEND LLC: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Tazinique Echols, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SendAFriend LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00875 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://sendafriend.co (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Echols and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Echols' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Echols 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. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of gift products such as stuffed animals, curated gift bundles, care packages, and related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shein Distribution Corporation. The case is styled as Alexandra Green, Jasmine Durhal, Katie Wooldridge, Alyssa Stanley, Brianna Dorian, individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shein Distribution Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV02959 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 28, 2026). SHEIN -- https://www.sheingroup.com/ -- is a global online fashion and lifestyle retailer with a unique business model making fashion accessible to all.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pavel Rukavishnikov, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: pavel@tomorrowlaw.com SHOW-ME BBQ: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOW-ME BBQ SAUCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00687 (S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.showmebbqsauce.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 January, 12, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Show-Me(R) Bar-B-Q Gift Set from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the 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. She 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, asserts the complaint. 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. Show-Me BBQ Sauce, LLC operates the website that retails barbecue seasonings.[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 SOCAL RAMP: Court "Corona" Narrows Wage & Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jesse Corona, Plaintiff, v. So Cal Ramp Services, LLC, Inter-Rail Group, Inc., and Inter-Rail Management, Inc., Defendants, Civil Case No. SAG-25-03229 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the pre-shift security screening theory, request for premium pay regarding the meal period theory, and the rest period theory, but denied the motion in all other respects. Plaintiff alleged that during his employment with Defendants, he would spend the first 30-40 minutes of his shift in meetings before proceeding to his work at the train tracks, where he would ordinarily work for at least five hours before he was allowed to break for a meal period. The meal periods frequently lasted less than thirty minutes and regularly lasted less than twenty minutes. During their meal periods, Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers were not allowed to leave the railyard. These unpaid meal periods were regularly interrupted either with questions from coworkers or because of backed-up schedules and time-sensitive issues that arose. Plaintiff further alleged that he and the other putative California class members regularly did not receive ten-minute rest periods, when Plaintiff did receive any rest periods it was regularly not until the end of his shift, and that the other putative California class members similarly received untimely rest periods when they did receive them. Plaintiff alleged that managerial and supervisory employees of Defendants observed Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers remain on-duty during their meal and rest periods, and Federal Railroad Administration logs and computer activity logs that tracked the timing of work performed showed that they had worked during their meal and rest periods. Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers were required to arrive to work approximately 10-15 minutes before their shifts to undergo a mandatory security screening, and they were not allowed to enter the railyard until they had completed the security screening. Defendants instructed Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers to wait to clock in until 1-2 minutes before their shift start times, however, and Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers could have earned demerit points if they clocked in too early. Plaintiff brought several claims on behalf of himself and the other Railway Workers, including failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA, California state law claims for failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to permit meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the overtime claims. Plaintiff alleged that he and the other Railway Workers regularly worked 11-12-hour shifts 4-5 days per week, or 44-60-hour weeks, regularly worked beyond that time because of the mandatory pre-shift security screening and working during meal periods, and were not compensated for that additional time spent undergoing the security screening and during their unpaid meal periods. The Court concluded these factual allegations raised the reasonable inference that Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers worked overtime for which they did not receive compensation. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss claims related to pre-shift security screening. Under the FLSA, an employer need not compensate an employee for activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to principal activities. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that the security screening was an integral and indispensable part of his principal activities as a conductor and engineer. The complaint contained no allegations regarding the purpose of the security screening, and contained no facts suggesting that security screenings were an indispensable part of the performance of Plaintiff's work. The Court also found that Plaintiff's state law claims failed as to his security screening theory under California law. Although Plaintiff alleged that Defendants required him and the other Railway Workers to undergo the pre-shift security screening and would not allow them to access the premises without doing so, the complaint contained no allegations describing the security screening. The Court concluded it could not analyze whether Defendants exercised sufficient control during it to render that time compensable under California law. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on miscalculation of regular rate of pay. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants uniformly failed to include all remuneration, including nondiscretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, and other amounts, into his and the other Railway Workers' regular rates of pay and that this failure resulted in undercalculating their overtime rates of pay. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had alleged specific types of remuneration that he and the other Railway Workers received but that Defendants did not include in their regular rates used to calculate overtime. The Court found that Plaintiff sufficiently stated his FLSA claim based on meal period violations. Plaintiff alleged that he and the other Railway Workers regularly had their meal periods limited to twenty minutes or less. The Court noted that such periods would not constitute noncompensable bona fide meal periods under the FLSA. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that he and the other Railway Workers were regularly interrupted during their meal periods with questions from coworkers and that backed-up schedules and time-sensitive issues also regularly interfered with their meal periods, and that they were not free to leave the premises during their meal periods. Under California law, the Court concluded that Plaintiff's allegations that his and the other putative California class members' meal periods frequently lasted less than thirty minutes, began after over five hours of work, and were interrupted with work, circumstances that he alleged management observed and that records demonstrated, sufficiently stated claims for straight pay and overtime pay. However, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for premium pay because he did not allege that Defendants required him and the other putative California class members to work or impeded or discouraged them from taking their meal periods. Regarding rest periods, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that the allegations did not provide sufficient information to determine whether Defendants refused to relieve Plaintiff and the other putative California class members of their duties such that they would be liable for premium pay. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The Court found there was little risk of prejudice at this earliest stage of the case, nothing about Plaintiff's conduct evinced bad faith, and amendment would not be futile. The Court noted that Plaintiff has firsthand knowledge of the procedures at his former workplace and presumably can supply additional factual information regarding the pre-shift security screening and the meal and rest periods. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4PuNBn from PacerMonitor.com In this action, the defendants Inter-Rail Group, Inc., Inter-Rail Management, Inc., and So Cal Ramp Services, LLC, are represented by Samantha E. Dyar, Donald J. Munro and Amanda C. Sommerfeld of Jones Day. Ms. Dyar may be reached at sdyar@jonesday.com Mr. Munro at 202-879-3922 or dmunro@jonesday.com and Ms. Sommerfeld at asommerfeld@jonesday.com The plaintiff, Jesse Corona, is represented by Joshua I. White and William M. Hogg of Laurel Employment Law and Suvita Melehy of Melehy & Associates LLC. Mr. White may be contacted at 323-551-9221 or josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com, Ms. Melehy at 301-587-6364 or smelehy@melehylaw.com and Mr. Hogg at 323-285-3161 or william@laurelemploymentlaw.com SOUTH CENTRAL: Court OKs Notice in "Soto" ----------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Felipe De Jesus Avila-Soto et al., Plaintiffs, v. South Central Sugar Cane Growers Association Inc. et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:24-CV-01392 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted as modified the Plaintiffs' Motion for Section 216(b) Notice to Similarly Situated Workers and for Disclosure of Contact Information. The Plaintiffs are foreign workers who came with H-2A temporary visas to work for the Defendants in Louisiana hauling sugar cane. They filed this collective action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and violations of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act, alleging the Defendants failed to pay them and similarly situated individuals overtime wages. The parties agree that the Plaintiffs' claims are suitable as a collective action but disagree about the scope and parameters of the notice to be sent to similarly situated workers. Section 216(b) authorizes workers to file suit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. Other workers may become party plaintiffs by filing written consent to such action, thereby opting in to the suit. The trial court plays an important notice-giving role because an employee cannot benefit from a collective action without accurate and timely notice. Notice to potential plaintiffs is proper if the available evidence establishes that the plaintiff has met the similarly situated threshold. District courts have broad, litigation-management discretion and must consider all of the available evidence in determining whether and to whom notice should be issued. The Court addressed the employer identity issue, approving the Plaintiffs' modification to replace Defendants with South Central Sugar Cane Growers' Association, Inc. and/or Sterling Sugars, LLC. Regarding the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations for a named plaintiff runs from the date that the plaintiff files the complaint, while the limitations period for an opt-in plaintiff runs from the opt-in date. The Plaintiffs agreed to modify the time period to at any time within 3 years of the issuance of Notice, resolving any statute of limitations confusion. The Court found that the Defendants' proposed notice is superfluous. Accordingly, the Court adopted the following definition of similarly situated workers: All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers who were employed by South Central Sugar Cane Growers' Association, Inc. and/or Sterling Sugars, LLC as truck drivers hauling harvested sugarcane within the state of Louisiana at any time within the last three years and who claim they are owed unpaid wages. The Plaintiffs moved for permission to send notices by mail, email, text message, and WhatsApp message, and by posting on a website. They proposed a ninety-day window for workers to opt-in and that they be permitted to send reminder notices 45 days after the original notice is sent. The Defendants objected to reminder notices as excessive, arguing the four proposed modes of communication provide sufficient notice. The Court approved the sending of reminder notices, noting that reminder notices have been allowed in other cases and the Defendant failed to persuade the Court that a reminder notice would be prejudicial or unduly burdensome, particularly in light