260212.mbx

260212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 12, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 31 Headlines 355 RESTAURANT: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Maher Suit Get Final Nod AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Military Leave, Won Suit Claims ANISH NAGPAL: Civil Standing Order Entered in Spa De Soleil Suit ATHLETICO MANAGEMENT: Website Conceals Tracking Tools, Pal Says AURAGLOW LLC: Bahena Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLACK HILLS: Faces Hall Class Suit Over Illegal Lending Scheme BLOCKRATIZE INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Gambling Claims CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Martins Suit CENCORA INC: Marshall & Wetzel Counties Sue For Opioid Distribution CHAKO'S BAKERY: Faces Matsunaga FLSA Suit Over Credit Card Tips COLORADO: Appeals Remand Order in Hardy Suit to 10th Circuit CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Denies Stockholders Right to Vote, Suit Says DAILY RELEAF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lovelace Suit Alleges GOLDEN HEARTS: Faces MacKenzie Class Suit Over Online Gambling GUARANTEED RATE: Appeals Arbitration Order in Peters Labor Suit HALLADOR ENERGY: Pentith Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Case Deadlines in Paull Amended HOMETOWN INN: Velasquez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Lodging Staff INIU INTERNATIONAL: Steinsultz Sues Over Defective Power Banks INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Kennedy Files Suit Over Data Breach INSPYR SOLUTIONS: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Jefferson Says INTER PARFUMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jenkins Alleges INTREPID STUDIOS: Ortega Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice J.K. DUGDALE: Faces White Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls JENNIFER FISHER: Walker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website JOEST LLC: Mezoff Class Suit Removed from State Court to D. Mass. LORETTO HEALTH: Aderohunmu Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action MADCADI INC: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MAGIC SNEAKER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Orcel Suit Says META PIXEL: Parties Seek OK of Bid to Seal Materials MICHIGAN: Paton Alleges Violations of the Fifth Amendment MOON JUICE: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website MOOVE CARS: Wilkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract MUBI INC: Cejudo Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd NAPOLI ENTERPRISE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Meggs Says NATIONAL HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 13 NO6 LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges NOBLE ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Boulter OLD YEW: Faces Orcel Class Suit Over Website Inaccessibility OMORFEE AMERICA: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website OSAIC INCORPORATED: Court Narrows Claims in Gehring Suit PLATINUM US: Faces Nelson Over SlimQuick False Efficacy Claims POMDOCTOR LTD: Faces Louie Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop PRIME HYDRATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kennedy Due March 1 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Mendez Sues Over Unlawful Nicotine Surcharges PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Wallis Claims PUTNAM COUNTY, NY: Hunsberger Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL QUAKER OATS: Amjad Appeals Suit Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit QUAKER OATS: Barquero Appeals Suit Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set April 3 SAMUEL OLSON: Court Modifies Proposed Briefing Schedule SOAPPLY & CO: Faces Licia Suit Over Subscription Unlawful Charges SSPS LLC: Boatner Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Circuit SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Miller Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages TRIPADVISOR LLC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, D'Antonio Says UNDER ARMOUR: Costar Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Private Info UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Murray Alleges UNION CARBIDE: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court UNITED HEALTHCARE: Tamburrino Bid for Class Cert Tossed UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunction & Class Cert. Order to D.C. Cir. UNITED STATES: Ewings Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed UNITED STATES: Suit Stayed Pending Class Cert. Resolution UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Warne Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls VOLUME SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert in Garcia Due August 3 W. L. GORE: Dalton Suit Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users WASHINGTON: Fails to Receive Private Duty Nursing Services, CF Says WISHGARDEN HERBS: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* 355 RESTAURANT: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and Class Members v. 355 RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, 355 RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, THUMBS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, SANDO SUPPLIES LLC, PIR GRANOFF, MATTHEW ARNOLD, RAPHAEL KHUTORSKY, ILAN KHUTORSKY, and JECKSON LEONARDO, Case No. 1:26-cv-01022 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2026) is a class action suit to address the Defendants' systemic wage-and-hour violations in connection with his employment at the restaurant and bar "Short Stories" located at 355 Bowery in Manhattan. The Plaintiff asserts claims individually under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further asserts claims individually under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid regular and overtime wages, statutory penalties for wage notice and wage statement violations, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further brings claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of Class Members for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums under the NYLL and its implementing regulations, together with liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs, against all Defendants. Plaintiff Daniel Gonzalez is an individual residing in Kings County, New York. From approximately Nov. 14, 2022, until Feb. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants. 355 RESTAURANT GROUP LLC is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew J. Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, Ste 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 Facsimile: (631) 942-7399 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Maher Suit Get Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL MAHER, et al., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00152-JXN-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Neals entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for final settlement approval, final settlement class approval, and attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards. Because the Settlement Class satisfies Rule 23's class certification requirements, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final settlement class certification. Here, class counsel certifies the named Plaintiffs "participated in discovery, searched for and produced their relevant documents, and made themselves available to participate in meetings or hearings. Additionally, the Named Plaintiffs were willing to expose their personal and private healthcare information to obtain benefits for the Class." The Court finds this is a substantial basis to give a $5,000 award to each of the named Plaintiffs. In sum, the Court grants Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards. The Settlement establishes a $7.5 million fund, representing 48% of the potential damages Settlement Class Members could recover, to be distributed pro rata to claimants. The Settlement Class has 65,000 members. The parties now request final approval and class certification. They also request $2,500,000 in attorneys' fees (representing 33% of the Settlement Fund), $101,625.09 in litigation expenses, and a $5,000 service fee for each named plaintiff. The Defendant is a pharmaceutical company focused on maternal health, anemia, and cancer supportive care. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8sL7G at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Military Leave, Won Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAONAISSA WON and BRIDGET GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00593 (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to provide equal rights and benefits in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. The case arises from the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay employees when they take short-term military leave, but paying wages or salaries to employees who take short-term nonmilitary leaves. According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to implement the same pay policies for short-term military leave, and to restrict access to paid-leave benefits for short-term military leave, as compared with short-term nonmilitary leave, such as jury duty or bereavement leave, constitutes a violation of USERRA's prohibition on treating military leave less favorably than other similar types of leave. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Amazon.com Services LLC is an e-commerce services provider, with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: mscimone@outtengolden.com - and - Jennifer Davidson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Ave NW, Suite 1200B Washington, DC 2005 Telephone: (202) 847-4412 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 Email: jdavidson@outtengolden.com - and - LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 Email: llusher@vandallp.com asakovits@vandallp.com ANISH NAGPAL: Civil Standing Order Entered in Spa De Soleil Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPA DE SOLEIL, INC., v. ANISH NAGPAL, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00126-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered a civil standing order: Service of the Complaint Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any Answers filed in state court must be refiled in this court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Lead trial counsel shall attend any proceeding before this court, including all Scheduling, Pretrial, and Settlement Conferences. Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirement Counsel should take note of Local Rule 7-3, which requires "counsel contemplating the filing of any motion" to "first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i0iyQ6 at no extra charge.[CC] ATHLETICO MANAGEMENT: Website Conceals Tracking Tools, Pal Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR PAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHLETICO MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a ATHLETICO PHYSICAL THERAPY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01228 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") to third parties, including, Google Inc., without consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website. The complaint relates that included within Defendant's Website is the MyAthletico patient portal which Defendant encourages patients to register for and use so that they can more conveniently book appointments and schedule visits, review their health records, pay bills, and provide additional medical information. Unbeknownst to its patients, Defendant installed tracking technologies ("Tracking Tools") onto its Website, including the Patient Portal registration page on Defendant's Website that navigates to the login page for the Patient Portal. These Tracking Tools transmit PII and PHI to third parties entirely without the patients' knowledge and consent. As used herein, Tracking Tools includes Google Analytics, the Google Tag Manager, and similar tools offered by Google in conjunction with its marketing products and other platforms (such as "DoubleClick"). These Tracking Tools intercept, record, and disseminate patients' communications with Defendant via its Website. Operating as designed, the Tracking Tools commandeer patients' web browsers and surreptitiously disclose their private communications to Google and/or other third parties as Plaintiff and other patients use the Website, the complaint adds. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of the Private Information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty/confidentiality; (2) violation of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act – unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure; (3) invasion of privacy; (4) breach of implied contract; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) negligence. Plaintiff Edgar Pal has been a patient of Athletico Management, LLC. Defendant Athletico Management LLC owns and controls The Website, www.athletico.com, which it encourages patients to use for the Schedule Appointment function, to research providers and locations, communicate what medical or physical concerns they have, to register for the patient Portal MyAthletico, make payments, fill out medical consent and registration forms, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Albert Plawinski, Esq. PLAWINSKI, PLLC 2101 Pearl St. Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 720-7095 E-mail: albert@plawinski.law AURAGLOW LLC: Bahena Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Auraglow LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1212 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://auraglow.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bahena's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The company relates that on October 27, 2025, while searching online for teeth whitening products, Bahena accessed the website Auraglow.com. After reviewing positive customer feedback highlighting the website's teeth whitening products, fast and visible whitening results, ease of use, gentle formula for sensitive teeth, and reliable customer service, she decided to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, Bahena encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to complete a purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Bahena, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States, says the suit. Bahena seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Ashley Bahena is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Auraglow LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of at-home teeth whitening kits and oral care products, including dental-grade whitening gel, whitening pens, and toothpaste boosters. 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 BLACK HILLS: Faces Hall Class Suit Over Illegal Lending Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACK HILLS CREDIT d/b/a CASCADE SPRINGS CREDIT; CLAY COLOMBE; MANDY MEDEARIS; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:26-cv-01350 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2026) seeks to secure redress for usurious and illegal loans made to Plaintiff and thousands of other Illinois residents. The loans at issue charge triple-digit interest rates, often as high as 790%, and are illegal and void under Illinois law. This case concerns the making and collection of unlawful loans in Illinois by Cascade Springs, a predatory lender that purports to be owned by Black Hills Credit, a supposed economic development arm of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (the Tribe), a federally recognized Indian1 tribe. Cascade Springs previously claimed to be wholly owned and operated by the Wakpamni Lake Community, a political subdivision of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, a wholly unrelated Indian Tribe. Usury -- the practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest -- is an ancient crime by which the powerful exploit the most poor and desperate. This case involves one of those schemes, which is commonly referred to as a "tribal lending" business model, or more commonly, as "rent-a-tribe," a "recent incarnation of payday lending regulation-avoidance." Under this model, non-tribal payday lenders and their business partners use Indian tribes as a vehicle to originate illegal loans on the theory that the loans are subject exclusively to tribal law, and the lender entitled to sovereign immunity as a purported "arm-of-the-tribe," not the protections created by state usury, licensing, and consumer protection laws. But the loans nominally made by Cascade Springs are illegal irrespective of any purported tribal sovereign immunity, for sovereign immunity does not—and cannot—transform an otherwise illegal loan into a legal one, the lawsuit says. By marketing, making and collecting loans in Illinois, the Defendants knowingly violated both Illinois and federal law. Indeed, it is well settled that "absent a federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to non-discriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State." BLACK HILLS CREDIT is a federal credit union.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. Julia A. Ozello, Esq. WALLACEMILLER 200 West Madison Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 Facsimile: (312) 275-8174 E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com jo@wallacemiller.com BLOCKRATIZE INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Gambling Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JD Alois of Crowdfund Insider reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against prediction marketplace Polymarket, claiming illegal gambling. The suit was filed in the Southern District of New York, claiming that Blockratize Inc., Inc. d/b/a Polymarket is an unlicensed sports betting firm. The case has been filed with Lorenzo Miro of San Diego as the plaintiff. An earlier lawsuit was filed in Nevada by the State Gaming Control Board in an enforcement action. A restraining order has been issued, thereby preventing Polymarket from serving individuals. The temporary order expires on February 12th and hence blocks users from betting on the Super Bowl. The order could be extended as there is a hearing scheduled for February 11th. Nevada's Gaming Control Board also sued Coinbase (NASDAQ:COIN) on February 3rd, after it began offering prediction markets. Reportedly, Coinbase has filed a countersuit seeking a Temporary Restraining Order blocking Nevada's move. Polymarket, which is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, poses a serious threat to traditional gaming firms and to state regulators who do not like to be bypassed by the Feds. Other states are doing, or attempting to take, similar action against Polymarket. The Tennessee Sports Wagering Council issued a cease-and-desist to Polymarket, Kalshi, and Crypto.com in January. Connecticut took similar action in December 2025 against Polymarket, Kalshi, and others. Massachusetts won a preliminary injunction against Kalshi after the first of the year. The Illinois Gaming Board issued a cease-and-desist targeting Polymarket at the end of last month. The State of Arizona, Attorney General, warned residents against "unregulated prediction markets" in advance of the Super Bowl. A statement issued by Attorney General Kris Mayes did not mention any platforms by name but stated: "Illegal sportsbooks may lack testing to ensure compliance with regulatory standards designed to guarantee fair play, oversight to ensure consumers are paid their winnings, security standards to protect personal and financial information, and/or compliance with anti-money laundering law." For the 2025 Super Bowl, it is estimated that more than $1.39 billion was wagered on the outcome. Approximately $152 million was bet in the State of Nevada. Eventually, everything will be sorted through the courts, something that could take years. [GN] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Martins Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Rita Martins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10357-MJJ, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay appropriate wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. On Sept. 4, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to transfer case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On Jan. 30, 2026, Judge Myong J. Joun entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, but granting its motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Upon careful examination, the Court found that the Plaintiff is qualified for the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which exempts contracts of employment of workers engaged in interstate commerce from the Act's reach. According to the Court, although the Openforce Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Agreement standing alone was not a contract of employment, it was an agreement for payment services, the circumstances surrounding the simultaneous execution of the agreements, the overlapping substance of those agreements, and the Defendant's role in orchestrating the entire arrangement justified treating them as a collective contract of employment. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is denied. The case is transferred to the District of Delaware. The appellate case is entitled Martins v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, Case No. 26-1127, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on February 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RITA MARTINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jack Ives Bartholet, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC 729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Defendant-Appellant CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC is represented by: Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. Andrew J. Butcher, Esq. Jared Sean Kramer, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC 30 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7200 (312) 255-7194 - and - Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY LLP 60 State St., Ste. 1100 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 226-3582 - and - Adam Steel, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC 10 W. Market St., Ste. 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 492-9267 CENCORA INC: Marshall & Wetzel Counties Sue For Opioid Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marshall County Board of Education and Wetzel County Board of Education, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; and McKesson Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00027-JPB (N.D.W. Va., February 3, 2026) arises from the Defendants' massively excessive opioid distributions and their failures to maintain effective controls against diversion and abuse. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a statewide class of all independent public school boards in West Virginia. Every member of the proposed class bears substantial and steadily increasing costs associated with providing special education and related services to children exposed to opioids before birth. West Virginia Public School Boards have already incurred--and will continue to incur -- hundreds of millions of dollars of expenses to provide legally required services to educate and support these children. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seeks to recoup the money they have spent and will spend because of Defendants' conduct and to abate the effects of the opioid epidemic on public schools caused by Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiffs also assert claims for common law public nuisance, common law negligence, and negligent violation of statutory duties. Headquartered in Chesterbrook, PA, Cencora, Inc. (formerly known as AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation) is a registered distributor of prescription opioids. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neil Henrichsen, Esq. HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP, PLLC 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 423-3649 E-mail: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com - and - Wayne Hogan, Esq. TERREL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A. 233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 722-2228 E-mail: hogan@terrellhogan.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Michael Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com - and - Cyrus Mehri, Esq. Joshua Karsh, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 325 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com jkarsh@findjustice.com CHAKO'S BAKERY: Faces Matsunaga FLSA Suit Over Credit Card Tips --------------------------------------------------------------- TOMOKO MATSUNAGA v. CHAKO'S BAKERY CAFE, LLC, AND HISAKO OKAWA, Case No. 2:26-cv-00038-DLB-CJS (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2026) is class suit brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that they regularly and consistently received tips, however, the Defendants would only pay them tips that were made in cash, and did not distribute tips left by credit card tips in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a service employee who regularly received tips in excess of $30 per month from December 2020 to October 2025. These undistributed credit card tips were kept by Defendants for their own use. The Defendants have failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for the work she performed during her employment, says the suit. Plaintiff Matsunaga is a former employee of Defendants. Chako's is Kentucky limited liability corporation with its principal office located at 1401 Russell St., Covington, Kentucky. Hisako Okawa is the owner of Chako's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samantha B. Isaacs, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 797-2859 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: samantha@finneylawfirm.com COLORADO: Appeals Remand Order in Hardy Suit to 10th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY PARKER is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Hardy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey Parker, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03584-PAB-MDB, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from El Paso County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. On Dec. