260211.mbx

260211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 11, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 30 Headlines AG1 INC: Faces Hoke Suit Over Illegal Automatic Renewal Scheme AHAAA LLC: Chamul Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Turnage Due May 22 ALORICA INC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings in Munoz AMERICAN DENTAL: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ARLINGTON SPORTSERVICE: Lemons Suit Seek Collective Action Status ATLANTIC UNION: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Response BELVEDERE NRDE: Bid for Class Cert in Valencia Denied as Moot BOOHOOPLC.COM INC: Hippe Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CARMAX AUTO: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Brown Says CENTRAL STATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bertsos Says CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Suit Seeks to Exclude Evidence COMFORT SYSTEMS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Jones Suit Alleges COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Gaertner Wins Bid for Class Cert COMSCORE INC: Faces Singer Class Suit Over Data Surveillance COOPERSURGICAL INC: Class Cert Bid in F.G. Suit Due March 20 COPA AMERICA: $14MM Final Settlement Ends Ticketholders Class Suit CRAWFORD CO: Court Stays "Archie" Pending Arbitration CUSIP GLOBAL: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Dinosaur Suit DAILY HARVEST: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Quiet Hours Violation DONALD TRUMP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 5 DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Deller Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ELIGO ENERGY: Brous Seeks to Provisionally Redact Class Cert Memo FASHION NOVA: DOJ Questions Settlement Value for Blind Consumers FORD MOTOR: Faulty F-150 Class Suit Survives Dismissal Attempt FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Bid GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Decertify Class Rodriguez Tossed GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks to Seal Opposition to Class Cert. Bid HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Caston Due Nov. 20 HORIZON TECHNOLOGY: Bushansky Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties KAHALA FRANCHISING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Says LASTPASS DATA: $8.2MM Class Settlement Ends 2022 Data Breach Suit LITTLE PARIS: Court OKs Change in Local Counsel in "Alvarado" LUPINE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Alleges MADE BY MARY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Alleges MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Underpays Travel Clinicians, Braccini Alleges MID AMERICA PET: Sets $100,000 Cap on Breeder Reimbursements ORACLE CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit in D. Del. PANERA BREAD: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jacobs Says PREMIER OFFICE: Illegally Tracks Users' Browsing Data, Blaker Says ROYAL ENTERTAINMENT: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Crosswhite SIMS REALTY: Property Violates ADA, Maurer Class Suit Alleges SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Faces Krivatch Suit Over Online Gambling SYSCO CORP: Avalos Balks at Unlawful Health Insurance Surcharges THRASIO LLC: Makar Sues Over Contaminated Enzyme Stain Remover TOOTSIE ROLL: Face Class Suit Over High Arsenic Levels in Candies UNITED NETWORK: Court Sets "White" Class Certification Hearing Date UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Students Receive Settlement Payouts USAA CASUALTY: Parties' Bids to Seal Docs OK'd VAXART INC: Parties Seek Approval of Summary Notice VENEZIA BULK: Bumbarger Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info VENTURE GLOBAL: Mayoll Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA VOYA FINANCIAL: Ravarino ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class W.L. GORE: Brouillette Sues Over Exposure to Harmful Chemicals WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE: Cline Seeks Settlement Deal Initial OK ********* AG1 INC: Faces Hoke Suit Over Illegal Automatic Renewal Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL HOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AG1 (USA), INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01110 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2026) is a putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant for engaging in an alleged illegal "automatic renewal" scheme. The Defendant sells a wide range of health supplements through various online channels, including on its website, www.drinkag1.com (the Website), and in advertisements on social-media sites, including Instagram. Whenever a consumer purchases Defendant's products -- whether it be on the Website or through a social-media advertisement -- Defendant surreptitiously enrolls the consumer in an automatically renewing "subscription" that, unbeknownst to the consumer at the time, results in recurring charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account every month, in perpetuity until canceled (the AG1 Subscriptions). Prior to enrolling Plaintiff and the Class members into AG1 Subscriptions -- and thereafter assessing each of their Payment Methods a recurring charge on a monthly basis -- Defendant failed to provide the disclosures and authorizations required by California's Automatic Renewal Law, to any of these consumers., The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add different or additional defendants, including without limitation any officer, director, employee, supplier, or distributor of Defendant who has knowingly and willfully aided, abetted, and/or conspired in the alleged false and deceptive conduct. The Defendant is an online-based retailer of dietary supplements, which it sells on its Website to consumers nationwide, including throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-Mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM 165 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, New York 10006 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com AHAAA LLC: Chamul Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CHAMUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHAAA, LLC d/b/a HARRY'S BAR & RESTAURANT, Case No. 9:25-cv-81013-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending time for him to file a Rule 23 motion for class certification, until March 17, 2026. The Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a modest extension because he has acted diligently in pursuing discovery necessary to support class certification. Accordingly, on Jan. 29, 2026, Plaintiff conducted the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative. Defendant has scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for February 20, 2026. The Parties' deposition testimony will be necessary for the Court to evaluate the class certification factors pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Parties will also require the transcription of the deposition testimony which will require additional time. The Defendant is a dining establishment with two primary locations in New York City and West Palm Beach, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xl9yAc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Justin David Edell, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 612-3479 Facsimile: (561) 683-8977 E-mail: justin.edell@csklegal.com AION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Turnage Due May 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA TURNAGE, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, V. AION MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00840-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order granting the joint motion for entry of proposed consent order governing discovery. The following deadlines shall govern the conduct of discovery in this case: (1) Class discovery shall close on April 30, 2026; (2) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on May 22, 2026; (3) The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on June 22, 2026; (4) The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification shall be filed on July 2, 2026; (5) A hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on July 24, 2026; (6) Fact discovery shall close on July 31 2026; (7) The Plaintiff's expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ P. 26 shall be made on May 29, 2026; (8) The Defendants' expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 shall be made on June 29, 2026; (9) Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made on July 13, 2026; (10) Expert discovery shall close on August 31, 2026; (11) All Dauhert motions and motions for summary judgment shall be filed on Sept. 18, 2026; responses thereto shall be filed on Oct. 16, 2026; and replies shall be filed on Oct. 30, 2026. Aion operates as a property management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C20taH at no extra charge.[CC] ALORICA INC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings in Munoz ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, MELISSA OLSEN, and MICHELLE L. POWELL, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA INC.; ALORICA RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; LISA ADAMSCHICK; JOYCE TODD-GUERRA; CHRIS HYUN; ELIZABETH LAN PAN; EMILY KILGORE; RICK HAYES; DEON STENNER; MATTHEW VONDETTE; DAN FINNEGAN; JAE CHANEY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Feb. 27, 2026, will move under Rule 23(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., to stay all proceedings in this case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision of the Defendants' appeal of the Sept. 22, 2025 Order regarding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This motion is made following a meet and confer among counsel that started, in person, following the Jan. 9, 2025, hearing, and continued via email on January 13, 16 and 20. Counsel for the parties then met by video conference on Jan. 23, 2026. The Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC agrees that proceedings in the Court should be stayed while the appeal is pending. The Plaintiffs have advised that they do not agree and do not consent to a stay. Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LZZfe2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Prame, Esq. Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq. Larry M. Blocho Jr., Esq. Theodore A. Van Beek, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006-5811 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 E-mail: mjp@groom.com ASalek-Raham@groom.com - and - Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 E-mail: ksulzer@constangy.com AMERICAN DENTAL: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Dental Associates, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01084 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://atooth.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff Anderson was looking for a dental clinic and decided to search online for available options. While searching on Google for a dental appointment in Chicago, she discovered Defendant's website and decided to explore its services and make an appointment for a dental check-up. However, while attempting to use the website's appointment-booking features, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the process. Keyboard navigation caused sub-menus to expand automatically, forcing her to tab through every item and making navigation difficult. Although a "skip to content" feature was present, it did not function on the appointment page, requiring her to repeatedly navigate the same menu items with her screen reader. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, 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. American Dental Associates, Ltd. operates the website that offers dental care 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 ARLINGTON SPORTSERVICE: Lemons Suit Seek Collective Action Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL LEMONS, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. ARLINGTON SPORTSERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01034-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the agreed motion for Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action certification and notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order certifying a collective action as follows: "All current and/or former bartender employees of Arlington Sportservice, Inc. (a/k/a Delaware North) who worked at Globe Life Field at any time between July 9, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2026 and were paid on a tipped and hourly basis." The Defendant provides a range of services related to sports events and facilities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z4TqP7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com ATLANTIC UNION: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of 11 days for the Plaintiff to respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss and an extension of 11 days for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Jan. 26, 2026, the Plaintiff filed their motion for class certification. Atlantic is a bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kLT75H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon J. Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD, P.C. 4235-A Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 Telephone: (540) 283-9343 E-mail: dmunro@trialsva.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mschubert@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Douglas M. Garrou, Esq. Nash E. Long, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-8355 E-mail: dgarrou@hunton.com nlong@Hunton.com BELVEDERE NRDE: Bid for Class Cert in Valencia Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CAMILLA VALENCIA RIOS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, V. BELVEDERE NRDE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00474-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order that by March 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement along with a supporting memorandum and documentation. The Court further entered an order that: -- a hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement shall be held at 10:00 a.m. April 13, 2026. -- hearing respecting a Motion for Class Certification scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Feb. 27, 2026, is cancelled. Furthermore, the following motions are denied as moot: -- Defendants Belvedere Nrde, LLC And Glenmoor Oaks Nrde, LLC's Motion To Dismiss -- Defendant Pegasus Residential, LLC's motion to dismiss count I of the amended complaint under federal rule 12(b)(6) -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Belvedere is a real estate entity involved in apartment management. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i9osKJ at no extra charge.[CC] BOOHOOPLC.COM INC: Hippe Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boohooplc.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-164 (E.D. Wis., January 30, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.karenmillen.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Hippe and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 14, 2025, Plaintiff Hippe discovered KarenMillen.com while searching online for a dress for an upcoming formal event. While researching, she learned about the website and decided to place an order. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed with the purchase. Specifically, the navigation menus do not allow repeated content to be expanded or collapsed and instead automatically expand when they receive focus. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Hippe 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. Boohooplc.com, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of women's apparel and accessories, including dresses, shirts, skirts, jumpsuits, pants, coats, jackets, suits, shorts, sweaters, swimwear items, belts, bags, hats, and more.[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 CARMAX AUTO: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Brown Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EARL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00999 (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other individuals who had their sensitive personal information, disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising CarMax. In or around January 2026, a criminal threat actor known as ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for gaining unauthorized access to CarMax's systems and data, which included the sensitive personal information of millions. Although Defendant has not publicly confirmed the data breach nor the nature of the data accessed or exfiltrated by ShinyHunters, the threat actor's claims regarding the unauthorized acquisition of CarMax data and threats to disclose that data are sufficiently credible based on the threat actor's known modus operandi. The Defendant's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their personal information is now in the hands of criminals, and they now face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Brown is a customer of CarMax and provided his personal information to CarMax as a condition of obtaining CarMax's products and services. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia, operates a national chain of used and certified pre-owned automobile dealerships and related online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa D. Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com CENTRAL STATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bertsos Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DAN BERTSOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL STATES DERMATOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, doing business as DOCS and as DOCS DERMATOLOGY GROUP and as DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES, and DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES, LLC, doing business as DOCS and as DOCS DERMATOLOGY GROUP, and as DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00099-DRC (S.D. Ohio, January 30, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants' 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. Between November 19, 2025, and November 27, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed Defendants' network and exfiltrated sensitive private information. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard their current and former patients' private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, says the suit. The Plaintiff would not have provided their valuable private information had they known that Defendants would make their private information Internet-accessible, not encrypt personal and sensitive data elements, and not delete the private information it no longer had reason to maintain, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Central States Dermatology Services, LLC operate dermatology offices across ten states in 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 - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 970-8181 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Suit Seeks to Exclude Evidence ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDRICK DAVIS,on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CLIENTS ON DEMAND, LLC, and RUSSELL RUFFINO, individually and as an officer of CLIENTS ON DEMAND, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 20, 2026, will move to exclude evidence and limit argument and questioning related to the propriety of class certification. The motion is made following the pre-trial meeting of counsel on Jan. 12, 2026, where Plaintiff advised Defendants of his intention to file this motion. The Court should preclude the Defendants from presenting evidence or argument going to the procedural requirements of Rule 23. Issues relating to commonality of the claims of the certified class, ascertainability of the certified class, typicality of the class representatives, adequacy of the class representatives or of counsel, or superiority of class treatment as compared with individual actions are not for the jury to decide. Allowing the Defendants to revisit their failed arguments on these points at trial will only confuse the jury and unnecessarily bloat trial. Clients on Demand is a sales and marketing education and training company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nOcKvN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq. Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (857) 945-3100 E-mail: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com COMFORT SYSTEMS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Jones Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JARED JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC. 401(K) PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:26-cv-00849 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 3, 2026) is a class action brought pursuant to sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Plan's fiduciaries. According to the complaint, Prudential benefited significantly from Plan participants being invested in the Prudential GIF. The assets invested in the Prudential GIF were held and invested by Prudential, which kept the spread (the difference between the amount Prudential earned on the investments and the amount Prudential paid to Plan participants). The crediting rates that Prudential provided to investors in the Prudential GIF were/are so low that Prudential reaped a windfall on the spread. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants engaged in prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest. Specifically, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence by allowing a party-in-interest, Prudential, to benefit from its provision of services to the Plan by receiving excessive compensation for managing the Prudential GIF. The Plan is a defined contribution plan, established pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34) of ERISA, that enables eligible participants to make tax-deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plan. The Plan is also large in terms of the number of its participants. At the beginning of the Class Period, the Plan had 13,889 participants. By 2024, the Plan had 20,272 participants. Accordingly, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in a Guaranteed Income Fund. The Prudential GIF carried significantly 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. The Plaintiff, Jared Jones, resides in Missoula, Montana. During his employment, Plaintiff Jones participated in the Plan. Mr. Jones invested in the Prudential GIF in the Plan and suffered injury to his Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Prudential GIF. Comfort Systems is a building and service provider for mechanical, electrical and plumbing building systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 14 1/2 E. Louisianna Street Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Telephone: (469) 941-0040 E-mail: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com - and - 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 COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Gaertner Wins Bid for Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GAERTNER and CARSON KOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02452-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge McGlynn, entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court finds the class is not overbroad on extraterritoriality grounds at this stage. Because this case is at the class-certification stage— further along than a motion to dismiss but short of summary judgment—the parties will have the opportunity to develop additional facts during merits discovery. GradImages may renew its extraterritoriality argument if warranted. The Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. GradImages identifies no genuine evidentiary deficiency that undermines the Rule 23 showing. Accordingly, the Court rejects GradImages' argument that Plaintiffs failed to submit actual evidence and finds the evidentiary record adequate for certification. This proposed class action arises under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The Plaintiffs contend that GradImages photographed each of them at their ceremonies and transmitted those images for facial recognition processing. GradImages then posted the resulting images for sale on its website and sent marketing communications soliciting Plaintiffs to purchase the photographs. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All individuals depicted in photos taken by GradImages in the State of Illinois and submitted for facial recognition on or after July 14, 2018." Excluded from the Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) the Defendants, the Defendants' subsidiaries, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who timely request exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Defendants' counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. Commemorative is a manufacturer of commemorative products, including class rings, yearbooks, graduation regalia, and championship jewelry. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QbNzq5 at no extra charge.[CC] COMSCORE INC: Faces Singer Class Suit Over Data Surveillance ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY LAWRENCE SINGER and TINA ARCHER SANTUCCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and FULL CIRCLE STUDIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-01108 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2026) is a class action complaint and demand for jury trial against Defendants for surreptitiously collecting consumers' web browsing activities. The lawsuit challenges Comscore's vast data surveillance of California residents' internet activities without their knowledge or consent, including the surveillance of sensitive health communications. Operating through Comscore, Inc.' s subsidiary Full Circle Studies, Inc. and its ScorecardResearch product, the Defendants deploy these Scorecard Tags to collect users' IP addresses, device information, browsing data, and persistent cookie identifiers, including a unique "UID/XID" cookie that follows users across different websites and browsing sessions. Comscore is a media measurement, analytics, and data broker company that secretly tracks consumers across the internet through invisible tracking code called Scorecard Tags. These Scorecard Tags are embedded on thousands of websites. They intercept users’ communications in real-time, including their searches, page views, and interactions with sensitive health content.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com kctang@millershah.com - and - Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: nlange@fklmlaw.com jjagher@fklmlaw.com COOPERSURGICAL INC: Class Cert Bid in F.G. Suit Due March 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.U. and V.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01261-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order to continue scheduling order deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' March 20, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Fact discovery deadline: March 27, 2026 Class certification opposition and Sept. 21, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Defendant's Rule 702/Daubert motion Nov. 20, 2026 related to class certification due: Plaintiffs' Rule 702/Daubert motion: Dec. 18, 2026 Class certification reply and Plaintiffs' Jan 15, 2027 expert reply disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 15, 2027 Class certification hearing: Mar. 8, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. CooperSurgical offers women health care medical instruments, devices and disposables. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpEW0l at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tracey B. Cowan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 - and - Nina R. Gliozzo, Esq. Sarah R. London, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St #1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (866) 981-4800 The Defendants are represented by: Jenny A. Covington, Esq. Molly Jean Given, Esq. Stephen Beke, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-9921 Facsimile: (612) 605-9511 E-mail: JCovington@carltonfields.com MGiven@carltonfields.com sbeke@carltonfields.com COPA AMERICA: $14MM Final Settlement Ends Ticketholders Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a $14,000,000 Copa America Final settlement is set to end a class action lawsuit over allegations that ticketholders to the July 14, 2024 soccer match between Argentina and Colombia were wrongfully denied access to and the full enjoyment of their seats at Miami's Hard Rock Stadium. The Copa America class action settlement received preliminary court approval on November 25, 2025 and covers all valid ticketholders to the Copa America Final match who were either denied entry to Hard Rock Stadium or admitted to the stadium but denied full access to and enjoyment of stadium facilities or specific seats purchased. The court-approved website for the Hard Rock Stadium class action settlement can be found at FinalMatchSettlement.com. According to court documents, all class members, regardless of which particular settlement benefits they seek, must submit a timely, valid claim form accompanied by the names of each person for whom they purchased tickets to the 2024 Copa America final and valid proof of purchase. Proof of purchase must show that the class member did not sell the tickets for which they are submitting a claim, court documents stress. Settlement class members who were denied entry to Hard Rock Stadium for the final are eligible to receive up to $2,000 in reimbursement per ticket for out-of-pocket ticket costs, including up to $300 in travel cost reimbursement, the settlement website says. Total cash payouts per ticket will not exceed $2,000 for class members denied entry to the stadium, the settlement site specifies. Each class member who was denied access to the stadium must submit a form of government-issued photo ID (such as a driver's license or passport) that includes the class member's unredacted name and picture. Alternatively, class members can submit with their claim form a date- and time-stamped photo or video taken outside the stadium that shows their full face, the settlement site says. Importantly, court documents disclose that IDs, photos, or videos shared for the purpose of confirming a class member's identity may potentially be submitted to a third-party vendor, which will utilize facial recognition technology to compare the submitted documents to videos or photographs taken during the final match. Per the settlement site, facial recognition technology will be used solely to confirm identities and authenticate claims. Class members who were allowed to enter the venue but were denied full access and enjoyment of Hard Rock Stadium are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $100 per ticket, the settlement site says. Should the number of valid claim forms exhaust the class action settlement fund, claims submitted by class members who were