of the type of workers the notice is designed to reach, the communication difficulties identified in the declarations, and the length of time afforded for notice. A full-text copy of the decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zyOLKc from Pacermonitor.com In this action, the defendants South Central Sugar Cane Growers Association Inc. and Sterling Sugars LLC are represented by Caroline Perlis, Jennifer Clewis Thomas, Brandon E. Davis, and Marcellus D. Chamberlain of Phelps Dunbar LLP, with counsel appearing from the firm’s New Orleans, Texas, and Mississippi offices. The plaintiffs Felipe De Jesus Avila-Soto, Juan Alejo Hernandez-Canela, Felipe De Jesus Suarez-Palafox, and Arnulfo Villegas Miranda, are represented by James M. Knoepp of Dawson Morton, Daniel Brian Davis of the Law Office of Daniel Davis, and Dawson Morton of the Law Office of Dawson Morton. STEAKERS & SHAKERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Sekerchak Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leslie Sekerchak and Jessica Case, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Steakers & Shakers III, LLC, Steve F. Warren, & Jane Warren, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00332-BHH (D.S.C., January 30, 2026) alleges violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by Defendants at their restaurant. Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants instructed them to clock out when they reach 40 hours of work in a week and then clock back in under a false hourly rate. The Defendants require this to avoid paying overtime, says the suit. Steakers & Shakers III, LLC owns and operates the Steak n’ Shake restaurant restaurant in Greenville, SC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Ozment, Esq. GROVE OZMENT, L.L.C. 100 Williams Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 516-2222 E-mail: Matt@go-lawyers.com STMICROELECTRONICS INC: Renteria Files Suit in D. Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STMicroelectronics, Inc. The case is styled as Alejandra Renteria, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00087-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ST commonly referred to as ST or STMicro -- https://www.st.com/ -- is a global high-tech company creating semiconductor technologies for a smarter, greener, and more sustainable future.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Hamp Lyons, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 467-2763 Email: clyons@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jason Avellino, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, Ste. 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7000 STOCKX LLC: Schallert Sues Over Unlawful Private Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STOCKX LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01015 (C.D. Cal., January 30, 2026), accuses the Defendant of violating the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant has allegedly partnered with a data broker, Criteo S.A., in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. Defendant has done this by installing at least one Data Broker Software Development Kit from Criteo. In addition, the Defendant also deployed on its website: (a) code belonging to social media companies X Corp. and Google and (b) data broker software. The data collected includes information about these Californians' browsing habits and locations, and cookieIDs found on the device. Moreover, the Defendant did not obtain the express or implied consent of Plaintiff to be subjected to data sharing with Criteo for the purposes of deanonymization, profiling, and targeting, says the suit. StockX LLC is a Michigan limited liability company that owns, operates, and/or controls https://stockx.com. Through the website, the company operates like a stock market for high-demand consumer goods, including sneakers, streetwear, watches, handbags, electronics, and collectibles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Byers Sues Over ERISA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Nikea Byers, Gabrielle Winans, Kenneth Smith, Tanisha Madison, and Wanda Sinkler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, THE 401(K) PLAN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:26-cv-00448 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 23, 2026), is brought pursuant to §§ 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Sunrise Senior Living, LLC ("Sunrise" or the "Company"), and the 401(k) Plan Fiduciary Committee of Sunrise Senior Living, LLC and its members during the Class Period (the "Committee") (collectively, the Company and the Committee are referred to as "Defendants"). The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties it owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants engaged in prohibited transactions with Prudential/Empower, a party-in-interest, under which Prudential/Empower received millions of dollars in exchange for recordkeeping services and trustee services rendered to the Plan. Defendants' conduct was especially egregious given that Prudential/Empower received additional income from certain of the Plan's investment securities. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count II) and violations of ERISA's prohibited transactions (Counts III and IV), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs invested in the Prudential GIF in the Plan. Sunrise Senior Living, LLC is the Plan sponsor and a Plan administrator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com SUPER7 OPCO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Super7 OpCo LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01019 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://super7.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Williams' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The company relates that Williams has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. As a fan of pop culture collectibles, Williams was searching for an online store offering a wide range of collectibles and related products. On August 18, 2025, one of the top search results was the Defendant's website, Super7.com, a company known for selling officially licensed figures and pop-culture-inspired collectibles, apparel, and accessories. While browsing the website, he became interested in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ULTIMATES! Wave 12 product and attempted to purchase it. However, while accessing the website using screen reader software, Williams encountered multiple accessibility barriers that substantially interfered with his ability to navigate the site and complete his intended purchase. The complaint alleges that the barriers to access have denied Williams