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which Judge Philip A. Brimmer granted on Jan. 22, 2026. The Court concludes that the Defendant did not meet his burden to prove that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The appellate case is entitled Parker v. Hardy, Case No. 26-700, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on February 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTOPHER HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brian Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 - and - Alexander Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 North Logan Street, Suite 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 Defendant-Petitioner JEFFREY PARKER is represented by: Micah David Dawson, Esq. Hillary Ross, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3650 - and - Lindsay Itkin Reimer, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS 910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77022 Telephone: (713) 292-0150 CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Denies Stockholders Right to Vote, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS INC., MARTIN LEHR, PHILIP KANTOFF, JENNIFER EVANS STACEY, LINDA WEST, ANDY PASTERNAK, KAREN SMITH, and LUKE WALKER, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0157 (Del. Ch., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Delaware General Corporation Law. The case challenges the practice of Context Therapeutics Inc. to hold stockholder election every three years. According to the complaint, Context does not have a classified Board and last permitted stockholders to vote in director elections in June 2024. Moreover, Context does not plan to permit an election at its upcoming 2026 meeting. By structuring its governance so that stockholders are denied the right to vote for the election of directors in two out of every three years, Context has effectively nullified the statutory requirement of annual director elections, suit says. Context Therapeutics Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 Email: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. Beranger Rios, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave., Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, PC 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 DAILY RELEAF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lovelace Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Lovelace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Daily Releaf, LLC and Twice the Wellness, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00277-PAB (N.D. Ohio, February 3, 2026) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act in connection with the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "budtender" at their Woodmere, Ohio and Parma Heights dispensaries from 2024 through January 2026. In her work for Defendants, the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all compensation due and owing in a timely manner. In addition, Defendants also practiced time shaving in instances in which Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, says the suit. Daily Releaf, LLC and Twice the Wellness, LLC own and operate a chain of marijuana dispensaries doing business as AYR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, Ohv 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com GOLDEN HEARTS: Faces MacKenzie Class Suit Over Online Gambling -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD MACKENZIE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOLDEN HEARTS GAMES, INC., Case No. 26-00353 (D. Mass., Feb. 5, 2026) alleges that the Defendant owns and operates an illegal online casino website, www.goldenheartsgames.com, where visitors can do and bet real money on slots and other games of chance. Accordingly, the website has been shut down by state authorities in several states for offering "online gambling games," operating without "a casino gaming license," and for being "illegal, dangerous, and seriously ruining people's finances." Golden Hearts continues to operate illegally in Massachusetts, while depriving the state of licensing revenues paid by regulated casinos that, unlike Golden Hearts Games, play by the rules and operate in this state lawfully, the lawsuit contends. The Plaintiff brings this action under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 93 A and 137, and for unjust enrichment in the alternative, seeking recovery of Defendant's unlawful gambling winnings and injunctive relief shutting down the website. GOLDEN HEARTS GAMES, INC. offers casino-style promotional games.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and – Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com GUARANTEED RATE: Appeals Arbitration Order in Peters Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- GUARANTEED RATE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order regarding pending motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Robert Peters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05602-VC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the California Unfair Competition Law. On June 6, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel Opt-In Plaintiffs subject to arbitration agreement, which Judge Vince Chhabria denied on Nov. 18, 2025. On Dec. 8, 2025, the Defendants appealed the Nov. 18 Order. The appellate case is entitled Peters v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-680, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 4, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on February 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on March 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 24, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERT PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua Boyette, Esq. Justin Lee Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 - and - Robert D. Soloff, Esq. ROBERT D. SOLOFF, PA 7805 SW 6th Court Plantation, FL 33324 - and - Marc Silverman, Esq. FRANK WEINBERG & BLACK, PA 7805 SW 6th Court Plantation, FL 33324 Defendants-Appellants GUARANTEED RATE, INC., et al. are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Timothy L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 HALLADOR ENERGY: Pentith Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ SAM PENTITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALLADOR ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00420 (D. Colo., February 3, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant Hallador Energy Company pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Pentith as an underground coal miner from approximately January 2024 to September 2025. Throughout his employment, the Defendant subjected Pentith to its pre/post shift off the clock policy. As a result, the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees are denied overtime wages for the compensable work they perform "off the clock" before and after their scheduled shifts during workweeks in which they work more than 40 hours, says the suit. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Hallador Energy Company does business in both coal production and electric generation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Case Deadlines in Paull Amended ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA PAULL, et al., V. THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE, et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Jones Jr. entered an order amending case deadlines as follows: 1. Responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Daubert motions related to class certification shall be filed by no later than May 22, 2026, and any replies shall be filed by no later than June 5, 2026; and 2. The parties shall hold a planning conference and file a proposed plan to address deadlines for discovery and motions regarding merits issues no later than 14 days after the court rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Provisions of the court's prior scheduling order not altered herein remain in effect. Holly Ridge is a town in Onslow County, North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7nXTtU at no extra charge.[CC] HOMETOWN INN: Velasquez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Lodging Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY JAVIER VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETOWN INN, LP and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26NNCV00835 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to reimburse for business expenditures and losses, unfair business practices, and civil penalties. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a front desk clerk from approximately August 18, 2024 to July 31, 2025. Hometown Inn, LP is a lodging establishment owner and operator headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Adams, Esq. Levon S. Yepremian, Esq. Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507-8525 Email: chris@kjtlawgroup.com levon@kjtlawgroup.com vache@kjtlawgroup.com caspar@kjtlawgroup.com INIU INTERNATIONAL: Steinsultz Sues Over Defective Power Banks -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY STEINSULTZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INIU INTERNATIONAL CORP. and SHENZHEN TOPSTAR INDUSTRY CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00123 (S.D. Ill., February 3, 2026) seeks to remedy violations of applicable law in connection with Defendants' design, manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of defective power banks. According to the complaint, these defective products are prone to spontaneous explosion that may result in serious and potentially life-threatening injuries as well as creating fire hazards and significant damage to any surrounding property. However, the Defendants failed to acknowledge the serious risks consumers are exposed to as a result of their defective products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings his class claims against both Defendants on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated purchasers and/or users of defective power banks, alleging violations of the Illinois' Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by omission/concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, strict liability - failure to warn, strict liability - design defect, strict liability - manufacturing defect, negligent design defect, and negligent failure to warn. Headquartered in Murrieta, CA, INIU International Corp. manufactures and markets mobile power and accessories, including power banks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Gillian C. Kimmons, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com aficzko@stephanzouras.com gkimmons@stephanzouras.com INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Kennedy Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- JOHN KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHTIN HEALTH, INC. and MARTIN'S POINT HEALTH CARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00440-JMC (D. Md., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifying information ("PII"), and the preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected computer systems. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendants who, in order to obtain healthcare services from Defendants, were and are required to entrust Defendants with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. Defendants breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard the Private Information they collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against cyberattack. Between September 17, and September 23, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into Defendants' computer network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, including their names, dates of birth, and unique identifier assigned by health insurance providers, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact, including but not limited to (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) actual identity theft and fraud; (d) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (f) deprivation of value of their Private Information; (g) loss of privacy; (h) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach; and (i) the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, which remains in Defendants' possession and subject to further breaches, so long as Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the patient data they collects and maintains, adds the complaint. To recover from Defendants for these harms, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in their care. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages and equitable/injunctive relief requiring Defendants to (a) disclose the full nature of the Data Breach and types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches; and (c) provide, at Defendants' expense, all Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff John Kennedy is a former patient of Martin's Point, having obtained healthcare services from Martin's Point prior to the Data Breach. Defendant Insightin Health, Inc. is a healthcare member engagement platform company providing their platforms to healthcare providers. Defendant Martin's Point Health Care is a not-for-profit healthcare organization providing healthcare services throughout the state of Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com INSPYR SOLUTIONS: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Jefferson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA JEFFERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSPYR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60302-MD (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about its employees, contractors, and/or clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On January 23, 2026, Defendant was hacked by the notorious Russian cybercriminal syndicate "CL0P". It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. The Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate her injuries. Plaintiff Angela Jefferson is a Data Breach victim. She is a former employee of Defendant insofar as she was employed by "Genuent" which is the corporate predecessor to Defendant. She stopped working for Defendant in 2023. Defendant INSPYR Solutions, LLC is a technology and staffing agency with locations throughout the country. Defendant advertises itself as a national expert in delivering technology solutions and talent that align industry and technical expertise with its clients' business objectives and cultural needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com INTER PARFUMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jenkins Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INTER PARFUMS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00995 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2026) alleges that the Defendant has failed to ensure that its websites, www.hims.com and www.forhers.com, are accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, including Plaintiff, in violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is deeply invested in maintaining independence in online shopping and specifically sought out Defendant's Websites because of their prestige fragrance collections and the sentimental value these products hold for her and her husband. The Plaintiff attempted to browse the Websites to review fragrance notes, compare sizes (such as 60 ml vs. 100 ml), and complete a purchase. However, due to the 25–81 errors per page identified in the audits, Plaintiff remains unable to independently navigate or complete a transaction. Unless Defendant remedies these barriers, the Plaintiff will continue to be excluded from the equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered to sighted consumers. These barriers violate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA, the recognized industry standard for digital accessibility. Plaintiff remains eager to return to the Websites once they are remediated, as they offer fragrances and gift items that align with her specific needs, preferences, and budget, says the suit. Plaintiff Jenkins is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. The Defendant designs, develops, maintains, and operates the online consumer-facing fragrance platforms used to market and sell Montblanc and Jimmy Choo fragrance products in the United States. The Defendant operates a global fragrance business and is the exclusive worldwide fragrance licensee for luxury brands including Montblanc and Jimmy Choo. A.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com INTREPID STUDIOS: Ortega Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTREPID STUDIOS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00708-BTM-SBC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026) is a Class Action Complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On February 3, 2026, the Defendant conducted a mass layoff and/or plant closing by, unilaterally and without notice, within the meaning of WARN, terminating at least 123 employees at the Facility, without 60 days' advance written notice to employees, including Plaintiff, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around February 3, 2026, and within 90 days of that date, and were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act and California WARN Act. The Defendant operates a facility located 3721 Valley Centre Dr., Ste. 200, San Diego, California, where Plaintiff and the putative class worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (341) 217-0550 E-mail: lweaver@stranchlaw.com J.K. DUGDALE: Faces White Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- QUASHAWN WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.K. DUGDALE & SONS INC. DBA KINCAID'S MEAT MARKET, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-001919 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cell phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life. J.K. Dugdale & Sons Inc., doing business as Kincaid's Meat Market, is a market owner and operator located in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rena A. Lerner, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 Email: rena@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com JENNIFER FISHER: Walker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JENNIFER FISHER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01294 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://jenniferfisher.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Jennifer Fisher LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law JOEST LLC: Mezoff Class Suit Removed from State Court to D. Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE MEZOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOEST LLC and JOSEPH DEQUATTRO, Case No. 2582CV01299 (D. Mass., Feb. 4, 2026) was removed from the Norfolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 4, 2026. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-10555-DLC to the proceedings. The Plaintiff's claims of non-payment of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act are based on the same allegations regarding alleged non-payment of overtime serving as the basis for Plaintiff's state law claims. The Defendant designs and manufactures customized vibratory screens, feeders, conveyors, and processing equipment for various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Wallack, Esq. Carson M. Shea, Esq. Trevin C. Schmidt, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC Two International Place, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110-2602 Telephone: (617) 342-6800 Facsimile: (617) 342-6899 E-mail: zwallack@eckertseamans.com cshea@eckertseamans.com tschmidt@eckertseamans.com LORETTO HEALTH: Aderohunmu Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADEYEMI ADEROHUNMU and ALLIYAH RAWLINS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by LORETTO HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by LORETTO HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, v. LORETTO HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, CPS RECRUITMENT, and any related entities, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move before the Honorable David N. Hurd, on a return date set by the Court, for an Order: (1) certifying the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) certifying the Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law claims as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23; (3) authorizing notice of this matter and the consent to join form be published to class members in the form of Exhibits U and V; (4) directing the Defendants to produce a full and complete class list of all class members in accordance with the proposed publication order at Exhibit W; and (5) allowing the Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint. Loretto is a healthcare organization delivering eldercare in Central New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=er4gy4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com asakovits@vandallp.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY Telephone: (315) 314-8000 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com MADCADI INC: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADCADI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01057 (D.N.J., February 3, 2026), accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.jacadi.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Moreover, the Defendant failed to update or remove access barriers on its website, says the suit. Madcadi, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers children's apparel and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 MAGIC SNEAKER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Orcel Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MAGIC SNEAKER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01059 (D.N.J., February 3, 2026), accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.magicsneaker.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. In addition, Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant failed to update or remove access barriers on its website. Magic Sneaker, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website which offers footwear, apparel, and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 META PIXEL: Parties Seek OK of Bid to Seal Materials ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint consolidated administrative motion to seal materials in connection with class certification, motions to exclude, and other briefing. JOINT CONSOLIDATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH CLASS CERTIFICATION, MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE, AND OTHER BRIEFING RE DKT. 267 As requested by the Court, attached to the Joint Motion as Exhibit 1 is "a table organizing all pending sealing requests by document." The Parties are also filing herewith all documents with material sought to be sealed as exhibits. Material Plaintiffs seek to seal is highlighted in green, material Meta seeks to seal is highlighted in yellow, material both plaintiffs and Meta seek to seal is highlighted in pink, and material third parties seek to seal is highlighted in blue. As a result of the Joint Motion, the following previously submitted administrative motions to seal are mooted: Dkts. 213, 217, 224, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 243, 254, 257, 259, 266. In conclusion, the Parties' requests are narrowly tailored to seal only PII and other personally sensitive information about Plaintiffs, including a party proceeding pseudononymously as a Jane Doe; as well as the most sensitive, non-public information contained within these documents that reflect Meta's highly confidential Source Code, proprietary data storage systems, matching methods, integrity systems, advertiser account information, and confidential communications, as well as other non-public information like employee contact information. Disclosure of this information would place Meta at a competitive disadvantage (or in the case of employee contact information, risk a security concern to Meta), and is unnecessary to the public's understanding of this case. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oS5n3w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com RPeterson@4-Justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. Natalie J. Hausknecht, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com MICHIGAN: Paton Alleges Violations of the Fifth Amendment --------------------------------------------------------- LOUISE PATON, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, RACHAEL EUBANKS, in her personal capacity, and TERRY STANTON, in his personal capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-10389-LVP-KGA (E.D.Mich., February 3, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff Louise Paton had three assets held (but not owned) by Defendants that were turned over from US Bank NA, Aspen Dental Management, and the City of Port Huron, totaling $640.99. The Plaintiff petitioned for the return of her property. However, when Defendants returned the $640.99, the Defendants failed to pay the time-value of money generated or should have been generated during the period the assets where held in the Unclaimed Property Program, says the suit. The State of Michigan government manages state resources, provide public safety, and deliver services to residents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. GRONDA PLC 4800 Fashion Sq Blvd, Ste 200 Saginaw, MI 48604 Telephone: (989) 233-1639 E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com - and - Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC PO Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com MOON JUICE: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MOON JUICE VENTURES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01371 (N.D, Ill., Feb. 5, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.moonjuice.