260213.mbx

260213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 13, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 32 Headlines 7 AM ENFANT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges ABBOTT DIABETES: Faces Tejada Suit Over Defective Glucose Monitors ABLETO INC: "Sessa" Settlement Obtains Prelim Court Approval ACWORTH, GA: Patel Balks at Malicious Prosecution, Rights Violation ADVANCED STORES: Class Cert. Opening Brief in McCants Due Sept. 4 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Vincenzetti Bid for Class Cert Due May 22 APPLE INC: Workers Sue Over Restrictions From Having Second Jobs ASHFORD LAS VEGAS: Gil Files Suit Over ADA Violation BAUER BUILT: Anderson Loses Class Cert Bid BLACKROCK TCP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud CABELAS LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rivera Due April 21 CHARLES KHAN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Tucker Suit Says CHOOSE YOUR HORIZON: $400K Settlement Gets Initial Nod COLUMBUS RUNNING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wilson Says CONCORA CREDIT: Faces Pettiford Suit Over Misleading Ads CROSBY FLYING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Arbitration Orders in 3rd Party Payors' Suit Modified DESERT CARE: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 4 DIMENSIONS LIVING: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery Tossed w/o Prejudice DORAL SHOPPING: Saenz Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers DOXIMITY INC: Thayer Sues Over Illegal Use of Personal Info DUKE UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Franklin Gets Final Nod FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Tongpalad Suit Over Private Data Breach FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bid to Stay Yamamoto Suit Tossed FOUNDATION RISK: Class Cert Bid in Charton Extended to April 9 GEN DIGITAL: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Initial Nod HAIER US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Washer-Dryer Combo HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Must Provide Electronic Vote-by-Mail, Suit Says HEALTH-ADE LLC: Reiter Sues Over Prebiotic Soda's Deceptive Label HEMLOCK HAT: Hippe Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HUEL INC: Ruz Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messaging Practices IGLOO PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in "Lieber" INNODATA SERVICES: Snyder Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice INSPIRE MEDICAL: INPRS Appointed as Lead Plaintiff INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Settlement in Scott Gets Initial Nod IRON MOUNTAIN: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Wasilowski Claims JACK ARCHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says JH BAXTER: Court Decertifies Previously Certified Class JJ WHITE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pierce Says KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Seeks to Continue All Deadlines KRISPY KREME: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1.6-Mil. KRISTI NOEM: Bah's Petition for Habeas Corpus Granted LENDUS LLC: Discovery Order Entered in Greist Class Action LIDESLAMBOUS INC: Braxton Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd LINKEDIN CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Crowder Amended to Nov. 20 MARK CUBAN: Karnas Seeks Modification of Dec. 30 Order MCLAREN HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $14MM MELWOOD INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Ingram Says METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT: Appeals Court Order in KE Holdings Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Illegally Stores Biometric Data, Basich Says NFL PLAYER: Alford Bid for Class Certification Tossed NFL PLAYER: Alford Bid to Strike Reply Declarations Tossed NIKE INC: Bid to Redact Third-Party Employee Names Granted NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Said Suit Over Slavery & Involuntary Servitude NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: $11.5MM Deal in "Lytle" Has Prelim Approval OVERLAND SHEEPSKIN: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PAMELA BONDI: Must Release Coke from Custody PANERA BREAD: Faces Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach PANERA BREAD: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Sutcliff Says PEPSICO INC: Inflates Soft Drinks' Retail Prices, Reese Suit Says PHARMERICA PS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Thao Reset to March 12 PHIA GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Benosmane Says PHIA GROUP: Fails to Secure Private Information, Bryan Says PHIA GROUP: Williams Files Suit Over Data Breach PLUG POWER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations POLAROID AMERICA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Cantin Says POMDOCTOR LTD: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Kobus Suit PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Nailing Bid for Class Certification Stricken PSEG LONG: Court Narrows Claims in "Hinds" RANCHO MATEO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Orcel Alleges RATHER OUTDOORS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bennett Says RUSSELL HOLT: Ramirez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed RXVANTAGE INC: Standing Order Entered in Villageliu Class Suit SHIMANO INC: Crankset Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval SOUNDCLOUD INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Class Suit Says SOUNDCLOUD INC: Merkel Files Suit Over Data Breach SPRING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Salinas Claims STOCKX LLC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TAPESTRY INC: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment vs Ayala Partly OK'd TEN FORWARD: Tucker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store TRANSDEV SERVICES: Classes in Lovejoy Lawsuit Decertified TRI COUNTY TELEPHONE: Loses Bid to Recoup Class Suit Legal Bills ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit UNITED NETWORK: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 17 UNITED STATES: Appeals Renewed Motion for Stay Order to D.C. Cir. UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Cert in Urbani Suit Due Sept. 15 UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Theus Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach VA CLAIMS INSIDER: Warriors Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class VISTA HM: Scroggins Seeks OK of Amended Bid for Conditional Cert VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Engines VOZZCOM INC: Bid to File Class Cert Opposition Extended WESTERN ELECTRICAL: Settles 2024 Data Breach Suit for $500,000 WILD OAK: SFR Services Seeks to Certify Class WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Hudgins Suit Seeks Class Certification WISNER BAUM: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Winer Says WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Uribe Sues Over Data Security Failures YERBAE LLC: Thackrah Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ZHEALTH INC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Schultz Says ZULILY LLC: Class Cert Bid in Smith Suit Due March 26 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Co-Defends 3,700 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $708MM Total Liability ********* 7 AM ENFANT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 7 A.M. Enfant Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01031-JMB-DLM (D. Minn., February 4, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.7amenfant.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. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, asserts the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under 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. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant 7 A.M. Enfant Inc. is a New York Company and is headquartered at 150 Beekman Street #2, New York, New York 10038. It offers baby and toddler apparel for sale including, but not limited to, baby and toddler clothing, outerwear, diaper bags, stroller accessories, car seat accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ABBOTT DIABETES: Faces Tejada Suit Over Defective Glucose Monitors ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARMEN TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC. and ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01078 (N.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to disclose material manufacturing defects that adversely impacted the accuracy and reliability of its Libre 3 Sensors' glucose readings. According to the complaint, because Abbott Defendants concealed material safety information from consumers, and made affirmative misrepresentations, consumers paid a substantial premium when buying the defective Libre 3 Sensors in reliance on the numerous express and implied promises, representations, assurances and/or affirmations from Defendants. In December 2025, Abbott was forced to issue a recall for approximately 3 million of the Libre 3 Sensors, admitting that due to a faulty production line, the sensors would produce inaccurate glucose readings that would pose serious health risks, including potential injury or death, or other less serious complications to patients using the sensors. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in Alameda, CA, Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. designs, develops and manufactures glucose monitoring systems and test strips. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steve@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com ABLETO INC: "Sessa" Settlement Obtains Prelim Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Michael Sessa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AbleTo, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-2219-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case on February 3, 2026. The Court adopted the January 7, 2026 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite and granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval. The Court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, having been negotiated at arms-length between experienced attorneys following substantial discovery and facilitated by an experienced mediator. The Court certified, for settlement purposes only, a settlement class comprising all current or former Aetna members within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint through to the date of preliminary approval, received a prerecorded voicemail from Defendant on their cellular phone. The class period runs from September 29, 2019, through the date of preliminary approval. According to the Settlement:Each settlement class member who submits a timely, valid claim will receive $23. The Court appointed Michael Sessa as class representative, William Howard, Abbas Kazarounian, and Ryan L. McBride as class counsel, and American Legal Claims Services, LLC as claims administrator. The Court approved the proposed notice plan, including email and postcard notices, and scheduled a final fairness hearing before the magistrate judge. A copy of the court's preliminary settlement dated 3rd February, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o5bhW5 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant AbleTo, Inc. is represented by: Allen Paige Pegg Katherine I. Culora Adam K. Levin Carolyn A. DeLone Hogan Lovells US LLP allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com katherine.culora@hoganlovells.com adam.levin@hoganlovells.com carolyn.delone@hoganlovells.com Plaintiff Michael Sessa is represented by: Ryan Lee McBride Kazerouni Law Group, APC Tel: 800-400-6808 ryan@kazlg.com](mailto:ryan@kazlg.com Amanda J. Allen William Peerce Howard The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC Tel: 813-500-1500 amanda@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com Mohammad Kazerouni Kazerouni Law Group APC Tel: 800-400-6808 mike@kazlg.com Mediator is Emmett L. Battles of Zinober Diana & Monteverde P.A. ebattles@zinoberdiana.com was terminated on February 1, 2024. ACWORTH, GA: Patel Balks at Malicious Prosecution, Rights Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- MAHENDRA PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICER JAMES EVAN WALLACE, CITY OF ACWORTH, SONYA F. ALLEN, CAROLINE MILLER, and TEMPERANCE STODDARD, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00732-SDG (N.D. Ga., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for Monell Liability for malicious prosecution, class-of-one equal protection violation, conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights, and malicious prosecution under Georgia Common Law. The case arises from Defendants Wallace and Stoddard's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation before seeking criminal charges against the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, Defendant Miller accused the Plaintiff with criminal attempt to commit kidnapping, simple assault, and simple battery at a Walmart store. Rather than reviewing and fairly evaluating the surveillance footage, Defendants Wallace and Stoddard relied almost exclusively on Ms. Miller's allegations. As a result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff was incarcerated for 47 days without bond and lost business opportunities, was removed from charitable organizations, and endured significant public stigma, says the suit. City of Acworth is a municipality in the State of Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Miceli, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: dmiceli@milberg.com - and - Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: astraus@milberg.com - and - Solomon M. Radner, Esq. RADNER LAW GROUP, PLLC 17515 West 9 Mile Rd., Suite 1050 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (877) 723-6375 Facsimile: (866) 571-1020 Email: solomon@radnerlawgroup.com ADVANCED STORES: Class Cert. Opening Brief in McCants Due Sept. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCants v. Advanced Stores Company Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03370 (C.D. Ill., Filed Dec. 1, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order: -- Protective Order and ESI Protocol by Feb. 20, 2026 -- Amendment of Pleadings by April 30, 2026 -- Joinder of Additional Parties by April 30, 2026 -- Motion for Class Certification Opening Brief by Sept. 4, 2026 -- Response by Oct. 5, 2026 -- Reply by Oct. 19, 2026 -- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Experts by Nov. 18, 2026 -- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Expert Reports by Dec. 2, 2026 -- Close of Fact Discovery by Dec. 11, 2026 -- Plaintiff's Experts Deposed by Dec. 18, 2026 -- Disclosure of Defendant's Experts by Dec. 18, 2026 -- Disclosure of Defendant's Expert Reports by Jan. 8, 2027 -- Defendant's Experts Deposed by Jan. 22, 2027 -- Completion of All Discovery by Feb. 26, 2027 -- Dispositive Motions Filed by March 19, 2027 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Advance specializes in the distribution and retail of automotive aftermarket parts.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Vincenzetti Bid for Class Cert Due May 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VINCENZETTI and ALICIA GRUMET, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02681-RM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Court entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines: Supplemental document production by: Feb. 2, 2026 Completion of two remaining depositions by: April 14, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: May 22, 2026 Opposition to class certification: June 22, 2026 Replies in support of class certification: July 20, 2026 Motion for Summary Judgments by: Aug. 14, 2026 Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RotNtN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Alexander N. Hood, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. Brianne M. Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org brianne@towardsjustice.org - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kyle Anne Petersen, Esq. Stephanie D. Delatorre, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 E-mail: kpetersen@seyfarth.com sdelatorre@seyfarth.com - and - Gregory Paul Szewczyk, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP-DENVER 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202-5596 APPLE INC: Workers Sue Over Restrictions From Having Second Jobs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a former Apple employee filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. Why: The tech giant allegedly illegally restricted its employees from having second jobs. Where: The Apple class action lawsuit was removed to Washington federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims that Apple illegally prohibited its employees from having second jobs. Plaintiff Gabriel Fisher, a former Apple employee, filed the class action complaint against the company on Dec. 17 in Washington state court, alleging violations of state employment laws. The case was later removed to Washington federal court. According to the class action lawsuit, Apple has been unlawfully restricting its low-wage employees from engaging in additional employment, violating Washington state's noncompetition law. The lawsuit claims the company's business practices have prevented Apple employees who earn less than twice the state minimum wage from holding second jobs, working as independent contractors or being self-employed. The plaintiff argues that these restrictions are illegal under Washington state law, which prohibits such covenants for low-wage workers. "Apple's policies and procedures reflect a standard business practice designed to prevent low-wage workers from having second jobs," the Apple class action lawsuit says. Class members seeking $5,000 each in statutory damages, Apple class action alleges The Washington state law, effective since Jan. 1, 2020, aims to facilitate workforce mobility and protect workers by prohibiting restrictive covenants that limit competition or hiring, the Apple class action lawsuit says. The law specifically states that an employer may not restrict, restrain or prohibit an employee earning less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor or being self-employed. The class action lawsuit alleges that Apple violated this provision by imposing restrictive covenants on its employees, preventing them from seeking additional employment opportunities. The plaintiff and other class members who were subject to these restrictions are seeking $5,000 each in statutory damages, plus attorney fees and costs. A preliminary review of Apple's records shows that more than 1,000 individuals worked for Apple in Washington from Dec. 17, 2022, to Jan. 15, 2026, and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage, the class action lawsuit states. The lawsuit aims to represent a class of all current and former Apple employees who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from Dec. 17, 2022, through the date of certification of the class. In another recent Apple class action, a consumer alleges the tech giant falsely advertises digital content on its Apple TV platform as "4K." The plaintiff is represented by Timothy W. Emery, Patrick B. Reddy, Paul Cipriani and Hannah M. Hamley of Emery Reddy P.C. The Apple class action lawsuit is Fisher