denied access to the stadium will be paid out first, and claims made by class members denied full access to stadium facilities will be prorated based on the remaining settlement funds, unless the amount will leave less than $50 available for each prorated payment, court documents explain. If less than $50 is available to each class member who was denied full access to stadium facilities, denied full-access payments will be increased to $50, and the cash awards to class members denied access to the stadium would instead be prorated. To submit a Hard Rock Stadium-Copa America Final claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and PIN found in their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator listed at the top of the document. The agreement adds that claimants may submit only one settlement claim form per household. If two or more class members live together, they must each provide the required information and documentation, with one claim form signed by each class member. All Copa America Final settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than August 11, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval of the Copa America Final settlement at a hearing on May 13, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Hard Rock Stadium class action lawsuit centered on alleged negligence on the part of Hard Rock Stadium, the continental soccer confederations CONAMEBOL and CONCACAF, and security service BEST Crowd Management, claiming the entities failed to implement necessary crowd-control measures at the Copa America final match. The case claimed that, as a result, there was "chaos" at the gates and general pandemonium, with a swarm of unticketed fans entering the stadium when the doors were opened to prevent a crush. Per the filing, the unticketed fans took the spots of valid ticket holders who were there to enjoy the game, denying them access to the stadium and the full enjoyment of the facilities and specific seats. [GN] CRAWFORD CO: Court Stays "Archie" Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alexis Archie, Vincent Fortado, Jeremy Hines, Stacy McRae, Travis Morris, Logan Owens, Charles Thompson, and Marlowe Westerfield, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crawford & Company and Crawford Catastrophe Services, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-57 (E.D. Tex.), Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that both entities violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court found that a valid arbitration agreement exists between Signatory Plaintiffs and Crawford Co., and clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Court determined Crawford CAT may enforce the Agreement as any parent, subsidiary, or other entity affiliated with Crawford Co. However, the Court held that Non-signatory Plaintiffs' claims were not inherently inseparable because each plaintiff sought relief for the violation of his own individual right to overtime pay. The Court denied both mandatory and discretionary stay for Non-signatory Plaintiffs, concluding two out of the three factors weigh against issuing a mandatory stay. Accordingly, the Court ordered that this case is stayed as to the Signatory Plaintiffs exclusively, pending the outcome of arbitration while the case remains open as to the Non-signatory Plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 02, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WwuzqL from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Crawford & Company and Crawford Catastrophe Services, LLC, Represented By: Garrett Kennedy Micala Rae Bernardo Maria A. Garrett DLA Piper LLP (US) garrett.kennedy@us.dlapiper.com micala.bernardo@dlapiper.com maria.garrett@dlapiper.com Plaintiff Alexis Archie Represented By: Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Vincent Fortado Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Jeremy Hines Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Stacy McRae Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Travis Morris Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Logan Owens Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Charles Thompson Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com Plaintiff Marlowe Westerfield Represented By Michael Allen Starzyk Starzyk & Associates, P.C. 281-364-7261 mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com CUSIP GLOBAL: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Dinosaur Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dinosaur Financial Group LLC et al., v. CUSIP Global Services et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal confidential information in materials filed in connection with the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, including the Defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of Einer Elhauge, Bettina Bergmann, and Frank Lenz, and all exhibits thereto. The Defendants seek to seal sensitive business information— including confidential contract terms, confidential strategic business practices, and non-public financial information—the disclosure of which would cause concrete harm to the disclosing parties. The Defendants' significant privacy interests in the information for which redaction is sought outweigh the public dissemination of this material. Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Court grant the proposed redactions and seal their confidential information, as well as the confidential information of nonparties. CUSIP provides financial services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lRG4iY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com DAILY HARVEST: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Quiet Hours Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Shapiro of TCPAWorld reports that another lawsuit involving an alleged violation of 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c)(1) (the "Quiet Hours Provision") just got filed in the U.S. Central District of California. As with many others, this one comes from Jibrael Hindi's office, which has filed numerous of quiet hours cases (and the word numerous is an understatement). As a refresher, the "quiet hours" provision under the TCPA prohibits initiating telephone solicitations before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time of the called party. The DNC provision provides that, when an individual whose phone number has been registered on the national DNC registry for more than thirty days receives more than one telephone solicitations in a twelve-month period, that individual has a private right of action. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(5). Section 227(c)(2), on the other hand, implements additional regulations, including the Quiet Hours Provision, which provides the same private right of action for telephone solicitations made either before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., in the recipient's local time. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(2); C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c)(1). In this latest suit, Bianca Johnston v. Daily Harvest LLC, 5:26-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026), Bianca Johnston, alleges that between October 21, 2025 and February 1, 2026, she received more than two (2) text messages from Daily Harvest (the smoothie brand that was then acquired by the yogurt juggernaut, Chobani in May 2025) before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time in her location. Sidenote: I chose February 1, 2026, since it is unclear when the last message was sent but as this complaint was filed on February 2, 2026, it made the most logical sense to include the February 1, 2026 date. Additionally, whoever drafted the complaint made a typo because it reads "On or about October 21, 2026" which is factually impossible. What is interesting is that Plaintiff alleges that more than two marketing messages were sent to Plaintiff before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at Plaintiff's location). And there have been rulings to support the fact that a recipient's area code determines the recipient's time zone. See Jubb v. CHW Group Inc., No. 23CV23382 (EP) (MAH), 2025 WL 942961 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025). However, from the screenshots provided in the complaint, only exactly two marketing messages were sent before 7 a.m. (one on October 21, 2025 and the other some time on or after December 19, 2025 though it is unclear exactly when). There are no other messages shown to be sent during the quiet hours as defined in the TCPA. Similarly to the blog above that covered the previous case that Jibrael Hindi's office filed, Bianca Johnston is not only seeking damages for herself but she is attempting to certify a nationwide class of people who also received marketing messages from Daily Harvest during the quiet hours. The class definition is: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). As a refresher, TCPA carries statutory violations of $500 per text and up to $1,500 if they were knowing and willful violations. For the two text messages that Bianca received outside the quiet hours, she could recover up to $3,000. However, that number of course could go up exponentially if the class is certified. For example, if even 50 additional people each received one marketing message from Daily Harvest outside the quiet hours, that would increase the potential liability to $26,000 if simply using the base statutory amount. It will be interesting to see where this case goes from here as the quiet hours provision within the greater TCPA framework is still an evolving area. As more cases get filed, more have the potential for important rulings and we will be sure to stay on top of all developments. I will keep you posted TCPAWorld on any news coming from this case. Until next time. [GN] DONALD TRUMP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 5 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered a scheduling and stay order. 1. The Plaintiffs shall file the Third Amended Complaint on the docket by Feb. 6, 2026. 2. Administrative record production and additional discovery shall be completed by May 8, 2026. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and class certification due by June 5, 2026. 4. The Defendants' combined brief in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and class certification due by July 2, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs' combined reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment and class certification and opposition to the Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment due by July 31, 2026. 6. The Defendants' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment due by Aug. 14, 2026. 7. A hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment and motion for class certification is set for Sept. 1, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IZRKOH at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting motion for leave to file third amended complaint and denying motion for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. With respect to the Plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the motion for provisional class certification and preliminary injunction is denied. With respect to Plaintiffs' APA claims, the Court declines to reach these claims pursuant to the parties’ agreement, and the motion for provisional class certification and preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice on this basis. The action was filed in June of 2025 by University of California ("UC") researchers, after a wave of en masse federal grant terminations via form letters abruptly cancelled the funding for many of the researchers' projects. Department of Energy ("DoE") has been a Defendant from the start, but none of the named Plaintiffs had grants terminated by DoE. In early Oct. 2025, however, DoE terminated more than $7 billion in grant funding en masse nationwide, including grants to two new proposed named Plaintiffs. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TEogPO at no extra charge.[CC] DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Deller Seeks Initial OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA DELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03746-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement; (2) Provisionally certifying the following Settlement Class: "All enrolled students at Drexel University during the Spring 2020 term who paid any Tuition and/or Fees for that term, or who were credited with having paid the same for the Spring 2020 Term;" Excluded from the Settlement Class is any person who (1) was enrolled solely in online classes through Drexel University Online, and/or (2) whose tuition and fees were fully funded by Drexel, or (3) who properly executes and files a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Joshua Deller as Settlement Class Representative; (4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the Settlement; (5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure, including approving the Parties' selection of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties’ proposed schedule; and (6) Preliminarily Approving the Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Settlement Class. Drexel is a private research university. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Xmt0x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com - and - Michael Tompkins, Esq. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com ELIGO ENERGY: Brous Seeks to Provisionally Redact Class Cert Memo ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brous et al., v. Eligo Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to provisionally redact and seal portions of the Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of their motion for class certification, and certain portions of and exhibits to my supporting declaration. The Plaintiffs' memorandum, my declaration, and Exhibits 3, 7–8, 10–16, 20–22, 24, 26–32, 36, and 38–42 to my declaration contain information that the Defendants designated confidential under the operative court-ordered protective order. Because the Plaintiffs are notifying Eligo today of their filing of the enclosed confidential information, the parties require additional time to formulate their positions on whether the enclosed information should remain under seal. Absent a briefing schedule set by the Court, Plaintiffs anticipate that by next week the parties will provide the Court with their positions on whether any or all of this information should remain under seal. Thank you for the Court's consideration of this matter. Eligo operates as a retail energy supplier company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C9raij at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com FASHION NOVA: DOJ Questions Settlement Value for Blind Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice.gov reports that the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest arguing that a proposed class action settlement involving an apparel company's website would afford little value to consumers with vision disabilities while generously compensating attorneys. Plaintiffs in the case, Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc., alleged that Fashion Nova Inc., a California-based apparel retailer, operated an online clothing website that was not accessible and denied blind users full and equal access to its goods and services in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under a proposed settlement reached between the parties, Fashion Nova agreed to pay approximate $2.43 million divided evenly among class members in California who timely filed a valid claim. Plaintiffs seek over $2.52 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement also provides for injunctive relief generically requiring Fashion Nova's website to be accessible. "A class action under the ADA should, above all else, secure greater accessibility for consumers with disabilities,| said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "Congress intended the Department and Courts to be skeptical of settlements that instead enrich private counsel." The proposed agreement is unfair because the proposed injunctive relief for class members is not meaningful — it is a mere recitation of the obligation to make visually delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or low vision with no confirmation or enforcement mechanism. As proposed, the agreement does not ensure Fashion Nova takes concrete steps to make its website accessible. The case is pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which must approve any settlement. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides the Attorney General and state officials an opportunity to review federal class action settlements before district courts grant final approval. The Justice Department plays a central role in advancing the ADA's goals of equal opportunity, and full participation for people with disabilities, including people who are incarcerated. For more information on the Civil Rights Division, please visit justice.gov/crt. For more information on the ADA, please call the department's toll-free ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 (TTY 1-833-610-1264) or visit ADA.gov. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Faulty F-150 Class Suit Survives Dismissal Attempt -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a federal judge has ruled that Ford cannot dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging its F-150 trucks have faulty transmissions. Why: Ford argued that plaintiff Michael Barcelona failed to adequately plead his claims. Where: The Ford F-150 class action lawsuit is pending in Illinois federal court. Ford cannot escape a class action lawsuit alleging it sold certain F-150 trucks with faulty 10-speed automatic transmissions, a federal judge ruled this week. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings denied Ford's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, finding plaintiff Michael Barcelona adequately alleged a violation of Massachusetts consumer protection law. The Ford F-150 class action lawsuit alleges the 2017-2020 model year trucks have defective transmissions that shift harshly and cause the vehicles to jerk and lunge between gears. Ford allegedly continued to use the defective parts when making the trucks as recently as 2023. Ford's motion for partial judgment was limited to the claims brought by Barcelona, a Massachusetts driver who alleges breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and a violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts law. The sole plaintiff agreed not to pursue any Chapter 93A claim grounded in fraud but sought to proceed on a Chapter 93A claim derivative of his breach of warranty claim or an independent claim under Chapter 93A, Law360 reports. "Given the fact specific and broad scope of Chapter 93A, and drawing all inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor, the court finds that he has sufficiently stated an independent claim under Chapter 93A," Cummings wrote in his decision. The plaintiff claims Ford violated the law by selling a product that was unsafe to use, representing it as safe and failing to warn consumers that the vehicles contained a defect, the judge said. Judge finds plaintiff's claim sufficiently pleaded Ford argued the solo plaintiff's Chapter 93A claim should be dismissed because it is solely derivative of his fraud claims. Cummings rejected this argument, finding the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded a Chapter 93A claim as either an independent cause of action or as derivative to his breach of implied warranty claim. "Simply put, taken together as a whole, [the plaintiff] has stated an independent claim for violation of Chapter 93A, and the court declines to dismiss the claim in its entirety simply because his fraud claim was previously dismissed," Cummings wrote. In 2023, a federal judge in Illinois denied Ford F-150 drivers' request to expand their class action lawsuit, ruling the motion came too late to add claims involving other Ford models accused of having defective 10-speed automatic transmissions. The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory F. Coleman of Greg Coleman Law P.C.; Leland Belew, Ryan P. McMillan and Mitchell Breit of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; John R. Fabry of the Carlson Law Firm P.C.; Sidney F. Robert of Brent Coon & Associates; and Edward A. Wallace and Mark R. Miller of Wallace Miller. The Ford class action lawsuit is O'Connor, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-05045, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY REIDT, on behalf of the Frontier Communications 401(k) Savings Plan and all others similarly situated, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01538-RNC (D. Conn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Defendants Frontier Communications Corporation and the Retirement Investment & Administration Committee move for leave to file under seal the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting documents, which refer to and include material designated by the Plaintiffs as confidential. Pursuant to the procedure provided under Local Rule 5(e)(4)(a), Defendants are contemporaneously filing (1) this Motion to Seal; (2) a redacted version of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, as public documents, with a slip-sheet in place of Exhibits M and N; and (3) unredacted copies of the Opposition and supporting documents, as sealed documents. Frontier is an American telecommunications company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9gPNzC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Calvin K. Woo, Esq. Kristen G. Rossetti, Esq. VERRILL DANA LLP 355 Riverside Avenue Westport, CT 06880 Telephone: (203) 222-0885 Facsimile: (203) 226-8025 E-mail: cwoo@verrill-law.com krossetti@verrill-law.com - and - Nancy G. Ross, Esq. Margaret E. Vander, Esq. Malori McGill Fery, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-4637 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Facsimile: (312) 701-7711 E-mail: nross@mayerbrown.com mvanderwoude@mayerbrown.com mmcgillfery@mayerbrown.com GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Decertify Class Rodriguez Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Seeborg entered an order denying motion for equitable relief and denying motion to decertify the class. The Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief is denied, the Plaintiffs' request for disgorgement is denied, and Google's motion to decertify the class is denied. The core of Plaintiffs' theory of offensiveness has remained consistent throughout this litigation: Google collected the Plaintiffs' data after it said it would not. The nature of the data collected mattered, but its import could be assessed without delving into the apps that each class member downloaded. Class-wide treatment remains appropriate. In this privacy action, a class of Google users (Plaintiffs) sued Google for collecting their anonymized data in contravention of Google's privacy disclosures. A jury found Google liable for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution and intrusion upon seclusion, and it awarded Plaintiffs $425,651,947 in compensatory damages. Plaintiffs think that is not enough. They move for a permanent injunction and disgorgement of $2.36 billion -- a figure they characterize as a "conservative approximation of Google's net profits from its misconduct during the class period." Google thinks it is too much. It moves to decertify the class because, in its view, the evidence presented at trial makes clear that liability turned on individualized proof. The Defendant is a major American multinational technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EpgjOg at no extra charge.[CC] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks to Seal Opposition to Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal the opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and exhibits to the Defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Pursuant to the District Court's Local Rule 104 and 105, Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company, et al., moves to file under seal: (i) portions of the opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification ("Opposition Brief"); (ii) the Defendants' Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 submitted in conjunction with the Opposition Brief; and (iii) portions of the Defendants' Exhibits 1, 2, 13, and 16, submitted in conjunction with the Opposition Brief. GEICO is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jebVsa at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Justin Donoho, Esq. Tiffany Alberty, Esq. Zev Grumet-Morris, Esq. Tristan Alexander Dietrick, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 Facsimile: (312) 499-6701 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com jrdonoho@duanemorris.com tealberty@duanemorris.com zgrumetmorris@duanemorris.com tdietrick@duanemorris.com HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Caston Due Nov. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caston et al., v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00928-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order a case management and scheduling order as follows: 1. Trial Date: Jan. 03, 2028 2. Final pretrial conference: Nov. 18, 2027 3. Expert discovery cut-off: June 22, 2027 4. Fact discovery cut-off: March 30, 2027 5. Motion for class certification: Last day to be heard: March 02, 2027, 2:00 p.m. [in person] Last day to reply to class certification motion: Feb. 5, 2027 Opposition to class certification motion due: Jan. 15, 2027 Class certification motion due: Nov. 20, 2026 F. Hoffmann-La Roche is a Swiss multinational holding healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GOZJje at no extra charge.[CC] HORIZON TECHNOLOGY: Bushansky Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON TECHNOLOGY FINANCE CORPORATION, ROBERT D. POMEROY JR., JAMES J. BOTTIGLIERI, JONATHAN J. GOODMAN, EDMUND V. MAHONEY, KIMBERLEY A. O'CONNOR, ELAINE A. SARSYNSKI and JOSEPH J. SAVAGE, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0136 (Del. Ch., January 30, 2026) is a verified class action complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Horizon Technology against the members of the board of directors of the Company for breaching their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the solicitation of the Company's public stockholders to, inter alia, vote in favor of the proposed issuance of shares of Horizon Technology common stock, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 7, 2025 by and among the Company, Monroe Capital Corporation, a Maryland corporation (MRCC), HMMS, Inc., a Maryland corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Horizon Technology, Monroe Capital BDC Advisors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and investment adviser to Monroe Capital, and Horizon Technology Finance Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and investment adviser to Horizon Technology, which provides for Merger Sub to merge with and into MRCC with MRCC continuing as the surviving company and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Horizon Technology. Immediately following the Initial Merger, MRCC, as the surviving company, would merge with and into Horizon, with HRZN continuing as the surviving company. On January 20, 2025, to solicit HRZN stockholders to vote for the Merger at a special meeting, the Defendants caused a proxy on Form 424B3 to be filed by HRZN with the SEC under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Despite the HRZN Projections reflecting the best available information, estimates and judgments of management of HRZN, as to the future financial condition and operating results of HRZN and the HRZN Projections being relied upon by Oppenheimer for its financial analyses underlying its fairness opinion, the Proxy does not disclose the HRZN Projections, notes the complaint. To ensure that HRZN stockholders are able to cast informed votes at the special meeting, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the Stockholder Vote, until five days after HRZN files a supplemental disclosure with the SEC curing (i) the HRZN Projections Nondisclosures by disclosing the Standalone HRZN Projections and the Pro Forma HRZN Projections; and (ii) the Oppenheimer Nondisclosures by disclosing: (1) the past and current MRCC representations, and (2) the amount of fees paid by MRCC to Oppenheimer in connection with those representations. Alternatively, if the Merger is consummated without such disclosures, the Plaintiff reserves the right to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff and similarly-situated HRZN stockholders as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duty of the Board alleged herein, the complaint relates. Horizon Technology Finance Corporation is a Delaware corporation organized in March 2010 for the purpose of acquiring Compass Horizon Funding Company LLC and continuing its business as a public entity. HRZN is a specialty finance company that lends to and invests in development-stage companies in the technology, life science, healthcare information and services and sustainability industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC 1204 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 803-4600 E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com - and - Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. WEISS LAW 350 Lockwood Terr. Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 692-7910 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 KAHALA FRANCHISING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kahala Franchising, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01211 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://thegreatsteak.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The 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 Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, says the suit. Allegedly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered through its website.[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 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law LASTPASS DATA: $8.2MM Class Settlement Ends 2022 Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that LastPass has agreed to an $8,200,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the password manager failed to prevent an unauthorized actor from exfiltrating reams of source code and technical information, which was later used to steal credentials and keys to the company's cloud-based storage service in a 2022 data breach. The $8.2 million LastPass class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 2, 2026 and covers all natural United States residents, as well as all companies, entities, and organizations registered to do business in the U.S., whose LastPass accounts may have been compromised, extracted, copied, stolen or otherwise exposed as a result of the 2022 LastPass data breach, and whose account actively contained data at the time of the incident. ClassAction.org will update this page when the court-approved LastPass data breach settlement website is launched. According to the proposed settlement notice, LastPass settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form will have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of ordinary losses traceable to the LastPass data breach can receive a one-time cash payment of up to $300, court documents state. The notice relays that class members who elect to receive this cash benefit must have an active LastPass account with information stored in it. Per settlement documents, reimbursable data breach-related expenses include costs related to credit monitoring, identity protection and restoration, dark web monitoring, and other security services. Per court documents, LastPass class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of extraordinary losses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $10,000. Extraordinary losses stemming from the LastPass data incident must have been incurred as a result of the breach and cannot have been reimbursed by any other payout options, court documents state. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members with an active LastPass account in which information is stored may instead elect to receive a one-time, $25 statutory payment, the notice relays. Furthermore, class members who resided in California at the time of the LastPass data breach may receive an additional $100 statutory cash payout due to state-specific provisions under the California Consumer Privacy Act. In addition to any cash payouts from the class action settlement, court documents continue, class members may also file a LastPass claim form to receive reimbursement for any cryptocurrency losses alleged to have been caused by the data breach. The notice outlines that each class member may receive up to $900,000 in cryptocurrency payouts, as determined by a court-appointed crypto master, subject to an aggregate cap of $16,250,000 separate from the LastPass settlement fund. Finally, in addition to cash payouts and cryptocurrency reimbursements, all LastPass settlement class members will be offered a complimentary six-month upgrade to a LastPass Premium Account, as well as automatic enrollment in LastPass Dark Web Monitoring services. According to the notice, class members do not need to file a claim form to receive dark web monitoring through the settlement, and class members who file a claim form to receive premium benefits will have their accounts automatically updated upon final settlement approval. ClassAction.org will update this page with more information about filing a LastPass claim form and receiving settlement benefits as it is published by the settlement administrator. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the LastPass data breach settlement at a hearing on a later date. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The LastPass class action lawsuit argued that the password manager implemented poor data security practices that failed to safeguard the confidential information of millions of consumers and businesses, which allegedly allowed an unauthorized cybercriminal group to breach the company's systems in or around August 2022. Per court documents, the private information that may have been affected by the cyberattack included names, addresses, contact information and passwords to personal and financial accounts. [GN] LITTLE PARIS: Court OKs Change in Local Counsel in "Alvarado" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Cirilo Ucharima Alvarado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Range Association, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-CV-00249-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the United States Magistrate Judge granted the motion to substitute local counsel filed by Defendant The Little Paris Sheep Company, LLC. The Court substituted Matthew B. Hippler (State Bar No. 7015) as local counsel in place of Joshua M. Halen (State Bar No. 13885). Joshua M. Halen withdrew from Holland & Hart, LLP and is no longer available to serve as local counsel. Hippler is an attorney in good standing with the State Bar of Nevada and has agreed to serve as local counsel in association with Cory A. Talbot and April M. Medley. The admission pro hac vice of Cory A. Talbot and April M. Medley remain in full force and effect. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 2, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4K2EeD Defendant Western Range Association Represented By Ellen Jean Winograd Woodburn And Wedge 775-688-3000 ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com Plaintiff Cirilo Ucharima Alvarado Represented By James Crooks Fairmark Partners, LLP Joshua R. Hendrickson Thierman Buck, LLC 775-284-1500 joshh@thiermanbuck.com Mark R. Thierman Thierman Buck, LLP 775-284-1500 laborlawyer@pacbell.net Leah Lin Jones Thierman Buck LLP 775-284-1500 leah@thiermanbuck.com Jamie Crooks Fairmark Partners, LLP 619-507-4182 jamie@fairmarklaw.com David H. Seligman Towards Justice 720-248-8426 david@towardsjustice.org Natasha Viteri Towards Justice 720-441-2236 natasha@towardsjustice.org Joshua D Buck Thierman Buck, LLP 775-284-1500 josh@thiermanbuck.com Alexander Hood Towards Justice 720-239-2606 alex@towardsjustice.org Aisha Rich Fairmark Partners, LLP 301-458-0564 aisha@fairmarklaw.com LUPINE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lupine, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01296 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.lupinepet.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. 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. The 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 Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant operates the website that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MADE BY MARY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Made By Mary, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01288 (Feb. 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://madebymary.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. 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. The 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 Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant operates the website that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Underpays Travel Clinicians, Braccini Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLOW BRACCINI, and ONNAEDO NWANKWO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00954 (N.D. Cal., January 30, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, rather than compensate their workers in compliance with the law, Medical Solutions adopted practices that result in systematic underpayment of wages owed. The practices include: (1) failing to pay for mandatory post-hire, pre-assignment onboarding and training, even though this work is required by Medical Solutions and is directly related to the clinicians' work; (2) requiring employees to bear the cost of essential business expenses -- including travel to and from assignments, licensing, credentialing, testing, and required uniforms; (3) failing to pay required California daily overtime; (4) systematically miscalculating the "regular rate of pay" by excluding housing stipends, meals-and incidentals stipends, per diem payments, bonus payments, call-back pay, and other forms of compensation, resulting in the underpayment of overtime wages and meal and rest period premiums; (5) failing to timely pay wages owed both during employment and upon separation; and (6) failing to furnish accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Braccini is a citizen of Mississippi who accepted travel assignments with Medical Solutions to relocate and perform work in California, including multiple assignments at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, California. Medical Solutions LLC operates as a travel nursing company. The Company provides benefits such as personalized pay package, medical and dental insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eve H. Cervantez, Esq. Jacqlyn Blatteis, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: ecervantez@altber.com jblatteis@altber.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com MID AMERICA PET: Sets $100,000 Cap on Breeder Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Mid America Pet Food has agreed to pay a $5,500,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit over salmonella contamination that led to a recall of thousands of bags of pet food in late 2023. The Mid America Pet Food class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 23, 2025 and covers all United States residents who purchased one or more of the Mid America Pet Food products listed here, which include certain Victor Super Premium dog and cat foods, Wayne Feeds dog and cat food, Eagle Mountain pet food and Member's Mark dog food. The court-approved website for the Mid America class action settlement can be found at MidAmericaPetFoodSettlement.com. Mid America settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form may be able to recover money for pet food purchases and for certain losses associated with pet injuries or deaths. Per the court documents, those who submit documented proof of losses associated with pet injuries are eligible to receive up to 100-percent reimbursement, capped at $100,000. Covered documentation under this reimbursement option may include checks, veterinarian records, pet purchase records, invoices, and other relevant receipts. Furthermore, breeders who submit valid claim forms with documented business losses are eligible to receive reimbursement, also capped at $100,000. Class members with undocumented pet injury claims are eligible to receive a cash payment of $50 for pets that became ill and $100 for pets that died as a result of Mid America Pet Food consumption. Settlement class members who submit documented proof of pet food purchases are eligible to receive 100-percent reimbursement of their purchases. Covered documentation under this reimbursement option may include receipts, invoices, shipping forms, emails and other proof of payment. Class members with undocumented pet food purchase claims are eligible to receive a cash payment of $20 per bag for up to two bags of food, capped at $40. According to the settlement agreement, Mid America settlement class members have the option to receive their payment via check or electronic payment, and checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance. To submit a Mid America settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be settlement class members but did not receive a class action settlement notice have the option to fill out a blank claim form. Alternatively, settlement class members may download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address listed near the bottom of the first page of the document. Mid America settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by February 5, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Mid America settlement at a hearing on February 6, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Mid America Pet Food class action lawsuit claimed that the company falsely advertised their pet food as safe for animals given the widespread salmonella contamination that led to a recall and posed injury to both pets and humans. Included in the suit were over 30 varieties of Victor Super Premium Dog Food, Wayne Feeds Dog Food, Eagle Mountain Pet Food, Victor Super Premium Cat Food, Wayne Feeds Cat Food and Member's Mark Dog Food, all with "best by" dates before October 31, 2024. [GN] ORACLE CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit in D. Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against Oracle Corporation (NYSE: ORCL) ("Oracle" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Oracle common stock between June 12, 2025, and December 16, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Barrows v. Oracle Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00127-UNA, was filed on February 3, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Oracle common stock during the Class Period may, no later than April 6, 2026, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class. CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): If you experienced losses in connection with Oracle, contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP at: https://www.ktmc.com/orcl-oracle-corporation-class-action-lawsuit You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT Oracle, a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Austin, Texas, is a technology company that provides, among other things, infrastructure for operating artificial intelligence ("AI") programs. During the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by touting the Company's contracts to develop data center capabilities for AI infrastructure and falsely assuring investors that the Company's significant capital expenditures ("CapEx") would quickly result in accelerated revenue growth. For example, Defendants assured investors that the Company's substantially increased spending on AI infrastructure -- including for data centers used by OpenAI, the operator of ChatGPT -- would rapidly convert into "accelerating revenue and profit growth" and that "we have a very good line-of-sight for our capabilities to . . . just spend on that CapEx right before it starts generating revenue." However, on September 24, 2025, S&P Global Ratings warned that OpenAI "could account for more than a third of total Oracle revenues by fiscal 2028 and even a greater share by fiscal 2030," creating risks given that "OpenAI's ability to meet contractual obligations will be contingent on AI tailwinds continuing and its models being a market leader to continue to raise external financing." On this news, the price of Oracle common stock declined $5.37 per share, or nearly 2%, from a close of $313.83 per share on September 23, 2025, to close at $308.46 per share on September 24, 2025. The following day, on September 25, 2025, analysts at Rothschild & Co. Redburn initiated coverage of Oracle at "Sell," warning, among other things, that the Company's promises of massive new revenues from its increased AI infrastructure business were "unlikely to materialize" and set a $175 price target for Oracle -- representing a 40% pullback in the Company's stock. In response, the price of Oracle common stock declined an additional $17.13 per share, or more than 5.5%, from a close of $308.46 per share on September 24, 2025, to close at $291.33 per share on September 25, 2025. After the market closed on December 10, 2025, Oracle announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2026, including revenue growth below analysts' consensus estimate, quarterly CapEx well above analysts' estimates, and negative free cash flow of more than $10 billion. During the accompanying earnings call, Defendant Douglas Kehring (the Company's Principal Financial Officer) revealed that Oracle now projected $50 billion of CapEx in fiscal year 2026 -- $15 billion more than the Company's previous projection in September 2025 and as much as $25 billion more than the Company's projection in June 2025. Notably, despite projecting substantially increased spending, Oracle did not increase its guidance for 2026 revenue, and increased its guidance for 2027 revenues by only $4 billion. In response to an analyst's question about how much money Oracle needs "to raise to fund its AI growth plans ahead," Defendant Clayton Magouyrk (the Company's new Co-Chief Executive Officer) further stoked concerns by failing to provide a specific number and revealing only that the Company expected to spend "less" than $100 billion -- suggesting that Oracle may require a massive amount of