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MOOVE CARS: Wilkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- VELEKA WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOOVE CARS MOBILITY USA, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00627-WMR (N.D. Ga., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a driver from January 2025 to the present. Moove Cars Mobility USA, Corp. is a transit services provider, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dane Steffenson, Esq. DANE LAW LLC 3575 Piedmont Rd., Suite L120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 919-9719 Email: Dane@TheDaneLawFirm.com MUBI INC: Cejudo Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CESAR CEJUDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MUBI, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-03652-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 12, 2026, will move the Court for entry of an order: 1. Granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1; 2. Preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class, as defined in sectionI(FF) of the Agreement; 3. Preliminarily appointing the Plaintiff Cesar Cejudo as Class Representative; 4. Preliminarily appointing Dovel & Luner as Class Counsel; 5. Preliminarily finding that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 6. Finding that the proposed Notice Plan complies with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process, and ordering that notice is to be sent to the Settlement Class Members as set forth in the Agreement. The Settlement meets all the criteria for preliminary approval, and the relevant factors weigh in favor of approval. After months of negotiations, including attending multiple mediation sessions guided by an experienced mediator, the Parties have reached a hard-fought class-wide resolution of this matter that provides the class with over a 50% recovery. The proposed Settlement will create a $1,600,000 non reversionary cash common fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class, which will be used primarily to provide direct payments to Class Members. The Settlement Class consists of: "All residents of California who, from April 1, 2021 to May 31, 2025, signed up for a subscription to MUBI and had their subscription renewed, and who did not receive a refund from MUBI of all subscription renewal charges." Mubi is a British streaming platform, production company and film distributor. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o9uZD4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Stephen Ferruolo, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com sferruolo@dovel.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA DAVIS, RASHAWD DUHART, ROBIN LUNDY, and SEAN BERGLUND, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the state of Oregon, MICHAEL REESE, STEVEN ALEXANDER, JEFFERY WHEELER, and JOHN DOES 1-50, acting in concert and their individual capacities, Case No. 3:20-cv-02041-SB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Immergut entered an order adopting findings & recommendations in part: The Defendants' motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the F&R. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows. The Court grants summary judgment to: (1) the individual Defendants on Plaintiffs' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for failure to protect and failure to supervise based on qualified immunity (Claims 1 and 4 in the FAC); (2) all Defendants on Plaintiffs' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for delay and denial of essential medical care based on Plaintiffs' decision to no longer pursue these claims (Claim 2 in the FAC); and (3) all Defendants on Plaintiffs' state negligence claims based on discretionary immunity under the OTCA (Claim 5 in the FAC). The Court denies summary judgment to Multnomah County on Plaintiffs' eighth and fourteenth amendment Monell claims based on the County's failure to protect Plaintiffs (Claim 3 in the FAC). The Court finds that because the unlawfulness of the individual Defendants’ conduct was not clearly established, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims. In sum, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendants have satisfied the requirements for discretionary immunity, and Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence claims based on Defendants’ failure to evacuate. The Plaintiffs are former adults in custody ("AICs") who were exposed to tear gas and other chemical agents at the Multnomah County Detention Center ("MCDC"), which housed approximately 221 to 316 AICs in downtown Portland, between May 29, 2020, and July 29, 2020. In November 2020, Plaintiffs brought this class action against defendants Multnomah County; Multnomah County Sheriff Michael Reese; Chief Deputy of Corrections for the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office Steven Alexander; and MCSO Captain and MCDC Facility Commander Jeffery Wheeler, alleging that the Defendants violated their federal constitutional rights by failing to protect them from tear gas. Multnomah County is part of the Portland metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pH0shB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Larsen, Esq. PICKETT DUMMIGAN MCCALL LLP 210 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 - and - David F. Sugerman, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. SUGERMAN DAHAB 101 SW Main Street, Suite 910 Portland, OR 97204 - and - Erious Johnson, Jr., Esq. HARMON JOHNSON LLC University Station Executive Suites 698 12th Street SE, Suite 240/No. 4 Salem, OR 97301 - and - Gabriel Michael Chase, Esq. CHASE LAW, PC 2014 NE Broadway Street Portland, OR 97232 - and - Michelle R. Burrows, Esq. MICHELLE R. BURROWS PC 16869 SW 65th Ave, Suite 367 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 - and - David D. Park, Esq. DAVID D. PARK, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1500 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97201 - and - Joseph E. Piucci, Esq. PIUCCI LAW 900 SW 13th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Gilmore, Esq. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, COUNTY ATTORNEY 501 SE Hawthorne Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97214 NAPOLI ENTERPRISE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Meggs Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MEGGS, an individual, and ACCESS 4 ALL, INC., a Florida not for Profit Corporation, v. NAPOLI ENTERPRISE, INC. a Nevada corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00254 (D. Nev., Feb. 4, 2026) is a class action alleging that the Defendant has discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against Plaintiffs in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, by failing to have accessible facilities by January 26, 1992. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He has T10 paraplegia who has been a manual wheelchair user and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment, including but not limited to, not being able to walk, stand, climb stairs, or perform activities requiring lower body strength and mobility. The Defendant's Commercial Property at issue in this matter and the business therein are located in and around the Clark County area. The Defendant regularly conduct business within Clark County area, and because a substantial part(s) of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Clark County area. The Plaintiff routinely visits the Commercial Property because it is one of his preferred dining establishments in the area. His most recent visit to the Commercial Property was on November 2025 and plans to return to the plaza in early 2026. The Defendant owned, leased, and/or operated the Commercial Property located at 2055 E Tropicana, Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Iglody, Esq. IGLODY LAW 2580 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 330 Henderson, NE 89074 Telephone: 702-425-5366 E-mail: lee@iglody.com - and - John A. Salcedo, Esq. The Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A. 5600 Davie Road Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 463-8100 E-mail: jsalcedo@mineolaw.com NATIONAL HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NERISSA PRECIOSO et al., v. NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00561 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Holmes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to amend case management order to extend class certification deadlines. The case management plan and schedule is modified as follows: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for Court-approved notice procedures is extended from Feb. 13, 2026 to May 8, 2026. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for Rule 23 class certification is extended from Feb. 13, 2026, to May 8, 2026. 3. The parties are expressly reminded that all other case management deadlines and provisions found in prior orders and not modified herein remain in full force and effect. 4. The parties are further cautioned to promptly attempt to resolve any discovery disputes, regarding class certification discovery and merits discovery, and to promptly bring any unresolvable disputes to the Court’s attention, all in accordance with the discovery dispute resolution procedures in effect in this case. Failure to do so will be increasingly consequential. The Defendant is an healthcare services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DbjhkW at no extra charge.[CC] NO6 LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NO6, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00944 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://no6store.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled, says the suit. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NOBLE ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Boulter -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE BOULTER, and BOULTER, LLC, V. NOBLE ENERGY INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00710-SKC-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting Noble Energy's motion for summary judgment and denying Mike Boulter and Boulter, LLC's partial motion for summary judgment. As the prevailing party, Noble is entitled to an award of its costs. The Plaintiffs only challenge the fact of Noble’s use of the netback method; they do not make any arguments in the alternative regarding the accuracy of the netback method, discrete amounts deducted, the propriety of any one deduction over another, or Noble’s use of the WASP. Consequently, the question of whether those deduction amounts or calculations were accurate and proper is not before the Court. Because the Court concludes the plain language of the leases permit Noble to use the netback method in determining the payments to Plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could conclude that Noble has breached these leases. Noble is entitled to judgment in its favor. The case arises from Defendant Noble's purported breach of three separate oil and gas leases between it and Plaintiffs Mike Boulter and Boulter, LLC. According to Plaintiffs, Noble has improperly deducted post-production costs from the royalties owed to them and other landowners pursuant to the leases. Id. Plaintiffs filed this case as a supposed class action, on behalf of themselves and the Class, and they assert a claim for breach of contract for alleged underpayment of those royalties. The Defendant was an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JNbeyh at no extra charge.[CC] OLD YEW: Faces Orcel Class Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE OLD YEW PLANT SHOP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01065 (D.N.J., February 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.theoldyew.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Moreover, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Old Yew Plant Shop, LLC owns and operates the website which offers houseplants, plant care essentials, decorative pots, gift options, and educational resources on plant maintenance for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ysaks@steinsakslegal.com OMORFEE AMERICA: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OMORFEE AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01371 (N.D, Ill., Feb. 5, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.omorfee.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com OSAIC INCORPORATED: Court Narrows Claims in Gehring Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Gehring, et al., v. Osaic Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00367-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28). If plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint, they must file their amended complaint no later than Feb. 16, 2026. If no amended complaint is filed, defendants shall answer the current complaint no later than Feb. 20, 2026. If an amended complaint is filed, defendants shall respond by the deadline established by Rule 12. The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed within 4 weeks of the date of this order. The parties shall file a proposed Case Management Order containing all the proposed dates at the same time they file the Rule 26(f) Case Management Report. The proposed Case Management Order must also be emailed in Word format to Lanham_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov. The Plaintiffs are Robert Gehring, Harold Hunt, and Jeana Norris. Gehring, Hunt, and Norris seek to represent a class of investors who participated in the defendants' cash sweep programs and were allegedly underpaid on their cash balances. Gehring is an individual investor from New Hampshire who maintained both an APA advisory individual retirement account ("IRA") and a separate non-advisory IRA through APFS beginning in 2016. Osaic operates as an institutional brokerage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bonhXk at no extra charge.