v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00204, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] ASHFORD LAS VEGAS: Gil Files Suit Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS GIL, an individual, and ACCESS 4 ALL, INC., a Florida not for Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs v. ASHFORD LAS VEGAS LP, a Limited Partnership, ASHFORD TRS LAS VEGAS LLC, a Limited Liability Company, and PARKING MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00253 (D. Nev., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants by failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and by failing to take such efforts that may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services. Defendants ASHFORD LAS VEGAS LP, ASHFORD TRS LAS VEGAS LLC, and ARKING MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC are companies located in Delaware and doing business in the State of Nevada, owning and operating a hotel in the State of Nevada, and deriving substantial revenue from the State. The Defendants own, operate, control and/or maintain a website for the Commercial Property, and/or manages listings and provide information to third party sites, which contain an online reservations systems for the Commercial Property. According to the complaint, Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS GIL stayed at the Commercial Property from November 21, 2025 to November 22, 2025. Plaintiff, Gil, is an avid racing fan who visits the Las Vegas area whenever possible. Beyond traveling to Las Vegas for racing events, casinos and concerts, he enjoys the Las Vegas atmosphere which he finds invigorating. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs by denying them access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by the ADA. The Plaintiff plans on returning to the area in 2026 for Formula 1 racing as well as meetings held by the National Federation of the Blind. If the property remains inaccessible at that time, he will once again be forced to change accommodations and will suffer the stress and expense of another last minute relocation. The Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, and are entitled to recover attorney's fees, costs, adds the complaint. Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS GIL, disabled, is an individual over eighteen years of age, who resides in Florida and is otherwise sui juris. He is a member of the Not-for-profit Corporation, ACCESS 4 ALL, INC. Plaintiff, ACCESS 4 ALL, INC, is a Florida Not-for-profit Corporation, formed under the laws of Florida, and maintains its principal office in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Members of its organization include individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA, and are representative of a cross-section of the disabilities to be protected from discrimination by the ADA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Iglody IGLODY LAW 2580 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 330 Henderson, NV 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 BAUER BUILT: Anderson Loses Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. BAUER BUILT INC. d/b/a Bauer Built Tire & Service, Case No. 3:24-cv-00200-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Jordan Anderson's unopposed motion for certification of a class and for preliminary approval of the settlement is denied without prejudice. 2. Anderson may have until Feb. 12, 2026, to file an amended motion addressing the concerns raised in this order. The parties' settlement agreement defines the proposed class as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII/PHI was compromised in the Data Breach discovered by Bauer in April 2023, including all those individuals who received notice of the breach." The class action arises from a cyberattack on defendant Bauer Built Inc., which sells and services tires. The Plaintiff Anderson is a former employee of Bauer Built. Anderson alleges that Bauer Built's failure to adequately protect its computer network allowed cybercriminals to steal information about Bauer Built's customers and employees, including full names, social security numbers, driver license numbers, financial account numbers, and medical information. Bauer Built manufactures tire products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N8Lqks at no extra charge.[CC] BLACKROCK TCP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired BlackRock TCP Capital Corp. ("BlackRock" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCPC) securities between November 6, 2024 and January 23, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). BlackRock investors have until April 6, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR BLACKROCK (TCPC) INVESTMENTS, CLICK https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/blackrock-tcp-capital-corp/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. You can also contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss your legal rights by email at info@frankcruzlaw.com, by telephone at (310) 914-5007, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. What Happened? On February 27, 2025, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2024. The press release disclosed that the Company's portfolio had significantly weakened during the 2024 fiscal year. Specifically, the press release revealed the number of portfolio companies on non-accrual status had more than doubled, and as a result, debt investments on non-accrual status at cost increased by 289% (from 3.7% to 14.4% of the portfolio). Moreover, the press release revealed that the Company's net asset value ("NAV") had fallen 22.44% year over year to $9.23 per share. Total losses, both realized and unrealized, were revealed to have ballooned to $194,895,042 for the fiscal year, a 186% increase year over year, in large part due to a newly added $72.3 million net unrealized loss within the fourth quarter. Despite this, the press release alleged the NAV of the Company was accurate at $9.23 per share, and that "the vast majority of [the Company's] portfolio continued to perform well," and the Company was "working closely with [its] borrowers and sponsors to resolve the portfolio issues." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.90, or 9.64%, to close at $8.44 per share on February 27, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. On January 23, 2026, after market hours, BlackRock TCP disclosed certain fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results, including that the Company's NAV per share as of December 31, 2025 was in fact in the range of $7.05 to $7.09, 19% less than reported the prior quarter and 23.4% less than reported the prior year. On this news, BlackRock TCP's stock price fell $0.76, or 12.97%, to close at $5.10 per share on January 26, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's investments were not being timely and/or appropriately valued; (2) the Company's efforts at portfolio restructuring were not effectively resolving challenged credits or improving the quality of the portfolio; (3) as a result, the Company's unrealized losses were understated; (4) as a result, the Company's NAV was overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased BlackRock securities, wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click HERE or contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] CABELAS LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rivera Due April 21 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CABELAS LLC, a Delaware company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00290-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Starnella entered an order granting the parties' stipulation and joint request to extend scheduling deadlines. The discovery cut off is extended to April 7, 2026. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to May 8, 2026. The deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended to April 21, 2026. Cabela's is an American retailer specializing in hunting, fishing, camping, and outdoor gear. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XXLCD8 at no extra charge.[CC] CHARLES KHAN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Tucker Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES KHAN INVESTMENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01105 (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. 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://atlanticnaturals.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: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Charles Khan Investments LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CHOOSE YOUR HORIZON: $400K Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MARTINEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CHOOSE YOUR HORIZON, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02798-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered an order: (1) preliminarily approving the settlement and authorizes the notices as set forth in this order, (2) approving the notice plan, (3) provisionally appointing the class representatives and class counsel, (4) appointing Simpluris as the settlement administrator, (5) directing the procedures in this order, and (6) directing the parties and Simpluris to carry out their obligations pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The schedule for all events is summarized in the chart in the proposed order, filed simultaneously with this order. The final-approval hearing will be on April 23, 2026. This resolves ECF No. 61. The court finds (for settlement purposes only) that the proposed settlement class meets the Rule 23(a) prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The plaintiffs, Karen Martinez and Eli Silva, claim that CYH intercepted their personally identifying information and personal health information and disclosed it to third parties, in violation of California privacy statutes. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All California residents who, from May 9, 2023, to and through July 11, 2024, had their personally identifiable information or protected health information disclosed to third-party entities, as a result of using the Websites while located in California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, the Defendant's subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. The gross Settlement Fund is $400,000.00 and is fully non-reversionary.15 It will be used to pay all Settlement Class Members, Notice and Settlement Administration Costs, taxes owed by the Settlement Fund, any court-approved service award to the plaintiffs, and any court-approved attorney’s fees and awards. Choose Your Horizon is a psychiatric practice offering innovative at-home therapies and coaching. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OD9MD1 at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBUS RUNNING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wilson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLUMBUS RUNNING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01368 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.columbusrunning.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on July 7, 2025, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website, www.columbusrunning.com to purchase the Brooks Men's Hyperion Max 3, from the Defendant's online store. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. The complaint alleges that for the visually impaired, this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered. These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff HOWARD WILSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant COLUMBUS RUNNING COMPANY, LLC owns and operates the Website which presents Columbusrunning.com, as a specialty retailer focused on serving runners with footwear, apparel, accessories, and service support, such as fitting. It highlights a curated selection of performance gear from leading brands, as well as training resources and events for athletes of all levels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CONCORA CREDIT: Faces Pettiford Suit Over Misleading Ads -------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PETTIFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORA CREDIT INC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00709-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) arises from Defendant's deceptive, urgency-driven advertisements designed to mislead unwary consumers into believing they have been specially selected for immediate credit cards. The Plaintiff received a message promoting Defendant's credit services. However, the Defendant's message (1) came from a spoofed, nonsensical address; (2) contained a forged domain untraceable to defendant; and (3) falsely framed a mass-market solicitation as a personalized "congratulations" about qualifying for a unique credit card. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant deliberately outsources its credit card solicitation to third-party affiliate marketers to reap the benefits of large-scale unlawful spamming. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the California Business & Professions Code. Concora Credit Inc. is a financial services company headquartered in Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 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 CROSBY FLYING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CROSBY FLYING SERVICES, LLC, Case No.4:26-cv-00012-DC-DF (W.D. Tex., February 4, 2026) seeks for damages and other relief for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an aircraft refueler and assistant manager, and was paid an hourly rate, from approximately March 9, 2020 to January 26, 2025. Allegedly, the Defendant has suffered, required and permitted Plaintiff and the collective members to regularly work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation for all such hours worked. However, the Defendant routinely reduced and did not pay Plaintiff's and collective members for all their actual hours worked, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Crosby Flying Services, LLC provides aircraft services that include aircraft charter and rental, refueling and maintenance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com CVS PHARMACY: Arbitration Orders in 3rd Party Payors' Suit Modified ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund; and Indiana Carpenters Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, C.A. No. 16-cv-046-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and modified earlier arbitration orders. The Court found that the law of the First Circuit has changed such that the Court must lift its stay, eliminate the previously created subclasses, and allow some of the class members' claims to proceed while dismissing the claims of other class members. Plaintiffs are members of a class action lawsuit brought against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. The Plaintiffs are third-party payors or health plans that offer their members prescription drug insurance at subsidized or reduced costs. CVS is one of the defendants in this lawsuit. There are also various pharmacy benefit managers that have been involved in this case in various capacities, including Caremark, OptumRx, Express Scripts, Medco, and MedImpact. The pharmacy benefit managers act as middleperson between the third-party payors and CVS by, among other things, negotiating drug prices on behalf of the third-party payers. Plaintiffs first brought claims against CVS nearly a decade ago, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., and state consumer protection acts, as well as claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. In essence, Plaintiffs assert that CVS conspired with certain pharmacy benefit managers to defraud and overcharge Plaintiffs for prescription drugs. On May 11, 2021, the Court certified a Nationwide Class. This class is composed of over 5,000 third-party payors who contracted with the pharmacy benefit managers. Crucially, CVS is not a party to any of these contracts. As part of the discovery process, the pharmacy benefit managers began to produce their contracts with the third-party payors. Several of these contracts contain alternative dispute resolution provisions, which require the parties to submit to either arbitration or mediation. In 2023, pharmacy benefit manager Caremark and CVS filed separate motions to compel Plaintiffs to submit to the alternative dispute resolution provisions or, in the alternative, to dismiss from the class any absent class member third-party payor with an alternative dispute resolution provision in its contract with Caremark. On May 30, 2024, the Court issued an order that made several key holdings. First, the Court dismissed Caremark from this lawsuit entirely. Second, the Court put certain absent class members into a subclass and temporarily stayed those subclass members' claims. The Caremark Subclass is specifically composed of 2,312 third-party payors whose contracts with Caremark have arbitration agreements that contain delegation clauses, which delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The Court later created another subclass for absent class members whose contracts with MedImpact contain arbitration provisions with delegation clauses, and the claims of the MedImpact Subclass were also temporarily stayed. Plaintiffs requested that the Court vacate its Arbitration Orders, eliminate the Caremark and MedImpact Subclasses, and decide the issue of arbitrability itself. Plaintiffs asserted that this outcome is necessary because, since issuing the Arbitration Orders, the law has changed in the First Circuit. CVS objected to this motion. The Court treated Plaintiffs' motion as a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court noted that granting a motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly. A court may grant such a motion only in one of three limited circumstances: if the moving party presents newly discovered evidence, if there has been an intervening change in the law, or if the movant can demonstrate that the original decision was based on a manifest error of law or was clearly unjust. Plaintiffs asserted that, since the Court issued its Arbitration Orders, there has been an intervening change in the law of the First Circuit. Last year, the First Circuit issued its decision in Morales-Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc., which marked a shift in how nonsignatories to arbitration agreements can compel signatories to those agreements to submit to arbitration. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs that reconsideration of the Arbitration Orders is appropriate. The First Circuit held that as a general rule, contractual agreements bind only the parties to the agreement and may be enforced only by those parties. The Court clarified that federal courts do in fact possess authority to determine whether CVS could, as a nonsignatory, enforce the delegation provisions contained in the contracts. The First Circuit made clear that nonsignatories must first establish their right to enforce a delegation clause through one or more of the traditional principles of contract law that permit nonsignatory enforcement. The Court determined that CVS may invoke the delegation clauses contained in the contracts only if it can explain how it overcomes the general rule that contractual agreements bind only the parties to the agreement and may be enforced only by those parties. And whether a nonsignatory like CVS can make this showing is squarely an issue for this Court, rather than an arbitrator, to decide. The Court conducted the equitable estoppel analysis on a state-by-state basis. The contracts with delegation clauses invoke the law of 33 states and the District of Columbia. The Court grouped the claims into Category 1 Claims and Category 2 Claims. Category 1 Claims are those claims governed by states that apply the rely on test and/or concerted misconduct test for equitable estoppel. CVS is entitled to enforce the delegation clauses associated with these claims, and these claims must therefore be dismissed from this lawsuit. Category 2 Claims are those claims governed by states that employ the detrimental reliance test, or that preclude nonsignatories from enforcing arbitration agreements absent language in the agreements that expressly contemplates nonsignatory enforcement. CVS is not entitled to enforce the delegation clauses associated with these claims. These claims can therefore proceed in court. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion and modified its rulings as follows: The Court's earlier stay is lifted; the claims of third-party payors with delegated arbitration agreements governed by Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia law are dismissed; the claims of third-party payors with delegated arbitration agreements governed by Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin law may proceed; and the Caremark and MedImpact Subclasses are eliminated. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 3 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V3ElKd from PacerMonitor.com Defendant CVS Health Corporation is represented by: William T. Burke Grant Andrew Geyerman Kathryn E. Hoover Enu A. Mainigi Luba Shur Williams & Connolly LLP 202-434-5299 wburke@wc.com ggeyerman@wc.com khoover@wc.com emainigi@wc.com lshur@wc.com Robert Clark Corrente Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP 401-270-4500 rcorrente@whelancorrente.com Plaintiff Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130, U.A. is represented by Stephen M. Prignano (McIntyre Tate LLP, 401-351-7700, smp@mtlesq.com ); Ivy Arai Tabbara (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 206-623-7292, ivy@hbsslaw.com ); Steven W. Berman (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 206-623-7292, steve@hbsslaw.com ); Elizabeth A. Fegan (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 708-628-4960, beth@hbsslaw.com ); and Donald F. Harmon (Burke Burns & Pinelli, Ltd., 312-541-8600, dharmon@bbp-chicago.com DESERT CARE: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 4 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.K. et al., v. Desert Care Network et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05021-SPG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order setting schedule for class certification as follows: Event Date Deadline to serve written discovery for May 15, 2026 class certification: Class certification fact discovery Jun. 15, 2026 cut-off: Motion for class certification deadline: Nov. 4, 2026 Response to motion for class certification: Dec. 2, 2026 Reply in support of motion for class Dec. 23, 2026 certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Jan. 13, 2027 Desert Care is a healthcare resource in the Coachella Valley and Morongo Basin regions of Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sgll8I at no extra charge.[CC] DIMENSIONS LIVING: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANASHA WOODS, v. DIMENSIONS LIVING CUDAHY, LLC and HEALTH DIMENSIONS CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00378-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order that the Defendants Dimensions Living Cudahy, LLC and Health Dimensions Consulting, Inc.'s motion for a protective order or to bifurcate discovery is denied without prejudice. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiff Kanasha Woods's motion for leave to file a sur- reply is denied without prejudice; -- the Defendants Dimensions Living Cudahy, LLC and Health Dimensions Consulting, Inc.'s motion for leave to file an amended answer is denied without prejudice; -- the case is stayed pending resolution of Lutz v. Froedtert Health, Appeal No. 25 2802 (7th Cir. Oct. 14, 2025); either party may move to reopen this case within fourteen (14) days of the Seventh Circuit's issuance of the mandate or other disposition order in the Lutz Appeal; and The Court finds it prudent to implement a stay in this matter and to administratively close this case. Defendants’ motion for a protective order, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply thereto, and Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer will be denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff raises claims that she was not properly compensated as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin wage law. Dimensions provides assisted living and memory care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cl3tcl at no extra charge.[CC] DORAL SHOPPING: Saenz Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SAENZ, Plaintiff v. DORAL SHOPPING INC, ABREU & BRACHO ASSOCIATES LLC D/B/A GOCHON and CHICKEN EXPERTS LLC D/B/A GRANPOLLO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20732 (S.D. Fla., February 4, 2026) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from the presence of architectural barriers in Defendants' commercial plaza property and restaurant businesses that have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza property and businesses within it. DoraL Shopping Inc. owns and operates a commercial real property in Doral, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: : ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com, mds@ajperezlawgroup.com DOXIMITY INC: Thayer Sues Over Illegal Use of Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- KELSEY THAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOXIMITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01206 (N.D. Cal., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Right of Publicity Law, California's Common Law Right of Publicity, and California's Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's misappropriation and use of the Plaintiff's and similarly situated Americans' names, identities, and other personally identifying information (PII) to advertise and promote its own products and services without consent. The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action to redress and put a stop to the Defendant's violations of the right of publicity. Doximity, Inc. is an online networking service provider for medical professionals, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com DUKE UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Franklin Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY G. FRANKLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR DUKE UNIVERSITY, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-00833-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order as follows: 1. The plaintiff's motion for final approval of class settlement is granted. 2. The defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. 3. The Court finally certifies the class defined in the Settlement agreement, certifies Ms. Franklin as class representative, and confirms the appointment of Ms. Franklin's counsel as class counsel. 4. The operative Complaint and all claims asserted therein in the Action are dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any of the Settling Parties except as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The proposed class for settlement purposes is defined as follows: "All participants and beneficiaries of the [Duke University Employees' Retirement] Plan who: (1) began receiving benefits on or after Sept. 29, 2017, but before July 1, 2023, (2) are receiving a joint and survivor annuity with a spousal survivor benefit of at least 50% and no more than 100% of the benefit paid during the retiree's life, or are receiving a qualified preretirement survivor annuity." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and any individuals determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan. Ms. Franklin alleged that the defendants used outdated and unreasonable actuarial equivalency formulas in violation of ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirement. Duke University is a private research university in Durham, North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9r4Q2b at no extra charge.