capital funding through equity raises or additional debt. As Bloomberg and other media outlets reported that evening, the cost of protecting the Company's debt against default for five years -- a notable measure of Oracle's credit risk -- reached its highest level since April 2009. An AllianceBernstein analyst explained, "Oracle really matters because it is the harbinger of the AI capex boom," and "[t]his repricing in debt markets is very consistent with the view that risks are building." On this news, the price of Oracle common stock declined $24.16 per share, or nearly 11%, from a close of $223.01 per share on December 10, 2025, to close at $198.85 per share on December 11, 2025. After the market closed on December 11, 2025, Oracle filed its quarterly financial report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, which revealed that the Company had "$248 billion of additional lease commitments, substantially all related to data centers and cloud capacity arrangements, that are generally expected to commence between the third quarter of fiscal 2026 and fiscal 2028 and for terms of fifteen to nineteen years that were not reflected on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of November 30, 2025." Analysts at CreditSights later labeled this revelation a "bombshell disclosure," noting that the Company's lease commitments had increased massively from the prior quarter, when the Company had reported just under $100 billion in lease commitments. As Bloomberg reported, "Oracle's future lease exposure far exceeds similar commitments by peers," with "a mismatch between the long duration of the property leases and much shorter contracts with key customers such as OpenAI." On December 12, 2025, Bloomberg further reported that Oracle had "pushed back the completion dates for some of the data centers it's developing for the artificial intelligence model developer OpenAI to 2028 from 2027" due to "labor and material shortages" -- suggesting that Oracle's promised revenue growth resulting from its increased spending may be further delayed, if it arrives at all. In response to these revelations, the price of Oracle common stock declined $8.88 per share, or approximately 4.5%, from a close of $198.85 per share on December 11, 2025, to close at $189.97 per share on December 12, 2025. On December 17, 2025, Financial Times reported that Blue Owl Capital -- "the primary [financial] backer for Oracle's largest data centre projects in the US" -- had backed out of funding a $10 billion Oracle data center intended to serve OpenAI. According to the report, Blue Owl pulled out of the deal as a result of concerns about Oracle's spending commitments and rising debt levels. On this news, the price of Oracle common stock declined $10.19 per share, or approximately 5.4%, from a close of $188.65 per share on December 16, 2025, to close at $178.46 per share on December 17, 2025. The complaint 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 and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oracle's AI infrastructure strategy would result in massive increases in CapEx without equivalent, near-term growth in revenue; (2) the Company's substantially increased spending created serious risks involving Oracle's debt and credit rating, free cash flow, and ability to fund its projects, among other concerns; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR ORACLE CORPORATION INVESTORS: Oracle investors may, no later than April 6, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Oracle investors to contact the firm directly for more information about the lawsuit. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contacts Jonathan Naji, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com [GN] PANERA BREAD: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jacobs Says --------------------------------------------------------- GARY JACOBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00160 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, usernames, work and personal emails, phone number, home address, and date of birth. In late January 2026, the Defendant experienced a cyberattack incident in which a hacker group accessed Panera’s network and acquired certain files. ShinyHunters claim responsibility for hacking Defendant. Accordingly, customers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of receiving goods and/or services, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. 5. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include invasion of privacy; theft of their Private Information; and lost or diminished value of Private Information. Defendant is an American chain of bakery-cafe restaurants.[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 - Lynda Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER GRAIFMAN PERLMUTTER & CARBALLO P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com PREMIER OFFICE: Illegally Tracks Users' Browsing Data, Blaker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN BLAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER OFFICE CENTERS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00238 (C.D. Cal., January 30, 2026) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of California residents to enforce the California Invasion of Privacy Act's prohibition on the use of trap and trace devices without consent, to remedy Defendant's related unfair competition under California's Unfair Competition Law, and to redress the common law invasion of privacy caused by Defendant's covert capture and off-site transmission of visitors' identifying information. According to the complaint, the Defendant covertly configured its website, www.premierworkspaces.com to do much more to visitors by embedding third-party tracking technology designed to identify and convert their browsing activity into commercially useful intelligence. Those third parties are data brokers NextRoll, Inc., X Corp., and LinkedIn, Corp. The Defendant embedded each of the data brokers' anonymous visitor identification tracking software programs on the website, alleges the complaint. The data brokers market this technology as a way for businesses to identify visitors who do not submit forms or otherwise reveal their identity during a visit -- i.e., visitors who wish to remain anonymous through ordinary web browsing. By deploying the tracking beacons, the Defendant turned ordinary browsing on the website into a data-extraction and visitor-identification operation, says the suit. Premier Office Centers, LLC operates the commercial website that invites consumers to browse information about its commercial real estate services in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: jparkkinen@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com ROYAL ENTERTAINMENT: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Crosswhite ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Chesley Crosswhite, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Royal Entertainment Events, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 3:25-cv-308 (E.D. Va.), Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the Defendant's motion to stay and compel arbitration. On April 21, 2025, Kelvin Darkwa, Chesley Crosswhite, Calvin Alex Ales, Jr., Khadijah Vasser, Victoria Elizabeth Hric, and Zoe Ray filed a complaint against Royal Entertainment Events, LLC. The Complaint alleged that Royal Entertainment Events (1) Violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., (2) Violated the Virginia Wage Payment Act, Va. Code Section 40.1-29 et seq., and (3) breached its respective contracts with plaintiffs Crosswhite and Ales. Since filing the Complaint, plaintiffs Crosswhite and Ales, through counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule 41, submitted their Notice of voluntary dismissal of their individual claims pleaded in this action against the Defendant without prejudice. This Notice mooted (1) All claims by Crosswhite or Ales alleging they are entitled to relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act or Virginia Wage Payment Act, and (2) the breach of contract claims under Count III. On October 9, 2025, Royal Entertainment Events filed its now-stricken Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. For the first time in its Supplemental Memorandum, Royal Entertainment Events raised an independent ground on which the case should, indeed must, be stayed and referred to alternative dispute resolution, namely that the employment contracts for each of the four named Plaintiffs include an express, binding arbitration clause. By way of explanation for its delay in raising this argument, Royal Entertainment Events claimed that it learned of this only recently when the company was finally able to secure access to a portion of its electronic business records in connection with the Richmond NASCAR weekend event at issue in this case from a former Internet cloud ERP (enterprise resource planning) service provider. On October 16, 2025, a conference call was held, during which counsel for Royal Entertainment Events expressed his interest in filing a Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration. Accordingly, the Court struck Royal Entertainment Events' Supplemental Memorandum as an improper pleading and directed Royal Entertainment Events to file its Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration by October 20, 2025. However, during that same conference call, and after expressing his intent to file a proper Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration, counsel for Royal Entertainment Events proceeded to re-request hearing on the then-outstanding Motion to Dismiss. In turn, the Court set a hearing for Oral Argument on Royal Entertainment Events' amended Motion to Dismiss for October 30, 2025. The hearing on Royal Entertainment Events' Motion to Dismiss was held, and the Court, by order entered October 31, 2025, denied Royal Entertainment Events' Motion to Dismiss. On October 20, 2025, Royal Entertainment Events filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration, moving the Court to stay this civil action and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq. The Remaining Plaintiffs opposed arbitration for one reason: they contended that Royal Entertainment Events waived its right to compel arbitration because it knew of and acted inconsistently with its right to compel arbitration by actively participating in this litigation. The Court found that there are mutual agreements between the Remaining Plaintiffs and Royal Entertainment Events to resolve any disputes arising under their respective employment contracts through binding arbitration. Here, it was not disputed that the claims in the Complaint arise under their respective employment contracts. Therefore, the Court considered whether Royal Entertainment Events, by way of its actions in the instant litigation, waived its right to compel arbitration. The question then became whether Royal Entertainment Events, since October 9, 2025, when it clearly knew of its right to compel arbitration, intentionally relinquished that right by acting inconsistently with its right to arbitrate. The Court answered this in the affirmative. Counsel for Royal Entertainment Events during the October 16, 2025 Conference Call re-requested hearing on the then-outstanding Motion to Dismiss. Furthermore, counsel for Royal Entertainment Events thereafter participated in the hearing. In line with the parties' request for the court to hear argument on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court denied Royal Entertainment Events' Motion to Dismiss. The decisions to re-request a hearing, participate in the hearing, and seek a ruling from this Court on its Motion to Dismiss were all utterly inconsistent with Royal Entertainment Events' right to compel arbitration. According to the Court, "By acting inconsistently with its right to arbitrate, Royal Entertainment Events intentionally relinquished that known right altogether. Royal Entertainment Events must now accept the result of its chosen litigation strategy: waiver of its right to compel arbitration." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pYDfFB from PacerMonitor.com In this action, Royal Entertainment Events, LLC, located at 5780 Lancaster Drive, Olive Branch, Mississippi, appears both as a defendant and as a counterclaimant and is represented by Glenn Brett Manishin of Paradigmshift Law LLP, Washington, D.C. (202-256-4600; [glenn@manishin.com](mailto:glenn@manishin.com)). The counter-defendants Calvin Alex Ales, Jr. and Chesley Crosswhite are represented by Gregg Cohen Greenberg of Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC (Maryland) (301-587-9373; [ggreenberg@zagfirm.com](mailto:ggreenberg@zagfirm.com)). The plaintiffs include Calvin Alex Ales, Jr., Chesley Crosswhite, Kelvin Darkwa, Victoria Elizabeth Hric, Zoe Ray, and Khadijah Vasser, each suing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. All plaintiffs are represented by Gregg Cohen Greenberg of Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC (301-587-9373; [ggreenberg@zagfirm.com](mailto:ggreenberg@zagfirm.com)). SIMS REALTY: Property Violates ADA, Maurer Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual v. SIMS REALTY LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-01130 (D.N.J., Feb. 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation is a shopping center/plaza with several tenant spaces, known as 1004 Plaza, located at 1004 Cooper Street, Deptford, New Jersey. Mr. Maurer has visited the Property several times; his last visit occurring on or about September 13, 2025, when he patronized several stores within the shopping center. On said visit, Mr. Maurer traveled to the Property with his family where they visited Philly Pretzel Factory, Deptford News and Tabacco, the Victory Chinese Restaurant, and Rioh Nails and Spa. Mr. Maurer and his family have visited the Property together on several occasions as bone fide patrons with the intent to avail themselves of the goods and services offered to the public within; but found it to be rife with violations of the ADA -- both in architecture and in policy, says the suit. Mr. Maurer has multiple sclerosis and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of his major life activities including, but not limited to, not being able to walk, stand, reach, or lift. Mr. Maurer, at all times, requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, and/or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Faces Krivatch Suit Over Online Gambling -------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA KRIVATCH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED, d/b/a Stake.us, Case No. 1:26-cv-00116-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 3, 2026) is brought by Plaintiff seeking damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually on behalf the other Class members, each of whom are Ohio residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on Stake.us. Stake owns and operates a popular, casino-oriented internet gaming website called www.stake.us. According to the complaint, Gambling is heavily regulated and mostly outlawed in Ohio. Yet Stake is accessible and operational in Ohio without receiving proper licenses, registrations, and approvals. Nor is Stake listed as an approved sweepstakes provider in Ohio. Stake does not operate to promote or market another product or service; Stake is the product or service. Stake operates indefinitely and not for a fixed period of time, the suit says. On its website, users can play "over 200 industry favorite games by the most reputable providers," including slot games, scratch cards, poker, and other table games such as blackjack and roulette. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 600 Vine Street, Suite 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 716-9163 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com - and - W. Daniel Dee Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell Mitch Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 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. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor No. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com SYSCO CORP: Avalos Balks at Unlawful Health Insurance Surcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE AVALOS and RANDY WOLFE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYSCO CORPORATION Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00743 (S.D. Tex., January 30, 2026) challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the Sysco Corporation Group Benefit Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Plan imposes a tobacco surcharge while failing to offer compliant avenues to avoid the surcharge and failing to provide proper notice. The Defendant's Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants of all available avenues to avoid the surcharge. At the same time, the Defendant fails to disclose in all Plan materials (i) contact information for accessing the alternative standard, (ii) that participants have access to an alternative standard through which they may qualify for the full reward or (iii) that they have the right to a physician-directed alternative. In doing so, the Defendant withholds critical information from participants needed to properly assess their rights and, in effect, shifts Plan costs onto employees based on a health factor without satisfying the requirements needed to take advantage of ERISA's safe harbor, says the suit. Plaintiff Avalos is a current employee of Sysco who paid, and continues to pay, the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. Sysco Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Sysco is one of the largest foodservice distribution companies in the country and operates nationwide through numerous subsidiaries and operating entities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walker D. Moller, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com THRASIO LLC: Makar Sues Over Contaminated Enzyme Stain Remover -------------------------------------------------------------- VIVIAN MAKAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THRASIO, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01176 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026) arises after Thrasio announced a recall of its Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover after the discovery of dangerous bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa on Jan. 22, 2026. According to public news reports, the Defendant is recalling approximately 1.5 million bottles of their Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover products because of this bacterial contamination hazard. The contaminated products were believed to have been produced between March of 2019 and December of 2025. According to the Recall Notice, the recall involves Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Removers in Fresh Clean Scent and Orange Twist Scent sold in 24-oz, 32-oz and 1-gallon sizes. The bottles are orange and white and have "Angry Orange" and "Stain & Odor Remover" written on the front. Some units were sold as a bundle with a UV light that attaches to the spray bottle, the suit says. The Products were sold at Walmart, Target, The Home Depot, Meijer, Staples, TJ Maxx and other major retailers nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Target.com, AngryOrange.com and Chewy.com for between $4 and $60.6 11. The Defendant's website claims that "Keeping your children and pets safe is our priority." Unlike other home cleaning products, our Angry Orange cold-pressed formula is chemical-free. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members suffered economic loss, including but not limited to the purchase price of the recalled products, and have been deprived of the benefit of their bargain. No consumer would purchase the products knowing they contained or were at risk of containing harmful bacteria that one ordinarily should not be exposed to. The contamination of the recalled products was sufficiently widespread as to possibly affect any given unit of the recalled products, including the product purchased by Plaintiff, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Makar is a resident citizen of Trabuco Canyon, California. She is a purchaser of Thrasio's Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover. Thrasio is a eCommerce consumer goods company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW, APC 145 S Spring St; #850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Facsimile: (800) 867-6779 - and - Andre Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail¨cmad@poulinwilley.com Andre.Belanger@poulinwilley.com TOOTSIE ROLL: Face Class Suit Over High Arsenic Levels in Candies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wisner Baum reports that investigation reveals elevated levels of arsenic in candy. A January 2026 investigation by the Florida Department of Health confirmed that certain candies contain alarming levels of arsenic, a known health hazard, especially for young children. If you purchased Sour Patch Kids, Jolly Ranchers, Nerds, Swedish Fish, or other candy that tested high for arsenic, you may be eligible to pursue compensation through a class action lawsuit. Contact Wisner Baum or call (855) 685-0046 to see if you qualify for the candy class action. What Did the Florida Heavy Metals in Candy Testing Find? Out of 46 candy products tested from 10 major manufacturers, state investigators detected arsenic in 28 of them -- more than 60 percent. The contaminated products include some of the most recognizable names in the American candy aisle, including but not limited to: -- Jolly Ranchers -- Kit Kat -- Nerds -- Skittles -- Snickers -- Sour Patch Kids -- Swedish Fish -- Tootsie Rolls -- Twizzlers These are popular candy brands that appear in Halloween bags, Easter baskets, movie theater concession stands, and birthday party favor bags nationwide. Concerned by the recent revelations, Wisner Baum is pursuing a class action lawsuit against manufacturers who sold products containing elevated levels of arsenic. The firm brings unparalleled experience to this emerging litigation, drawing on our leadership role in the ongoing toxic baby food lawsuits, where we represent thousands of families alleging that heavy metals in baby food caused neurological harm to children. Candy With Elevated Arsenic Levels The Florida Department of Health identified the following candies as containing arsenic at elevated levels. If you purchased any of these products, you may qualify for the candy class action lawsuit: -- Tootsie Fruit Chew Lime (570 ppb arsenic) - Tootsie Roll Industries -- Jolly Rancher Hard Candy Sour Apple (540 ppb) - Hershey Company -- Twizzlers Watermelon (510 ppb) - Hershey Company -- Twizzlers Strawberry (500 ppb) - Hershey Company -- Nerds Gummy Clusters (500 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Laffy Taffy Banana (480 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Sour Patch Kids (470 ppb) - Mondelēz International -- Nerds Strawberry (450 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Trolli Sour Brite Crawlers (430 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Dots (430 ppb) - Tootsie Roll Industries -- Sour Patch Kids Tropical (420 ppb) - Mondelēz International -- Sour Patch Kids Watermelon (420 ppb) - Mondelēz International -- SweeTarts Original (400 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- SweeTarts Rope (390 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Nerds Grape (380 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Tootsie Roll (380 ppb) - Tootsie Roll Industries -- Black Forest Gummy Bears (370 ppb) - Ferrara Candy Company -- Tootsie Roll Vanilla (370 ppb) - Tootsie Roll Industries -- Original Skittles (370 ppb) - Mars -- Twizzlers Cherry (350 ppb) - Hershey Company -- Snickers (350 ppb) - Mars -- Jolly Rancher Hard Candy Strawberry (320 ppb) - Hershey Company -- Hershey's Cookies 'N' Creme (280 ppb) - Hershey Company -- 3 Musketeers (240 ppb) - Mars -- Kit Kat (230 ppb) - Nestle -- Swedish Fish (220 ppb) - Mondelēz International Notably, several products tested free of elevated arsenic, including Hershey Milk Chocolate Bars, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Whoppers, M&M's, Twix, Milky Way, and organic alternatives from brands like Yum Earth, Unreal, and Annie's -- demonstrating that safer sourcing and manufacturing practices are possible. The National Confectioners Association has pushed back on Florida's findings, claiming the state's methodology does not align with federal standards. But the association's defense -- that candy is "safe to eat" because it has "been enjoyed for centuries" -- sidesteps the central issue: consumers were never told these products contained arsenic at levels that exceed what is considered safe annual exposure for children. Whether or not the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set formal limits for candy, parents deserve to know what is in the food they buy for their kids. What is the Heavy Metals in Candy Class Action Lawsuit and How Does It Work? The candy class action lawsuit allows a large group of people who have been harmed in similar ways by the same company (or companies) to join together and pursue justice collectively. Instead of thousands of individuals filing separate lawsuits against candy companies -- which would be impractical and expensive -- this class action enables people to file claims on behalf of everyone affected, known as the "class." This approach is particularly powerful when individual losses may be relatively small (the amount paid for candy products), but the collective harm is substantial. Consider: if you paid for candy that you would not have had the company adequately warned about certain dangers, it would not make sense to hire an attorney and file an individual lawsuit to recover the money you spent. But when many thousands or even millions of consumers have been similarly deceived, a class action allows everyone to seek accountability together. It also sends a clear message to corporations that failing to warn about known dangers will not be tolerated. In the toxic candy class action, the claims center on consumer fraud and failure to warn. Manufacturers sold products that contain elevated levels of arsenic -- a substance linked to cancer, developmental disorders, and other serious health conditions -- without disclosing this information to consumers. Consumers purchased these products believing they were safe when testing shows they contain high levels of arsenic. The outcome of a class action applies to all class members. If a settlement is reached or a verdict is obtained, compensation flows to everyone who qualifies. Class members do not need to pay any upfront fees to participate; attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning we collect fees only if the class recovers money. Who Qualifies for the Arsenic in Candy Class Action? Eligibility for this class action is straightforward: if you purchased any of the candy products identified in the Florida investigation as containing elevated levels of arsenic, you may qualify to be part of the class. Unlike personal injury lawsuits, which require proof of specific physical harm, consumer class actions focus on the economic harm allegedly caused by deceptive business practices. You do not need to prove that the candy made you or your child sick. The harm is that you paid money for products that contained undisclosed contaminants -- products you would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, had you known about the dangers. That said, the potential health consequences of arsenic exposure are real and serious, particularly for children who consume candy repeatedly over time. Why Arsenic in Candy Poses Serious Health Risks Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of arsenic and other heavy metals. Their smaller body weights mean higher relative exposure per serving. Their developing organ systems -- including the brain -- are more susceptible to toxic insults. And children tend to consume candy repeatedly over time, exactly the exposure pattern that maximizes risk from cumulative toxicants like arsenic. The American Academy of Pediatrics warns that early childhood arsenic exposure is linked to increased risk of infection, altered liver function, neurodevelopmental effects, cognitive impairment, and skin changes. Regulatory Arsenic Benchmarks -- FDA bottled water limit: 10 ppb arsenic -- EPA drinking water standard: 10 ppb arsenic -- Average contaminated candy product: ~400 ppb arsenic -- Highest tested candy product: 570 ppb arsenic Wisner Baum Class Action Attorneys: Proven Leaders in Toxic Food Litigation Wisner Baum is uniquely positioned to lead this class action. The firm currently represents thousands of families in the ongoing toxic baby food litigation, which alleges that manufacturers including Gerber, Beech-Nut, Hain Celestial, Walmart, and others knowingly sold infant food products containing elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury. "The evidence in the baby food litigation shows major manufacturers have known about heavy metal contamination for years and failed to protect children," says attorney Pedram Esfandiary. "We're seeing the same pattern here with candy companies. Their products contain potentially dangerous levels of arsenic, and they've done nothing to adequately warn parents or reduce the risk." Join the Class Action Against Candy Companies If you purchased candy products for your family that have been identified as containing elevated arsenic levels, you have the right to seek accountability from the manufacturers who put those products on store shelves without adequate warnings. You trusted that the products you bought were safe. That trust may have been misplaced. Joining the class action costs you nothing. There are no upfront fees, and you only participate in any recovery if the class is successful. By adding your voice to the class, you help hold these corporations accountable and send a message that deceptive practices affecting children's health will not be tolerated. Wisner Baum offers free, confidential consultations to families affected by toxic candy products. Our attorneys will review your situation, explain your legal options, and help you understand whether participating in the class action is right for you. [GN] UNITED NETWORK: Court Sets "White" Class Certification Hearing Date ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lisa White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The United Network for Organ Sharing, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24CV629 (RCY) (E.D. Va.), Judge Roderick C. Young of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division issued a scheduling order on February 2, 2026. The Court said that the counsel are expected to resolve discovery disputes without filing motions or involving the Court. If, after good faith effort, counsel are unable to resolve a dispute and need the Court to intervene, the parties must file a joint motion not exceeding twenty (20) pages in length setting forth (1) the posture of the case, (2) the nature of the discovery dispute, (3) the efforts made by the parties to resolve the dispute, (4) the position of each party regarding the dispute, (5) whether a hearing is