full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the Website. As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffers interference with daily activities, as well as emotional distress, including, without limitation, emotional and mental anguish, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, embarrassment, and anxiety. Williams seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Darnell Williams is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Super7 OpCo LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of collectible action figures, retro-inspired toys, premium figures, apparel, graphic T-shirts, hoodies, hats, pins, and lifestyle items inspired by pop culture franchises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law SUPERFOODS INC: Varela Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- DIANE VARELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERFOODS, INC., d/b/a LIVE IT UP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00828 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Live It Up with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's superfood products, including the Live It Up Super Greens, including both Original and Wild Berry flavors, throughout the United States which contained Salmonella. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed these superfood products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that these products are contaminated or are at risk of being contaminated with Salmonella, a bacteria can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems, and in some circumstances (even in healthy persons) can result in the bacteria getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Moreover, the Plaintiff and Class Members paid a price premium for the Products based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign including its false and misleading representations and omission on the Products' labels. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. Accordingly, the Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, among other things, New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. Defendant also breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the products, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Superfoods, Inc. manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells superfoods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com TAMASHII INC: Faces Choe Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- Ju Yeong Choe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tamashii Inc., Tamashii Gold, Inc., Tamashii Red, Inc., Tae San Cho, Seon Young Cho aka Olivia, and Jong Hee Ha, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00499-RER-RML (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation 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. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the law by failing to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and spread-of-hours compensation; illegally retaining employee gratuities; failing to provide accurate wage notices; failing to provide wage statements; discriminating against Plaintiff based on medical condition and medical leave; retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity; and subjecting Plaintiff to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment while she was under the age of 18. Plaintiff Choe initially started her work for Defendants in 2015 when she was 19 years old. She was hired by Defendant Tae San Cho to work as a server for Defendant Tamashii Inc. and worked until 2018. The Defendants collectively own and operate an enterprise of four restaurants throughout Queens County in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd., Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file under seal portions of motion for class certification and supporting evidence. The Plaintiff seeks to seal exhibits that contain personally identifying information of non-parties and confidential commercial information, including proprietary survey methodology and non-public technical information regarding website accessibility testing. Consistent with Local Rule 79-5.2.2(a), the Plaintiff will publicly file a redacted version of the motion and will lodge the unredacted version with proposed redactions highlighted. Tapestry is a company which designs and markets luxury accessories and lifestyle brands. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HK74aI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 30, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move for an order granting class certification, on the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied. The Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes: Nationwide Class "All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software from January 2022 up to and including final judgment in this action." California Subclass "All California residents who are legally blind, including those who use screen readers, who, between Jan. 1, 2022 and July 31, 2023, visited coach.com using a screen reader and tried to interact with store‑linked website functionality that provides store‑specific information or initiates, modifies, or completes in‑person transactions or services at Coach physical stores." Tapestry is a company which designs and markets luxury accessories and lifestyle brands. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7rhO7i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com TEKSYSTEMS INC: Court Blocks Arbitration Rollout Over Emails ------------------------------------------------------------ Carleen Bongat, writing for HRD, reports that appeals court blocks mid-lawsuit arbitration rollout, ruling employer's misleading holiday emails to workers violated federal class action protections. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a sharp message to employers on January 28, ruling that TEKsystems crossed the line when it tried to pull workers out of a class action lawsuit by rolling out mandatory arbitration agreements 22 months into active litigation. For HR directors navigating the increasingly complex terrain of employment disputes, the case sets clear boundaries on when and how companies can implement arbitration policies once employees have already sued. Four former recruiters sued TEKsystems in January 2022, claiming the professional staffing agency had misclassified them as exempt from overtime and denied proper breaks under California law. The case moved from state to federal court and proceeded normally through discovery for more than a year. Then in December 2023, just five days after the workers finished arguing for class certification, TEKsystems rolled out a new mandatory arbitration policy. The timing would prove fatal to the company's strategy. On December 19, TEKsystems sent two carefully crafted emails. The first went to all internal staff, describing arbitration agreements as common, efficient, and cost-effective. But it went further, calling class action lawsuits wasteful and inefficient, claiming they tend to enrich only attorneys rather than employees with legitimate claims. Hours later, a second email targeted the 164 workers who were potential class members. This message informed them about the lawsuit for the first time and presented them with a choice: sign a form by January 9 to opt out of the arbitration agreement and stay in the class action, or do nothing and be automatically bound to arbitration. The structure flipped normal class action procedures on their head. Typically, workers who do nothing remain in the lawsuit. TEKsystems made inaction equal automatic exclusion from the class. The emails arrived during the December holiday season, with the initial deadline falling on New Year's Eve. Workers had to make a major legal decision while many were on vacation or distracted by family obligations. The messages told workers they were free to consult an attorney but simultaneously instructed them not to share the emails with others. They implied workers would need to hire their own lawyers, never mentioning they could talk to the plaintiffs' attorneys for free. Contact information for those attorneys was accessible only by clicking through to the complaint, rather than being provided directly. Throughout the communications, TEKsystems repeatedly warned that class action lawyers charge exorbitant fees. This language left workers wondering whether seeking legal advice would cost them money they did not have. Adding to the confusion, the emails contained contradictory information. One stated the opt-out deadline was January 9, 2023, while another said January 9, 2024. Workers were never told that class certification briefing had finished and a decision was coming soon. Of the 164 workers who received the targeted email, only 41 opted out to stay in the lawsuit. The remaining 123 did nothing and found themselves bound to arbitration. When TEKsystems asked the court to enforce those arbitration agreements, both the district court and the appeals court refused. Circuit Judge Lucy Koh, writing for a three-judge panel, explained that federal courts have broad authority to protect the fairness of class action procedures. That authority includes refusing to enforce arbitration agreements obtained through misleading communications, even though federal law generally favors arbitration. The court identified multiple problems with the rollout. The repeated disparagement of class actions appeared designed to discourage workers from participating in the lawsuit. The internal contradictions between the two emails created confusion. The omission of key information prevented workers from making informed decisions. Most fundamentally, the court found that TEKsystems had subverted the basic structure of class actions by turning an opt-out proceeding into an opt-in proceeding through the arbitration agreement. TEKsystems argued the court had no power to rule on the arbitration agreements because a delegation clause in the contract assigned such disputes to an arbitrator. The appeals court rejected that argument, explaining that when workers challenge the validity of the entire agreement, including the delegation clause, judges must decide the challenge before sending anyone to arbitration. The decision aligns the Ninth Circuit with three other federal appeals courts that have reached similar conclusions. Together, these rulings signal a national consensus that employers cannot use arbitration agreements to manipulate class action litigation. This does not mean arbitration agreements are prohibited. TEKsystems had longstanding arbitration policies for its external consultants that nobody challenged. The problem arose specifically from implementing a new policy for internal employees during active litigation using communications designed to reduce participation in that litigation. For HR professionals, the takeaways are straightforward. Implementing arbitration policies before litigation starts avoids accusations of strategic manipulation. Rolling them out mid-lawsuit, especially after class certification proceedings begin, invites intense judicial scrutiny. Communications with employees must be scrupulously fair, avoiding language that disparages class actions or suggests workers will face financial hardship if they participate. Provide complete information about deadlines and options, make it easy to contact all relevant lawyers, and clarify that plaintiffs' attorneys typically work on contingency. Major policy changes requiring employee action should not land during holidays when workers are least able to respond thoughtfully. Most critically, courts will not tolerate arbitration agreements that transform opt-out classes into opt-in classes by making inaction equal exclusion. TEKsystems now faces continued class action proceedings with all 123 workers it tried to move into arbitration remaining potential class members. The company spent significant resources on a strategy that generated an appeals court decision documenting its questionable tactics. As employment litigation grows more complex and class actions become more common, this case demonstrates that arbitration programs can effectively manage legal risk only when implemented with genuine attention to fairness, transparency, and timing. [GN] TIDEWATER PROPERTY: Court Conditionally Certifies "Floyd" Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Tira Floyd, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tidewater Property Management, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. MJM-25-2003 (D. Md.), Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part Plaintiff Floyd's Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Notice to Potential Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Tira Floyd filed this putative collective action on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees of Tidewater Property Management, Inc. alleging denial of overtime compensation in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Thereafter, the Complaint was amended to join Mark Hoage as a second plaintiff. Plaintiffs were salaried Community Association Managers and their job duties included interfacing with housing communities in Maryland with which Defendant had contracts. According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs' schedules required them to regularly work evening hours, attending board meetings of condo associations and attending to other responsibilities, as well as working normal business hours at Defendant's office. Floyd worked on average 54.5 hours per week, and Hoage worked approximately 60 to 70 hours per week while employed by Defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant had knowledge of all hours that Plaintiffs worked, expected Plaintiffs to work these hours, and failed to pay Plaintiffs at the required overtime pay rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rates. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant avoided overtime pay by making Property Managers salaried employees and regarding them as exempt for purposes of overtime pay. Plaintiff Floyd requested that the Court order conditional certification of a putative collective of similarly situated employees, authorize distribution of opt-in notices to putative collective members, and order Defendant to provide to Plaintiffs full names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of potential plaintiffs for distribution of notice. She defined the putative collective as all current or former Property Managers who worked for Defendant at any time within three years of the date of entry of this Court's Order granting this Motion. Although Defendant contended the evidence will ultimately show that collective action is improper based on the individualized nature of working conditions and circumstances of each of Tidewater's Community Association Managers, Defendant did not meaningfully challenge conditional certification of Plaintiffs' proposed collective. The Court found that Plaintiff Floyd made an adequate showing that she and the proposed collective members are sufficiently similarly situated and have been subjected to the same alleged misclassification of exemption from overtime pay. Members of the proposed collective all shared the title of Property Manager. In her declaration, Plaintiff Floyd attested to three specific names of other salaried Property Managers with whom she discussed working overtime hours without compensation. Plaintiff Floyd also noted the fact that she observed specific, common work responsibilities that other Property Managers employed by Defendant undertake outside of normal work hours. These responsibilities include working on-site at properties, attending evening meetings, and making work calls/emails outside of normal work hours. Regarding the content and method of notice, the Court allowed notice by text message, in addition to postal mail and email. The Court found that Defendant's proposed modifications to Plaintiff's notices are appropriate. The Court also found appropriate Plaintiffs' request that if defense counsel's name and address are included on the notice form, this information be accompanied by a disclaimer stating that defense counsel are obligated to represent the best interests of Defendant and have no legal obligation to you or your interest. The Court approved of Plaintiffs' proposed distribution of a reminder notice. However, the Court authorized that the preliminary notices be sent via U.S. mail, text message, and email, and that reminder notices to be sent by email only, 21 days before the end of a 90-day notice period. Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant to disclose to Plaintiffs full names, phone numbers, and last-known e-mail and home address information for potential members of the putative collective; authorized initial distribution of Plaintiff's proposed notice form to collective members by U.S. mail, e-mail, and text message; and authorized reminder notices by email only. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b97EZr from Pacermonitor.com Defendant Tidewater Property Management, Inc. 3600 Crondall Lane, Suite 100 Owings Mill, MD 21117 Represented By Caitlin E. Tobin Whiteford Taylor & Preston 202-836-8461 ctobin@whitefordlaw.com Randi Klein Hyatt Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP 410-347-8712 Plaintiff Tira Floyd On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated 9200 Bridle Path Lane, Apt. C Laurel, MD 20723 Represented By Philip B Zipin Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC pzipin@zagfirm.com Charles Wade Tracy 215-353-1512 charleswtracy@gmail.com Plaintiff Mark Hoage Represented By Philip B Zipin Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC pzipin@zagfirm.com Charles Wade Tracy 215-353-1512 charleswtracy@gmail.co TOPPS COMPANY: Sanchez Sues Over Misleading Business Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00791 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breaching an express warranty concerning the Mega Box and its qualities because Topps' statement about the Mega Box was false and the Mega Box does not conform to Topps' affirmation and promise. The complaint relates that Topps produced the "2025-26 Topps NBA Chrome Basketball Trading Card Mega Box" ("Mega Box") and sold the Mega Box online and in brick-and-mortar retail stores across the country, including a Target store in Broward County, Florida. Topps' business model invites consumers to purchase its products, and in this case the Mega Box, in hopes of finding cards with resale value. Topps markets the Mega Box with express statements on the product's packaging encouraging consumers to "Chase Exclusive Blue X-Fractors," or buy the Mega Box with the expectation that it may contain a rare "Blue X-Fractor" card. A Blue X-Fractor is a unique type of trading card that is particularly sought after given its rarity and increased resale value. Based on Topps' representation on the outside of the box, consumers, like Plaintiff, purchased the Mega Box with the reasonable belief that they have a chance to obtain a Blue X-Fractor card with resale value. However, on January 13, 2026, Topps revealed there is zero chance a consumer will obtain a Blue X-Fractor in the Mega Box. Topps disclosed this in an email to its customers and subscribers. Initially, Topps told consumers some Mega Boxes did not contain any Blue X-Fractor cards due to a printing error. Thereafter, Topps confessed that no Mega Boxes include Blue X-Fractor cards, despite Topps' prior representation to the contrary, says the suit. The Plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class suffered an injury-in-fact caused by Defendant's false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices; lost the benefit of their bargains with Topps, and seek all relief allowed by law, including damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Justin Sanchez is a resident and citizen of Hollywood, Florida. Defendant The Topps Company, Inc. manufactures, advertises, and sells Topps-branded sports and entertainment trading cards, sports memorabilia, and digital collectibles for personal collection and/or for commercial resale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Class Suit Closed --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK YODICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOURO COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tammi Hellwig entered a judgment that for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan, 27, 2026, the Defendant's Oct. 30, 2025 motion for summary judgment is granted. The plaintiff's July 29, 2025 motion for class certification is denied; accordingly, the case is closed. Touro is a private Jewish university system. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xOvqvb at no extra charge.[CC] TPS GROUP: Mulvaney Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Mulvaney, Angelice Delvalle Diaz, Jordan Kemple, Valerie John, and Lindsie Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TPS GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, &b/a 'THE PAPER STORE," "GIFTS & MORE AT THE PAPER STORE," and "UNCHARTED," Case No. 2581CV03129 was removed from the Superior Court of Middlesex County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-10439. The Plaintiffs allege a single violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant "has been willfully violating the Act's card number truncation requirements by printing 10 digits (the first 6 and the last 4) of credit and debit cards on the receipts it provides to cardholders at its stores." The Plaintiffs allege that TPS's alleged printing of 10 digits of the card number on a receipt "likely resulted in the printing of millions of paper receipts at its stores that included twice the allowable number of card number digits, subjecting every cardholder to the very type of identity theft Congress intended to prevent." The Plaintiffs allege that TPS "acted with reckless disregard for the law, and for the financial security of its customers."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: James H. Rollinson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square #2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216.861.7075 Email: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Bingham Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Bingham, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transunion LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-08267 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15389 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita Jyotindra Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: William Elliott Ridgway, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 320 S. Canal St., Ste. 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-5707 Phone: (312) 407-0700 Fax: (312) 407-0711 Email: william.ridgway@skadden.com TWEEDS SUIT: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWEEDS SUIT SHOP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20689 (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.tweedssuitshop.com, is not compatible with screen reader software used by individuals who are blind or visually impaired. As a result, the Defendant has failed to provide effective communication to the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals with disabilities, says the suit. Tweeds Suit Shop, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Judgment Order in Mansor Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Fayez Mansor, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00347-JLR, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Immigration Actions for the Administrative Procedure Act. On Nov. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On same day, the Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 1, 2025, Judge James L. Robart entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. On Dec. 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to amend judgment, which Judge Robart denied for failure to comply with Rule 7(e)(2) on Jan. 5, 2026. On Jan. 7, 2026, the Defendants filed an amended motion to amend judgment. The appellate case is styled as Mansor, et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., Case No. 26-628, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 2, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire due February 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 16, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on April 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees FAYEZ MANSOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Edward Fortunato Ramos, Esq. Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. KURZBAN, KURZBAN, TETZELI & PRATT, PA 131 Madeira Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 - and - Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq. Mary A. Kenney, Esq. Trina A. Realmuto, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE 10 Griggs Terrace Brookline, MA 02446 - and - Matt Adams, Esq. Aaron Korthuis, Esq. Leila Kang, Esq. Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al. are represented by: Mary Larakers, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 - and - Michelle Lambert, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101 UNITED STATES: John Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled In re: John Doe, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of Civil Rights Act. On Apr. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for temporary restraining order. On July 7, 2025, Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an Order dismissing pro se case without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The appellate case is styled as In re: John Doe, et al., Case No. 26-5043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on February 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOHN DOE, et al. appear pro se. UNITED STATES: Pablo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN ARACELY PABLO SEQUEN, YULISA ALVARADO AMBROCIO, and LIGIA GARCIA, v. SERGIO ALBARRAN, MARCOS CHARLES, THOMAS GILES, MONICA BURKE, KRISTI NOEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, TODD M. LYONS, SIRCE E. OWEN, PAMELA BONDI, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION AND REVIEW, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 5:25-cv-06487-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order issuing a final certification order, based on the submitted proposed order, certifying the Courthouse Arrest and Detention classes that were provisionally certified on Nov. 25, 2025. Courthouse Arrest class: This class consists of "all persons who have an immigration court hearing in a proceeding on EOIR's non-detained docket in an immigration courthouse in ICE's San Francisco Field Office Area of Responsibility." Detention class: This class consists of "all persons who are now or will be detained in a holding cell in ICE's San Francisco Field Office." The two Provisionally Certified Classes meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). On Sept. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for provisional class certification. The Department of Homeland Security works to improve the security of the United States A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGfn93 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark L. Hejinian, Esq. Marcia V. Valente, Esq. David C. Beach, Esq. Charmaine G. Yu, Esq. Evan G. Campbell, Esq. Darien Lo, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-4800 E-mail: ef-mlh@cpdb.com ef-mvv@cpdb.com ef-dcb@cpdb.com ef-cgy@cpdb.com ef-egc@cpdb.com ef-dxl@cpdb.com - and - Neil K. Sawhney, Esq. Lauren M. Davis, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 E-mail: nsawhney@aclunc.org ldavis@aclunc.org - and - Marissa Hatton, Esq. Andrew Ntim, Esq. Jordan Wells, Esq. Nisha Kashyap, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-9444 E-mail: mhatton@lccrsf.org antim@lccrsf.org jwells@lccrsf.org nkashyap@lccrsf.org - and - Laura Victoria Sanchez, Esq. Tala Berardi Hartsough, Esq. CARECEN SF 3101 Mission Street, Suite 101 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 642-4402 E-mail: laura@carecensf.org tala@carecensf.org USA MINISO DEPOT: Wu Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Miniso Depot Inc. The case is styled as Alex Cen Wu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA Miniso Depot Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00814 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Miniso Depot CA Inc. -- https://www.miniso-us.com/ -- specializes in importing and distributing affordable lifestyle products for MINISO's U.S. retail and online markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com VENEZIA BULK: Fails to Secure Private Information, Kish Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- GREG KISH individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. VENEZIA BULK TRANSPORT, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00637 (E.D. Pa., January 30, 2026) arises from Venezia Bulk's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in August 2025 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of Plaintiff/s and other individuals. Defendant launched an investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its systems and may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Despite learning of the Data Breach on August 13, 2025, and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until January 22, 2026. As a result of Venezia Bulk's Data Breach, Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Venezia Bulk's unlawful conduct. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate, long term credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Greg Kish is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, residing in the city of Dilltown. Plaintiff is a former employee of Venezia Bulk. Defendant Venezia Bulk Transport, Inc. is a transport company for bulk dry and liquid products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (215) 888-3214 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com VENEZUELA: Bid to Set Class Briefing Schedule Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzaccone v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-09114-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered an order denying the Parties' application to set a briefing schedule for class. A motion for class certification requires a pre-motion letter pursuant to Individual Rule III.A.1. By Feb. 11, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file a pre motion letter in support of the anticipated motion. By Feb. 18, 2026, the Defendant shall file a responsive letter. A conference to discuss the letter briefing will be held on Feb. 24, 2026, at 3:15 P.M. The conference will be held in-person at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY, 10007 at Room 1106. The conference scheduled for March 17, 2026, is cancelled. The Defendant is a tropical country on the northern coast of South America. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SwSZsV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Rudolph J. DiMassa, Esq. ARTI FOTEDAR Stephanie Lamerce 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017-4669 Telephone: (212) 692-1032 Facsimile: (212) 692-1020 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com dimassa@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com The Defendant is represented by: Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0186 E-mail: ccardozo@velaw.com mantonelli@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VP AVIATION: Kinney Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Galen Kinney, for himself and others similarly situated, v. VP AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC f/k/a VP AVIATION TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-00236 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2026), is brought to recover the unpaid wages, overtime, and other damages owed to himself and similarly situated workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA"). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff by the hour. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff time and a half when he works more than 40 hours in a week. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those over 40 in a workweek. This "straight time for overtime" pay plan violates the sFLSA and KWPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant Technical Services in Wichita, Kansa. VP Aviation provides "comprehensive aviation maintenance solutions, offering expertise in aircraft maintenance, AOG support, fixed-bid projects, and supplemental labor services (aviation staffing)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com WHEDCO DEVELOPMENT: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHEDCO DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00812 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://bronxmusichall.org 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 December 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase T-Shirts from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He 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, asserts the complaint. 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. Whedco Development Corp. operates the website that offers information on its community cultural center and related clothing products.[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 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ********* 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 ***