[CC] PLATINUM US: Faces Nelson Over SlimQuick False Efficacy Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA NELSON and MICHELLE GARZA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PLATINUM US DISTRIBUTION, INC. d/b/a WELLNX LIFE SCIENCES, USA, WELLNX LIFE SCIENCES, INC. and WELLNX LIFE SCIENCES DR, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00696-GPC-BJW (S.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendants market SlimQuick product with specific false efficacy claims The Plaintiff assert that the product has a miraculous "fat-burning" ingredient that "increases metabolism," "reduces appetite," "reduces excess water," and results in either "11X" or "3X" more weight loss than dieting without SlimQuick. They also falsely claim that SlimQuick is "made with safe and natural ingredients" and is "not harmful." The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell SlimQuick brand weight loss drugs, including Regular Strength, Extra Strength, Pure Keto, and Drink Mix.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory S. Weston Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com POMDOCTOR LTD: Faces Louie Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIANNE LOUIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POMDOCTOR, LTD., ZHENYANG SHI, LI XU, COGENCY GLOBAL, INC., JOSEPH STONE CAPITAL, LLC, and MARCUM ASIA CPAS, LLP, Case No. 1:26-cv-01013 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PomDoctor securities between Oct. 9, 2025, and Dec. 11, 2025, inclusive. The case arises from the crash of PomDoctor's stock in December 2025, following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. In the weeks leading up to December 10, 2025, PomDoctor's share price surged from the initial public offering price (IPO) of $4.00 to an all-time high of $6.09, despite no fundamental news from the Company justifying such a spike. The Plaintiff pursues claims against PomDoctor, Zhenyang Shi, Li Xu, Cogency Global, Inc., Joseph Stone Capital, LLC, and Marcum Asia CPAs, LLP under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accordingly, the Company claims to be "a leading online medical services platform for chronic diseases in China." Specifically, the company states that Frost & Sullivan "ranked [them] sixth in China's internet hospital market" having achieved this by "developing a comprehensive platform that connects users with various healthcare providers, delivers cost-effective and customized healthcare solutions, and have cultivated a vibrant ecosystem around it." The sharp rise proved short-lived. On Dec. 10, 2025, PomDoctor's share price abruptly crashed by approximately 91%, to $0.50. Since then, the Company's share price has continued to decline to approximately $0.40. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and the true nature of its securities trading activity. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that PomDoctor was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals. Plaintiff Julianne Louie, as set forth in the accompanying certification, incorporated by reference herein, purchased PomDoctor securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions alleged herein. PomDoctor is a Cayman Islands holding company with its principal executive offices located in Guangzhou, China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Mollie Chadwick, 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 mchadwick@scott-scott.com - and - Tom Grady, Esq. GRADYLAW 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34102 E-mail: tgrady@gradylaw.com PRIME HYDRATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kennedy Due March 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TURKOISE KENNEDY, individually and in her capacity as parent and legal guardian of JOHN DOE I, and JAMAL HARPER, individually and in his capacity as parent and legal guardian of JOHN DOE II, both on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PRIME HYDRATION LLC, CONGO BRANDS LLC, LOGAN PAUL and OLAJIDE OLAYINKA WILLIAMS OLATUNJI, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Edwards entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order : 2. No later than Dec. 7, 2026, the Plaintiffs shall make initial disclosures of expert reports required by Rule 26(a)(2) on any issues relating to class certification. 3. No later than Jan. 18, 2027, the Defendants shall make initial disclosures of expert reports required by Rule 26(a)(2) on any issues relating to class certification. 4. No later than Nov. 20, 2026, the parties shall complete fact discovery. All discovery relating to class certification shall be completed no later than Feb. 12, 2027. 5. No later than March 1, 2027, counsel for the parties shall file all Daubert motions relating to class certification pursuant to Federal Rule Evidence 702 to exclude experts. Responses shall be filed no later than March 26, 2027, and Replies no later than April 19, 2027. 6. Motions for class certification shall be filed no later than March 1, 2027. Responses shall be filed no later than March 26, 2027, and Replies no later than April 19, 2027. Prime is an American beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NiJOYw at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Mendez Sues Over Unlawful Nicotine Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; the PROCTER & GAMBLE U.S. BUSINESS SERVICES COMPANY; and THE PROCTER & GAMBLE POLICY COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00120-JPH (S.D. Ohio, February 3, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful imposition of discriminatory and punitive health-insurance surcharges on employees and their families based on tobacco or nicotine use. Through this class action, the Plaintiff challenges Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a monthly nicotine surcharge of $30 under the Procter & Gamble U.S. Active Preferred Provider Organization Health Plan (a component of the Procter & Gamble Health & Long-Term Disability Plan) without complying with the nondiscrimination and wellness program requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act, says the suit. Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, The Procter & Gamble Company manufactures and markets consumer goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S, Ste 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. William Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave, Ste 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Wallis Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINE WALLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and CLEARWATER CREDIT UNION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10566-ADB (D. Mass., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between May 29 and May 31, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Progress Software Corporation is a software company based in Massachusetts. Clearwater Credit Union is a credit union based in Montana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com PUTNAM COUNTY, NY: Hunsberger Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL HUNSBERGER, MATTHEW KRAISKY, and KEVIN OSIKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF PUTNAM, Case No. 7:26-cv-01024 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2026) is a class action complaint, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law that the County maintained a pattern and practice of failing to pay them and other non-exempt employees' overtime wages at the rate of one-and-one half times the regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. According to the complaint, the County regularly paid Plaintiffs and other similarly situated, non-exempt employees, including current and former employees holding the title of Deputy, Sergeant, Investigator, Senior Investigator, and First Sergeant at the promised rate of pay, undercalculating the hourly rate of pay of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated, non-exempt employees by dividing their promised annual salaries by the incorrect number of working days -- 261, instead of 249 (and 262, instead of 250 in a leap year) -- as provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's) governing the terms of employment between employees at the PCSD holding the titles of Deputy, Sergeant, Investigator, Senior Investigator, and First Sergeant and the County. The County's undercalculation of Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated, non exempt employees' base rate of pay further resulted in the County's undercalculation of their overtime rate of pay, which should have been no less than one-and-one-half times their promised base rates of pay, resulting in a failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated, non-exempt employees who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are law enforcement officers employed by Defendant -- the County of Putnam -- as members of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Putnam County, New York is a suburban county located in the Hudson Valley region, north of New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Ames, Esq. AKIN & SALAMAN P.C. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (201) 366-3650 E-mail: justin@akinlaws.com QUAKER OATS: Amjad Appeals Suit Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- BILAL AMJAD is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Kessler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Aug. 7, 2025. The Court awarded $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The Court found the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The Court also found that Class Counsel have incurred $72,003.41 in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case. The Court ruled that the Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for these costs. On Dec. 8, 2025, Enoch Barquero filed a motion to file his notice of appeal timely as of the date received by the Court of Appeals (September 8, 2025) and to docket his notice of appeal, which Judge Karas denied because the Court finds his notice of appeal untimely and therefore procedurally defective. On Jan. 11, 2026, Judge Karas entered an Order which will not allow Barquero to rest on Pat Zhen's bond. Barquero's notice of appeal will therefore not be docketed, but to the extent Barquero is nevertheless seeking to appeal the Final Approval of Settlement order, he is ordered to post an appeal bond of $5,000. Because Amjad has not responded to this Court's Order to Show Cause, he is also ordered to post a $5,000 appeal bond. The appellate case is entitled Kessler v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 26-238, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Objector-Appellant BILAL AMJAD appears pro se. QUAKER OATS: Barquero Appeals Suit Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ENOCH BARQUERO is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Kessler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Aug. 7, 2025. The Court awarded $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The Court found the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The Court also found that Class Counsel have incurred $72,003.41 in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case. The Court ruled that the Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for these costs. On Dec. 8, 2025, Enoch Barquero filed a motion to file his notice of appeal timely as of the date received by the Court of Appeals (September 8, 2025) and to docket his notice of appeal, which Judge Karas denied because the Court finds his notice of appeal untimely and therefore procedurally defective. On Jan. 11, 2026, Judge Karas entered an Order which will not allow Barquero to rest on Pat Zhen's bond. Barquero's notice of appeal will therefore not be docketed, but to the extent Barquero is nevertheless seeking to appeal the Final Approval of Settlement order, he is ordered to post an appeal bond of $5,000. Because Amjad has not responded to this Court's Order to Show Cause, he is also ordered to post a $5,000 appeal bond. The appellate case is entitled Kessler v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 26-227, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Objector-Appellant ENOCH BARQUERO appears pro se. RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set April 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richtech Robotics (NASDAQ: RR) has been hit with a securities class action lawsuit after Hunterbrook Media reported on January 29, 2026 that Microsoft denied a commercial partnership with Richtech, sending the price of Richtech shares down over 20% that day. The lawsuit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Richtech securities between January 27, 2026 and January 29, 2026. The severe market reaction has prompted national shareholder rights law firm Hagens Berman to open an investigation into the complaint's claims that Richtech violated the federal securities laws. The firm urges Richtech investors who suffered significant losses to contact the firm now to discuss their rights. Class Period: Jan. 27, 2026 - Jan. 29, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 3, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/rr Contact the Firm Now: RR@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Richtech Robotics (RR) Securities Class Action: The lawsuit is focused on the propriety of