necessary to address the issue, and (6) a certification under Local Rule 37(E) signed by counsel for each party that they have met and conferred in good faith to resolve the dispute before involving the Court. If, however, the parties believe that a joint pleading is not feasible, the parties may file separate pleadings under the following terms: the motion to compel (or motion for protective order) with memorandum incorporated therein and any response with memorandum incorporated therein may not exceed seven (7) pages in length and any reply may not exceed three (3) pages. The Court ordered that all non-expert-related discovery must be concluded not later than April 17, 2026. All expert-related discovery must be concluded not later than June 5, 2026. Each party shall identify all expert witnesses not later than May 1, 2026. Plaintiff shall file any class motions under Rule 23 on or before July 17, 2026. The parties shall appear for a hearing on the certification motion on October 29, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. All dispositive motions shall be filed not later than August 28, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 2, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAFJ0m from PacerMonitor.com The United Network For Organ Sharing Represented By Nicole Marie Prefontaine Clark Hill Plc (il-Na) 312-985-5900 nprefontaine@clarkhill.com Kraig Douglas Jennett Clark Hill PLC 202-772-0913 kjennett@clarkhill.com Mason Nicholas Floyd Clark Hill Plc (il-Na) 312-985-5900 mfloyd@clarkhill.com Plaintiff Lisa White Represented By Danielle Lynn Perry Mason LLP 202-429-2290 dperry@masonllp.com David Hilton Wise Wise Law Firm, PLC 703-934-6377 dwise@wiselaw.pro William Nathaniel Evans Berliklaw, LLC 703-722-0588 wevans@berliklaw.com Ra O Amen 202-429-2290 ramen@masonllp.com UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Students Receive Settlement Payouts ------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Balderas of King5.com reports that University of Washington students who paid for in-person classes in 2020 are receiving settlement payouts of approximately $40 each as part of a $4 million agreement with the institution. The checks represent the resolution of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2020 by student Alexander Barry, who argued that the University of Washington breached its contract by charging full tuition and fees while abruptly switching to online-only instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. King County Superior Court Judge Sean O'Donnell granted final approval of the settlement on Oct. 24, 2025, ending a nearly five-year legal dispute. "This settlement provides relief to students who lost access to the in-person educational experience they paid for," said Steve W. Berman, the lead attorney for the plaintiff class at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The settlement applies to approximately 56,000 University of Washington students who were enrolled in and paid for in-person educational programs during Winter Quarter 2020 and Spring Quarter 2020, the academic terms when the university abruptly transitioned to remote learning. When the COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread campus closures in March 2020, UW moved all classes online, cancelled campus events, closed libraries and campus facilities, and encouraged students to leave campus housing. Despite these changes, the university maintained full tuition and fee charges. Graduate students at the time were paying a minimum of $5,575 per quarter for resident students and $9,770 for non-resident students, plus additional mandatory fees for building access, technology, services and activities. "The online classes provided were not equivalent to the in-person, campus experience that students chose for their university education," the original complaint stated. The lawsuit alleged multiple legal violations, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of constitutional takings and due process protections. The university denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement agreement. "The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and substantially fulfills the purposes and objectives of the action," Judge O'Donnell wrote in his approval order. The $4 million settlement was subject to preliminary approval on March 4, 2025, allowing the university and plaintiff class time to notify students and process opt-outs. Sixteen students chose to exclude themselves from the settlement. The case was litigated by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of the plaintiff class, with the firm's Seattle office leading the effort. The settlement includes provisions for the law firm's attorneys' fees and costs, which will be determined in a separate court order. University of Washington officials have yet to respond to KING 5's request for comment. [GN] USAA CASUALTY: Parties' Bids to Seal Docs OK'd ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARYN JENNINGS et al., v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06171-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Estudillo entered an order the in following motions: 1) The Defendants' motions to seal are granted. 2) CCC's motion to seal is granted. 3) The Plaintiffs' motions to seal are granted. The Court finds compelling reasons exist to maintain under seal information related to the Taxonomy given the potential harm revealing information about USAA's internal process for evaluating claims would have with respect to USAA's competitive standing. The Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal the MSA and the Addendum, which contain potential trade secrets and information that might compromise the parties' information security. On Nov. 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs Caryn Jennings and Tricia Harder filed a class action complaint in the Clark County Superior Court alleging Defendants USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company engaged in an improper scheme to deny first party personal injury protection ("PIP") and/or medical payments ("MedPay") owed to them under their USAA insurance policies. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=evPnxl at no extra charge.[CC] VAXART INC: Parties Seek Approval of Summary Notice --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Vaxart, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Approving, as to form and content pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), the Summary Notice of Class Certification ("Summary Notice"), and the Detailed Notice of Class Certification ("Detailed Notice"), in substantially the form attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, to the accompanying Walter Declaration, dated Jan. 30, 2026; 2. Appointing A.B. Data to serve as the notice administrator to implement the Notice Plan set out in the Walter Declaration and approved; and 3. Disseminating the Summary Notice shall begin within 10 business days of the latter of (i) the Court's approval of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order, and (ii) the entry of the resulting Order on the docket. On Dec. 17, 2024, the Court certified a Class of: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Vaxart common stock, or purchased call options or sold put options thereon, between June 25, 2020, and July 24, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." The Court also certified a Subclass of: "All persons or entities who purchased publicly traded Vaxart common stock contemporaneously with the June 26 and 29, 2020, sales of Vaxart common stock by the Armistice defendants and were damaged thereby. " Vaxart is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a range of oral recombinant pill vaccines. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=05zon4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com - and - William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Jessica M. Casey, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com jcasey@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Lillian Rand, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: rubinj@akingump.com lrand@akingump.com VENEZIA BULK: Bumbarger Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BUMBARGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENEZIA BULK TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00622 (E.D. Pa., January 30, 2026)is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information and that was impacted in a cyber incident. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On or about August 5, 2025, Defendant learned of unusual activity within its network. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied contract; and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Venezia Bulk Transport, Inc. is a trucking business that operates in 11 states and specializes in delivering dry and liquid bulk products throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com VENTURE GLOBAL: Mayoll Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- AMAURY MAYOLL, individually and for others similarly situated v. VENTURE GLOBAL LNG, INC. and GRAY WOLF INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-00335 (E.D. Va., Feb. 4, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Venture Global and GrayWolf pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Mayoll as one of their hourly employees in Port Sulphur, Louisiana. Mayoll and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Defendants do not pay Mayoll and the other hourly employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay --based on all remuneration -- for hours over 40 in a week. Instead, the Defendants pay Mayoll and the other hourly employees "per diems," not reasonably calculated to reimburse expenses and based on time worked, but Defendants exclude these "per diems" from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. The putative FLSA collective is defined as: All hourly employees who worked for Defendants in Louisiana and were paid under their per diem pay scheme during the last three years through final resolution of this action. Graywolf touts that its "expertise in design, fabrication and construction ensures upstream, midstream and downstream projects are designed for constructability, sidestep risk through the lifecycle of the project, while being performed with the highest level of safety standards."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com VOYA FINANCIAL: Ravarino ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RAVARINO, et al., v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01658-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class certification. The civil action is under ERISA. The Plaintiffs are participants in the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan of Voya Financial, Inc. The Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1) to certify a class in this action consisting of: "All participants in the Plan who invested through the Plan from Dec. 14, 2015, to the present." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court approve Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as class counsel. Voya is a financial, retirement, investment, and insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMiB39 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 18146 North 93rd Place Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: garrettwotkyns@chimicles.com sas@chimicles.com W.L. GORE: Brouillette Sues Over Exposure to Harmful Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BROUILLETTE, DONNA BAKER, COLLEEN ENGLISH, and ROBERT NEEDLES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00386 (D. Md., January 30, 2026) arises from wrongful actions of the Defendant in causing perfluorooctanoic acid and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances chemicals to contaminate the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' properties. Plaintiff Brouillette resides in North East, Maryland. He previously resided at other locations in Bear, Delaware and North East, Maryland. During such residency, the Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS by multiple sources including regularly consuming drinking water containing elevated levels of PFAS, and/or being exposed to PFAS in the air soil and/or water located at Plaintiff's residence and in the community. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS for many years prior to development of Plaintiff's personal injuries, including at concentrations hazardous to Plaintiff's health. The Plaintiff's exposure to elevated levels of PFAS allowed bioaccumulation of PFAS in Plaintiff's blood. As a direct and proximate result of this exposure, the Plaintiff has been diagnosed with injuries including kidney cancer, says the suit. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is the owner and operator of an industrial property, comprised of approximately 20.78 acres of improved real property located in Elkton, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Croner, Esq. Nicholas Mindicino, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: acroner@napolilaw.com nmindicino@napolilaw.com - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon Santurce, PR 00907 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE: Cline Seeks Settlement Deal Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN CLINE, v. WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE and LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Case No. 2:22-cv-02335-MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Parties, on March 2, 2026, will jointly move the Court for entry of an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed class wide settlement agreement, submitted herewith as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Autumn Elliott; (2) certifying the proposed settlement class and appointing the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel; (3) approving the Parties' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the class; and (4) setting deadlines for notice, objections, and a final fairness hearing. The hearing on this motion will take place before United States District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The parties have stipulated to seek certification of the following Settlement Class, for the purposes of settlement only: "All individuals who have disabilities that make it difficult for them to navigate long distances, up inclines, and/or uneven terrain, and attend, would like to attend, or will attend on-campus classes or events at West Los Angeles College." The complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal and state statutes by failing to provide the putative class with meaningful access to the programs, services, and activities on the WLAC campus. The Plaintiff Robin Cline is a community college student with a disability that makes it difficult for her to navigate long distances, on uneven terrain, and on inclines. WLAC is a community college within the LACCD system. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ucig7w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Autumn M. Elliott, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AUTUMN ELLIOTT 325 N. Larchmont Blvd., Ste 307 Los Angeles, CA 90004 Telephone: (213) 500-9454 E-mail: autumn@elliottimpact.com - and - Alexandra Robertson, Esq. S. Lynn Martinez, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 888 W. Sixth Street, Ste 700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 E-mail: alexandra.robertson@disabilityrightsca.org lynn.martinez@disabilityrightsca.org ********* 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 ***