Richtech's statements concerning its AI-driven robot business. More specifically, on January 27, 2026, Richtech issued a press release touting "a hands-on collaboration with Microsoft through the Microsoft AI Co-Innovation Labs to jointly develop and deploy agentic artificial intelligence capabilities in real-world robotic systems." CEO Wayne Huang emphasized, "[o]ur collaboration with Microsoft reflects a shared focus on applying advanced AI to practical, real-world use cases." This news implying a meaningful commercial relationship between the two companies sent the price of Richtech shares soaring 30% higher on huge volume that day. Then, on January 28, 2026, the company announced a dilutive at-the-market private placement with an institutional investor of 8.5 million Class B common shares. The complaint alleges that Richtech misled investors into believing that it had a meaningful collaborative and commercial relationship with Microsoft when it did not. Investors' hopes related to Richtech's January 27 announcement were dashed two days later. On January 29, 2026, Hunterbrook Media published "Breaking: Microsoft Denies Partnership With Richtech Robotics," reporting that "Microsoft tells Hunterbrook Media the engagement was a 'standard' customer program with 'no commercial element.'" According to Hunterbrook's reporting, a Microsoft representative said "'[t]here is no commercial element in this lab engagement.'" The report also highlighted that "the 'collaboration' Richtech announced appears to be participation in a free prototyping program available to Microsoft customers -- not a commercial partnership." The market swiftly reacted to this news, sending the price of Richtech shares spiraling over 20% lower on huge volume that day. "We're focused on whether Richtech may have intentionally misled investors in order to accomplish the dilutive equity raise and whether the developments are a new flavor of AI washing," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation. If you invested in Richtech and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses at https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/rr If you'd like more information and answers to other frequently asked questions about the Richtech case and our investigation, read more at https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/richtech-robotics-inc-rr-securities-class-action Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Richtech should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email RR@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] SAMUEL OLSON: Court Modifies Proposed Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VENERA MEMETOVA v. SAMUEL OLSON, ET AL., Case No. 4:26-cv-00023-BJB-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Beaton entered an order modifying proposed briefing schedule to give both parties an opportunity to respond to this opinion and order. The Government must file any supplemental response to this order no later than Feb. 5, 2026. The Petitioner may file a response to the Government's brief no later than Feb. 12, 2026. If the Government does not offer other lawful reasons to detain the Petitioner, or a reason that Bautista does not preclude it from advancing the reasons it has relied on so far, the Court will order the Petitioner's release for lack of a lawful reason to detain. The Petitioner and the Government agree that this case, which depends solely on the effect of the Bautista judgment, may be decided on the briefs. But neither the Petitioner nor the rule of law would benefit from the Court's deciding the important questions of jurisdiction and preclusion that Bautista raises "on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing." These considerations weigh in favor of giving the Government, and the Petitioner, a chance to respond to the Court's preliminary views on the matter, outlined in this order. Given the Bautista judgment about the scope of section 1225(b)(2), and the return the Government has made in this case, release seems warranted. So, if the Government has any other reason to confine the Petitioner, or additional reasons to doubt the preclusive effect of Bautista, it must offer it promptly. The Petitioner, unlike many other immigration detainees who have filed habeas petitions in recent months, advances only one theory supporting release. She contends that because another judge has already decided it's unlawful to detain someone in her shoes without bond, her continued detention is unlawful and violates that court order. "All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c)[2], section 1225(b)(1)[3], or section 1231[4] at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination. Venera Memetova, a Russian citizen, entered the United States, without permission over three years ago. And she has lived here since, under a prior Department of Homeland Security policy allowing—but not requiring --the detention of people who entered illegally and reside inside the country. She concedes, however, that she lacks lawful status in the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a5Jr07 at no extra charge.[CC] SOAPPLY & CO: Faces Licia Suit Over Subscription Unlawful Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS LICEA, Plaintiff v. SOAPPLY & CO., a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.SOAPPLYBOX.COM, Case No. 26STCV03402 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2026) is a class action arising after the Plaintiff purchased an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.soapplybox.com, which caused the Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from the Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. According to the complaint, the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in "violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law by failing to provide clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from the ongoing violations of California law, as well as seeks damages, punitive damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California. The Defendant has substantial contacts with and receives substantial benefits and income from and through the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SSPS LLC: Boatner Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- AUTUMN BOATNER is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Autumn Boatner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSPS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3251, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. On June 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action. On July 29, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On Aug. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike portions of declaration of Geoff R. Hall. On Nov. 25, 2025, Judge Dale E. Ho entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as moot because the Court does not rely on the Hall declaration submitted in support of the motion. In light of the Court's decision granting the motion to compel arbitration, the Affiliate Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. This matter is stayed pending arbitration. The appellate case is entitled Boatner v. SSPS, LLC, Case No. 26-241, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 4, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner AUTUMN BOATNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Roger Perlstadt, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Defendants-Respondents SSPS, LLC, et al. are represented by: Reynold Lambert, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 - and - A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq. IFRAH LAW PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Miller Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Viktor Miller, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sundt Construction, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00070-SHR (D. Ariz., February 3, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Sundt Construction, Inc. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Miller and the other straight time employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week. However, Defendant Sundt Construction, Inc. does not pay them with proper overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant pays them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Tucson, AZ, Sundt Construction, Inc. provides construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 Facsimile: (602) 926-1479 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.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 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com TRIPADVISOR LLC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, D'Antonio Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY D'ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPADVISOR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2684CV00331 (Super. Ct., Mass., February 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for installing and using the Casale Media Tracker without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when users visit Defendant's Website, Defendant causes the Tracker to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. The Tracker is operated by a separate and distinct third party, Index Exchange. Through its Tracker, Index Exchange records Website users' internet protocol addresses and other device identifier information such as device type, and browser type. The Tracker also sets a cookie that includes unique user identifiers, which the Tracker records on subsequent visits and which is used by Index Exchange to identify and de anonymize the user. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of CIPA. Plaintiff Anthony D'Antonio was in California when he visited the Website. Defendant TripAdvisor LLC owns and operates a website, https://tripadvisor.com which is a travel platform that helps users plan and book trips, such as flights, hotels, and activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com UNDER ARMOUR: Costar Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUDREY COSTAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00427-CJC (D. Md., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including names, phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, genders, birth dates and purchase histories (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. Despite Under Armour's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'Everest' posted on a popular hacking forum on November 2025, that it stole approximately 343 GB of sensitive data, including approximately 72 million email addresses, totaling more than 191 million customer records (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant has not provided, and does not appear to have provided, any notice regarding the Data Breach. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, a risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Audrey Costar is a resident and citizen of the State of Ohio. Defendant Under Armour, Inc. is one of the largest athletic clothing producers in the United States, engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of athletic apparel, footwear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Silverman, Esq. William N. Sinclair, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC 400 E. Pratt St., Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 410-385-2225 Facsimile: 410-547-2432 E-mail: ssilverman@silvermanthompson.com bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Jacob E. Lanthier, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612-339-6900 Facsimile: 612-339-0981 E-mail: Khriebel@locklaw.com jelanthier@locklaw.com UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Murray Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TINA MURRAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00474-CJC (D. Md., Feb. 5, 2026) alleges that Under Armour fails to protect personal sensitive information, which has also impeded Plaintiff and other customers' abilities to protect themselves. According to the complaint, despite the fact that the information was already posted on the dark web, Under Armour denied that the breach occurred, stating: "We have no evidence to suggest this issue has affected UA.com or systems used to process payments or store customer passwords." Under Armour has failed to send out notice to its customers, including Plaintiff remains at a continued risk of harm due to the exposure and potential misuse of her personal data by criminal hackers. As such, the Plaintiff brings claims for negligence and negligence per se on behalf of herself and all others whose Sensitive Information was stolen during the Data Breach. In Nov. 2025, the Everest ransomware group announced that they had breached Under Amour's systems and exported 343 GB of data. Subsequently, in January 2026, cybercriminals published the customer data of approximately 74 million individuals on the dark web. This information included names, dates of birth, genders, email addresses, geographic locations, and purchase histories. The type of information impacted by the Data Breach can be used to orchestrate a host of fraudulent activities, including financial fraud and identity theft, says the suit. Under Armour is an American athletics company founded in 1996.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Silverman, Esq. William N. Sinclair, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC 400 E. Pratt St., Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-2225 Facsimile: (410) 547-2432 E-mail: ssilverman@silvermanthompson.com bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com UNION CARBIDE: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al. filed on February 4, 2026, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-1491, seeking a review of the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case captioned Lee Ann Sommerville, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Union Carbide Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00878. The case, brought by the Plaintiffs on December 6, 2019, involves a proposed medical monitoring class action against Defendants Union Carbide Corporation and Covestro, LLC, as the owners and operators of a manufacturing facility in South Charleston, West Virginia, for alleged emissions of ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen. The Plaintiff and proposed class members reside in neighborhoods surrounding the plant, and their lawsuit is based on an alleged significant increase in their risk of developing cancer as a result of the Defendants' alleged emissions. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: John L. Ewald, Esq. Susanna Moldoveanu, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 - and - David A. Fusco, Esq. Wesley A. Prichard, Esq. T. Nathan Townsend, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6500 - and - Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq. Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esq. Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler, Esq. Kyle A. Schneider, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 500E Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 220-1100 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Tamburrino Bid for Class Cert Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH F. TAMBURRINO, M.D., as an assignee and authorized representative of his patient L.K., and BARBARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-12766-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxZCw7 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunction & Class Cert. Order to D.C. Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification in the lawsuit entitled Jose Escobar Molina, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03417-BAH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated to put an end to the Defendants' policy and practice of making immigration arrests without a warrant and without probable cause in the U.S. On Oct. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification, which Judge Beryl A. Howell granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 2, 2025. The Court ordered that the following class is provisionally certified: Unassessed Escape Risk Class: All persons who, since August 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses an escape risk. It is further ordered that the Defendants and their agents are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing their policy or practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without a pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. Section 287.8(c)(2)(ii), which statute and regulation also require the same individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion or removal of aliens. The appellate case is entitled Escobar Molina, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 26-5045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on February 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSE ESCOBAR MOLINA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Adina Bassin Appelbaum, Esq. Samantha Hsieh, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 899−1412 Facsimile: (202) 331−3341 (202) 908−6902 Email: adina@amicacenter.org sam@amicacenter.org - and - Aditi Shah, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF DC 529 14th Street NW, Ste. 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457−0800 (202) 601−4267 Email: ashah@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Alexandra Widas, Esq. Hassan Ahmad, Esq. Jehan Aslam Patterson, Esq. Austin T. Riddick, Esq. Sean Berman, Esq. COVINGTON AND BURLING 850 10th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662−5770 (202) 662−6000 (202) 662−5187 (202) 662−5039 (202) 662−5644 Email: awidas@cov.com hahmad@cov.com jpatterson@cov.com ariddick@cov.com sberman@cov.com - and - Ama Frimpong−Houser, Esq. CASA 8151 15th Ave. Hyattsville, MD 20783 Telephone: (240) 485−8844 Email: afrimpong@wearecasa.org - and - Ian Austin Rose, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS Immigration Impact Lab 1 N. Charles St., Suite 2305 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (202) 788−2509 Email: austin.rose@amicacenter.org - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. Yulie Landan, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Suite 175 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 656−4788 (213) 430−5521 Email: sirine@nipnlg.org yulie@nipnlg.org - and - Graham Michael Glusman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841−1000 Email: gglusman@cov.com - and - Madeleine Gates, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE 700 14th St. NW, Ste. 400 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 319−1044 Email: madeleine_gates@washlaw.org Defendants-Appellants U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are represented by: John Bardo, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 601 D. Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 870−6770 Email: john.bardo@usdoj.gov - and - Alice C. Hwang, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1629 K. Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 496−0500 Facsimile: (202) 496−0555 Email: achwang@jamhoff.com - and - Megan Browder, Esq. LEGAL AID DC 1331 H St. NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 661−5967 Email: mbrowder@legalaiddc.org - and - Barak Cohen, Esq. Caroline M. Mew, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 654−6337 Facsimile: (202) 654−9997 Email: bcohen@perkinscoie.com cmew@perkinscoie.com UNITED STATES: Ewings Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAISHA EWINGS et al., v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10732-KMW-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Williams entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs' first amendment complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is denied. 4. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint within 30 days of issuance of this order. The Defendant provides mail processing and delivery services to individuals and businesses in the US. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vrPMb8 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Suit Stayed Pending Class Cert. Resolution --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA ORTIZ-ANTA, v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-62241-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cohn entered an order granting the Defendants agreed motion to stay: 1. The Defendants' agreed motion to stay is granted. 2. This case is stayed pending resolution of a class certification motion in Echazabal-Verdecia or until the record reflects that Echazabal-Verdecia is no longer proceeding as a class action. 3. The parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days of resolution of the class certification issue in Echazabal-Verdecia. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratvely close this case and deny any pending motions as moot. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a federal agency established in 2002 to secure the nation from threats, including terrorism, border insecurity, and natural disasters, led in 2026 by Secretary Kristi Noem. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nak2Ql at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Warne Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGET A. WARNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00424-SKC (D. Colo., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the residential telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender, with its principal place of business in Pontiac, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 Email: keith@keoghlaw.com tsostrin@keoghlaw.com VOLUME SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert in Garcia Due August 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA C. GARCIA, v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05964-JAK-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order approving in part Joint Stipulation to Continue Motion for Class Certification Deadline Pending Mediation, as follows: Event Continued Date Motion for class certification: Aug. 3, 2026 Opposition to motion for class Aug. 31, 2026 certification: Reply in support of motion for Sept. 14, 2026 class certification: Hearing re motion for class Oct. 5, 2026, certification: at 8:30 a.m. Last Day to file Notice of March 31, 2026 Settlement/Joint Report re Settlement: If a settlement is reached, the corresponding notice on March 31, 2026, shall include a proposed date by which a hearing on preliminary approval should be scheduled. If the parties have not reached a settlement, the corresponding notice on March 31, 2026, shall state the procedural status of settlement discussions, and if they are ongoing, when they are expected to conclude. The joint report shall not disclose the substantive contents of any settlement communications between the parties. Based on a review of the Joint Report, a determination will be made whether the April 6, 2026, hearing will proceed, be continued, or taken off calendar A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8yJYhV at no extra charge.[CC] W. L. GORE: Dalton Suit Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Sitka Gear, Case No. 0:26-cv-01107 (D. Minn., Feb. 5, 2026) contends that Defendant's Website (www.sitkagear.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users full and equal access to important Website content -- content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant offers outdoor apparel for sale including, but not limited to, shirts, pants, bibs, jackets, vests, waders, hoodies, fleece, base layers, footwear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WASHINGTON: Fails to Receive Private Duty Nursing Services, CF Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- C.F. by and through his parent, ERICA DRIGGERS, W.M. by and through his parent, DESIREE PRESNELL, O.S. by and through his parent, LINDSEY TOPPING SCHUETZ, J.P. by and through his parent, JESSICA MORROW, W.J. by and through his parent, DESIREE PRESNELL, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiffs v. RYAN MORAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Washington State Health Care Authority, Case No. 3:26-cv-05095 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 2, 2026) is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the rights of the Plaintiffs and the purported Class under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) and reasonable promptness provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Almost one decade ago, four children with complex health needs were unable to receive all of their approved private duty nursing services. They obtained a preliminary injunction against the Washington State Health Care Authority and others, requiring the defendants to "take all actions within their power necessary for Plaintiffs to receive 16 hours per day of private duty nursing, as previously authorized by Defendants." Unfortunately, this same problem continues today for those Plaintiffs and Class members approved for Private Duty Nursing services who are not receiving PDN services at the level approved by the Defendant, the suit says. That problem also persists for those Plaintiffs and Class members approved for Personal Care services who are not receiving PC services at the level approved by the Defendant. Medicaid-enrolled children residing in the State of Washington with disabling and chronic health conditions bring this suit to challenge the Defendant's failure to arrange for PDN services and PC services. RYAN MORAN is sued in his official capacity as Director of the Washington State Health Care Authority.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory Albert, Esq. ALBERT LAW PLLC 3131 Western Ave., Suite 410 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 576-8044 E-mail: greg@albertlawpllc.com - and - Robert H. Farley Jr. ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR., LTD. 1155 S. Washington Street Naperville, IL 60540 Telephone: (630) 369-0103 E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com WISHGARDEN HERBS: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WISHGARDEN HERBS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01215 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.wishgardenherbs.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. WishGarden Herbs, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law ********* 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 ***