[CC] FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Tongpalad Suit Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAWUDH TONGPALAD, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01139 (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the California Unfair Competition Law. On or about August 22, 2025, the Plaintiff received a notice from Defendants informing her that of a security incident that involved some of your personal information. According to Defendants' notice to affected customers, one of Defendants' third-party vendors alerted them to a suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of their vendor's databases containing customer information. The investigation determined that the unauthorized actor accessed the vendor's database on May 29, 2025, and acquired certain data. The Defendants failed to provide their customers with the timely notice about the data breach. In addition, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by receipt of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains from the unauthorized access of Plaintiff's and the Class's accounts, obtained largely as a result of the acts and omissions, says the suit. Farmers Insurance Exchange is an insurance service company headquartered in Woodland Hills, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bid to Stay Yamamoto Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YAMAMOTO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware Stock Corporation; FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06796-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's ex parte application for order staying case, or alternatively, further continuing deadline to file motion for class certification and other dates: FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N2EI6R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmin K. Gill, Esq. Ashlie E. Fox, Esq. Sacha Pomares, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 459-6023 Facsimile: (310) 728-2137 E-mail: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com ashlie@jkgilllaw.com sacha@jkgilllaw.com FOUNDATION RISK: Class Cert Bid in Charton Extended to April 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS CHARTON, v. FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS CORP., a Delaware corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-11738-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order as follows: -- The Defendant's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Feb. 25, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification is extended from April 9, 2026, to July 8, 2026. Foundation Risk operates as an insurance broker. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4oAPVC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite D, PMB 325 Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057 Telephone: (818) 360-2529 Facsimile: (866) 794-5741 E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com - and - Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. Derek Hecht, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com dhecht@littler.com GEN DIGITAL: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Jackson, v. Gen Digital Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Liburdi entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily certifies this case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following settlement class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Gen Digital Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call regarding a LifeLock or Norton account, (2) directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a person who has or had a LifeLock or Norton account with Gen Digital Inc., (3) in connection with which Gen Digital Inc. used or caused to be used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from Feb. 19, 2021, to Oct. 30, 2025." The Court appoints Plaintiff as the representative for the settlement class and appoints Michael L. Greenwald of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC and Anthony Paronich of Paronich Law, P.C. as class counsel for the settlement class. The Court sets the following schedule: Feb. 27, 2026: Defendant to fund Settlement Fund (thirty days after entry of Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement) March 9, 2026: Attorneys’ Fees Petition Filed (forty days after entry of Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement) June 15, 2026: Motion for Final Approval Filed (about thirty days before final fairness hearing) July 14, 2026: 2 Final Fairness Hearing The Court is advised that the parties to this action, Michelle Jackson and Gen Digital Inc., have agreed, subject to the Court's approval and following notice to the settlement class members and a hearing, to settle the lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a global consumer cybersecurity company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3VMAXu at no extra charge.[CC] HAIER US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Washer-Dryer Combo -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Avroham Sherman filed a class action lawsuit against Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc., doing business as GE Appliances. Why: Sherman claims GE Appliances sold washer-dryer combo appliances with defective lint traps and air ducts that cause excessive lint accumulation. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses GE Appliances of selling washer-dryer combo appliances with defective lint traps and air ducts that cause excessive lint accumulation. Plaintiff Avroham Sherman claims the defect causes the appliances to fail to perform their central function of drying laundry. Sherman wants to represent a New York class of consumers who purchased or leased a GE Ultrafast 2-in-1 washer-dryer combo. The class action lawsuit claims GE Appliances failed to disclose the alleged defect to consumers who have been turned away from receiving repairs or have received ineffective cleaning or superficial repair of components that are not the source of the defect. "As a result, the dryer's lint filtration system fails to prevent lint from reaching the dryer's evaporator (cooling) and condenser (heating) coils, as it would if the dryer were not defective," the GE class action lawsuit says. Sherman argues GE Appliances is guilty of breach of warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment and of violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and New York General Business Law. GE class action claims company knew about defect Sherman claims GE Appliances has long known of the alleged defect and that the appliances' lint traps and ducts are not fit for their intended purpose. The plaintiff argues the company concealed and/or failed to notify the public of the existence and nature of the alleged defect and has not recalled the appliances to replace the malfunctioning duct and lint systems. Sherman demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, consequential and statutory damages for himself and all class members. In another class action involving home appliances, Electrolux Consumer Products Inc. was sued over allegations it sold Frigidaire ovens with a dangerous defect that can cause the glass window on the front of the appliance to explode. The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Jason S. Rathod and Bryan G. Faubus of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP. The GE washer-dryer combo class action lawsuit is Sherman v. Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00453, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Must Provide Electronic Vote-by-Mail, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF TEXAS, CEDRIC BRYANT, TED GALANOS, LOUIS MAHER, and MICHAEL MCCULLOCH, Plaintiffs vs. TENESHIA HUDSPETH in her official capacity as County Clerk of Harris County, Texas; and HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00845 (S.D. Tex., February 3, 2026) is a civil rights class action seeking to vindicate the rights of individuals with disabilities, who by virtue of their disabilities, cannot read and fill out paper ballots (collectively, individuals with "print disabilities") and are therefore unable to vote by mail privately and independently. The complaint relates that the Harris County voters with print disabilities, like Plaintiffs, can only vote by mail by relying on third-party assistance. As a result, Plaintiffs cannot vote by mail privately and independently, as other Harris County voters without print disabilities are able to do. The Plaintiffs, like other individuals with print disabilities, use assistive technology, such as screen reader software, that allows them to independently read and complete documents and forms electronically on their personal computers or other devices. If Harris County provided Plaintiffs with accessible vote-by-mail ballots electronically, Plaintiffs could use their assistive technology to read and mark their ballots privately and independently. The County's refusal to extend this system to Plaintiffs continues its history of voting accessibility issues, which is part of a broader, national history of discriminatory barriers to voting for individuals with disabilities. These barriers have historically resulted in lower voter turnout among people with disabilities than among those without. But in recent years, as states have reduced these barriers for voters with disabilities, turnout among voters with disabilities has increased substantially nationwide. Harris County must implement a solution that makes available an accessible electronic vote-by-mail program to ensure voters with print disabilities have equal access and opportunity to vote by mail privately and independently in future elections, adds te complaint. Plaintiff Cedric Bryant is paralyzed from the chest down from a spinal cord injury and does not have use of his hands. Mr. Bryant lives in Humble, Texas and is registered to vote in Harris County. Plaintiff Ted Galanos is blind and has manual dexterity disabilities resulting from the amputation of multiple fingers. Mr. Galanos resides in Houston, Texas and is registered to vote in Harris County. Plaintiff Louis Maher is blind and resides in Houston, Texas, and is registered to vote in Harris County. Mr. Maher is a member of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas. Plaintiff Michael McCulloch is a legally blind individual who resides in Houston, Texas and is registered to vote in Harris County. Mr. McCulloch is a member of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas. Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind of Texas is a non-profit membership organization that promotes the general welfare of the blind including by assisting the blind in their efforts to integrate themselves into society on equal terms. Defendant Teneshia Hudspeth is the Harris County Clerk and is sued in her official capacity only. The Harris County Clerk's Office is responsible for the administration of elections through its Elections Department. The Harris County Clerk is the Chief Election Official in Harris County and is in charge of conducting election operations in Harris County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sashi Nisankarao, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS 100 Glenborough Dr., Ste. 600 Houston, TX 77067 Telephone: (832) 209-1105 Facsimile: (512) 454-3999 E-mail: sashin@disabilityrightstx.org - and - Eve L. Hill, Esq. Lauren J. Kelleher, Esq. Marisa Leib-Neri, Esq. BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY 120 E. Baltimore St., Ste. 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: ehill@browngold.com HEALTH-ADE LLC: Reiter Sues Over Prebiotic Soda's Deceptive Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIYAHU REITER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH-ADE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00665 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of SunSip prebiotic soda. According to the complaint, the Defendant's labeling on each can of the soda touts that it is a "SODA WITH BENEFITS" because it contains "PREBIOTICS" that provide "good gut vibes." And, on its website, the Defendant repeatedly refers to SunSip as "gut-healthy soda." In reality, the soda contains only up to three grams of prebiotic fiber, an amount too low to provide any meaningful digestive health benefits. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it, says the suit. Health-Ade LLC is a prebiotic soda company with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com HEMLOCK HAT: Hippe Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hemlock Hat Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-194 (E.D. Wis., February 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.hemlockhatco.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hippe and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Hippe's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on multiple occasions and most recently on December 14, 2025, Hippe has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Defendant's Website. Hippe was searching online for a sun protective bucket hat and discovered the Defendant's website, Hemlockhatco.com, which appeared on the top search results. After reviewing positive customer feedbacks praising the brand for its stylish, high-quality hats that offer excellent sun protection, she decided to visit the Website to explore the available items and make a purchase. However, while navigating the Website using her keyboard and a screen reader, Hippe encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase independently. The complaint alleges that on several separate occasions, Hippe has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant's Website in Milwaukee County. These access barriers that Hippe encountered have caused a denial of Hippe's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Hippe on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website in the future, says the suit. Hippe 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 Xinyue Hippe is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Hemlock Hat Company 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 premium headwear products including hats, caps, and complementary accessories like visors, beanies, and fedoras. The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law HUEL INC: Ruz Sues Over Unauthorized Text Messaging Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00960-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendant for making unsolicited text messages to residential telephone subscribers. The complaint relates that to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's text messages caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff Michael Ruz is a citizen and resident of Kern County, California. Defendant Huel Inc. is a corporation with its headquarters located in Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26 th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 754-444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com IGLOO PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in "Lieber" ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Joe Lieber, Karen Elizabeth Harms, and Darin Strauss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Igloo Products Corp., Defendant, Case No. 25-CV-488 (ARR) (LKE) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Allyne R. Ross of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in this putative class action.Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment were dismissed. Plaintiffs' remaining claims under NYGBL Sections 349 and 350 survive the motion. This case involves a variety of products made and sold by Defendant Igloo Products Corp., a Delaware corporation that manufactures, labels, distributes, sells, and advertises the products at issue. The products include four groups: the EcoCool Products, the ReCool Product, the REPREVE Products, and the Made in USA Products. Plaintiffs allege that Igloo's representations are false and misleading, constituting deceptive and unfair trade practices under New York General Business Law (NYGBL) Section 349, false advertising under NYGBL Section 350, a breach of express warranty under N.Y. U.C.C. Law Section 2-313, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Joe Lieber purchased the ReCool Product multiple times from a Target store in Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff Karen Harms purchased a 30-quart EcoCool Product from an REI store in New York. The Court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged that the Biodegradable Representations are potentially deceptive. The Court noted that the ReCool Product is typically thrown in the trash and ends up in landfills, an environment that lacks the necessary conditions for meaningful biodegradation. The Court declined to determine as a matter of law whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the Biodegradability Representations at the pleading stage, and therefore denied Igloo's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims as to the ReCool Product. Upon examination of the Recycled Content Representations regarding the EcoCool and REPREVE Products, the Court found that the Defendant failed to consider that purchasing decisions are made within a specific context. The Court noted that, for items that are partially made of recycled material, the marketer should clearly and prominently qualify the claim. The Court found that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged their NYGBL claims as to the EcoCool and REPREVE Products and denied Igloo's motion to dismiss those claims. Plaintiffs alleged that the relevant products contain materials and full components sourced and imported from other countries, including AKD mostly produced outside the United States and polyols manufactured in plants in Asia, Europe, and North America. The Court held this was sufficient to allege that the Made in USA Representations were materially misleading, and denied Igloo's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims as to the Made in USA Products. The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that they provided Igloo with reasonably prompt notice, concurring with the majority of courts in the circuit that pre-suit notice is generally required. Plaintiffs provided Defendant with notice only after commencing litigation. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim. The Court found that the unjust enrichment claim clearly duplicates Plaintiffs' other claims, which arise out of identical facts regarding Igloo's alleged misrepresentations. Because Plaintiffs offered no set of facts under which they could fail to prove both their deceptive-practices and false-advertising claims while succeeding in proving unjust enrichment, the Court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative. The Court confirmed the case proceeds as a putative class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. The Court found that the products, both purchased and unpurchased, are sufficiently similar to support Plaintiffs' class standing. Accordingly, Igloo's motion to dismiss for lack of standing as to unpurchased products was denied without prejudice, with the Court noting that specific concerns regarding the products' differences can be addressed at the class certification stage. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 2, 2026 is available https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2v8dbq from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Igloo Products Corp. Represented By Chad Kurtz Cozen O'Connor 202-463-2521 ckurtz@cozen.com John Alfred Bertino Cozen O'Connor 202-912-4881 jbertino@cozen.com Michael Puretz Cozen O'Connor 954-226-4696 mpuretz@cozen.com Richard Fama Cozen O'Connor 212-908-1229 rfama@cozen.com Erica W Rutner Cozen O'Connor 561-245-6120 erutner@cozen.com Kristen A. Bennett Moore & Lee, LLP 703-506-2050 k.bennett@mooreandlee.com Plaintiff Joe Lieber Represented By Robert Abiri Abiri Law, PC 949-459-2133 rabiri@abirilaw.com Plaintiff Karen Elizabeth Harms Represented By Robert Abiri Abiri Law, PC 949-459-2133 rabiri@abirilaw.com INNODATA SERVICES: Snyder Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNODATA SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80134 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or about February 06, 2026, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. Innodata Services, LLC is a global data engineering company, with its principal place of business in Delray Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: mengland@stranchlaw.com - and - Ian Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com INSPIRE MEDICAL: INPRS Appointed as Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. INSPIRE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10620-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order appointing (1) INPRS as lead plaintiff and (2) Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel. Because INPRS to date has satisfied all PSLRA requirements, the Court finds it the most adequate plaintiff. There is no credible basis to conclude that it "will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" or is subject to "unique defenses" that render it incapable of adequately representing the class. On Dec. 22, 2025, INPRS filed this action against Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. and its chief executive officer Timothy P. Herbert, chief financial officer Richard J. Buchholz, and chief strategy and growth officer Carlton W. Weatherby. The putative class consists of "All investors who acquired Inspire common stock between Aug. 6, 2024 and Aug. 4, 2025, inclusive (the "class period")." Inspire is a medical device company that develops and markets an implantable neurostimulation system to treat obstructive sleep apnea. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fbuXe1 at no extra charge.[CC] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Settlement in Scott Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement with the Defendants. The Court preliminarily approves the following Settlement Class: "Other than those excluded in the subsections A through K below, all United States residents who at any time from Dec. 18, 2013 to July 14, 2025 had margin accounts with IB, which accounts had trades executed by the A-L Software, for which the actual execution price of the trade was such that the ratio of [Margin Improvement]/[Cost to Liquidate] falls in the range greater than zero but less than three," excluding: A) Federal judges who preside or have presided over this case; B) The staff of federal judges who have presided over this case; C) The immediate family of federal judges who have presided over this case; D) Persons employed by any of the Defendants; E) Persons employed by any of the affiliates of any of the Defendants; F) Attorneys for any Defendant and other lawyers in those lawyer's firms and the immediate family of those attorneys; G) Attorneys for the Plaintiff or the Class and other lawyers in those lawyer's firms and the immediate family of those attorneys; H) Persons who have litigated, arbitrated or negotiated a resolution of this claim with one or more Defendants related to liquidation of their margin account; I) Transactions on behalf of United States residents if those transactions were for the purchase or sale of currency (FX); J) Any liquidation transaction conducted by the A-L Software in "forced" or "immediate" mode, if any, and K) All Litigated/Excluded Accounts. -- The Plaintiff, Robert Scott Batchelar, is appointed Settlement Class Representative for the Settlement Class and the following counsel are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class: William M. Bloss and Christopher M. Mattei of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.; Gilbert I. Low, Jack P. Carroll, and Gary N. Reger of Orgain, Bell and Tucker, LLP; L. DeWayne Layfield of the Law Office of L. DeWayne Layfield, PLLC; and Reagan Reaud of Reaud & Associates P.C. Interactive is an American multinational brokerage firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8IoYT1 at no extra charge.[CC] IRON MOUNTAIN: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Wasilowski Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT WASILOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00096 (D.N.H., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in or around January 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Iron Mountain Incorporated is a provider of data solutions and information management systems, with its principal place of business in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com JACK ARCHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jack Archer, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00809 (D. Minn., January 29, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.jackarcher.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 ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that 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 Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, asserts the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). 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. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Jack Archer, Inc. is a Florida Company that offers men's apparel including, but not limited to, shirts, sweaters, blazers, pants, shorts, hats, belts, socks, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com JH BAXTER: Court Decertifies Previously Certified Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY BELL-ALANIS; SHARON MATTHEWS; ERIN NEEL; SARAH PEDERSEN, v. J.H. BAXTER & CO; J.H. BAXTER & CO, INC.; JEANNE OLSON, Case No. 6:21-cv-00885-AA (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order decertifying previously certified class. The previous orders certifying the class are vacated. The parties have agreed to a settlement in the form of a Consent Judgment for $200,000, which could be "used to compensate counsel for outstanding reimbursable expenses, and a nominal payment for individual Plaintiffs." However, the Plaintiffs affirm that "there is no real expectation that the to be entered Consent Judgment will ever be collected upon." The case concerns the Plaintiffs' allegation that there was a release of poisonous and carcinogenic chemicals and noxious odors into the environment from a manufacturing facility located on Roosevelt Blvd. in Eugene, Oregon. The Plaintiffs alleged that the releases at issue interfered with the ability of residents to use and enjoy their properties and have diminished the value of those properties. On March 14, 2023, Judge Kasubhai1 recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be granted. The Defendant is an American wood products treatment company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3gEo6v at no extra charge.[CC] JJ WHITE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pierce Says ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.J. WHITE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00697 (E.D. Pa., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). The complaint relates that as part of its business practices, Defendant acquires a significant amount of highly sensitive Private Information from its employees, including the acquisition of the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. By collecting Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class to protect and safeguard their Private Information from unauthorized access and intrusion. As a result of Defendant's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and system on November 20, 2025, and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. The ransomware group PayoutsKING accessed Defendant's IT network and exfiltrated the sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class will face an imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for the rest of their lives because: (i) Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information, allowing a large and preventable Data Breach to occur; (ii) the cybercriminals who perpetrated the Breach accessed Private Information that they will sell on the dark web (if they have not already) because that is the modus operandi of cybercriminals who perpetrate breaches such as this; and (iii) Defendant failed to timely notify Plaintiff and the Class of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper. Plaintiff John Pierce is a former employee of Defendant and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant J.J. White, Inc., headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is a multi-trade construction company specializing in commercial, industrial, and electrical construction projects and conducts business in various states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jjh@federmanlaw.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Hamilton Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNY HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARREL BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting in part motion for class certification and granting request for judicial notice as follows: 1. The Request for Judicial Notice of (1) a letter from Boise to the DLSE requesting DLSE to advise whether Boise's proposed program of electronic delivery of wage statements is approved; and (2) a letter from the DLSE to Boise responding to Boise's inquiry regarding electronic itemized wage statements and explaining California Labor Code section 226(a), which requires employers to include accurate information on their employees' wage statements is granted. 2. The motion for class certification is granted in part: a. The Court certifies the following classes: i. The Proposed Class: "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (i.e., Nov. 2, 2017) until the present date; ii. Subclass A: "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were not paid for all hours worked, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date; and iii. Subclass C: "All former and current Drivers employed by the Defendants within the State of California who were not furnished with accurate wage statements, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit until the present date. b. The Court denies certification of Subclass B. Accordingly, the predominance requirements under Rule 23(b) are not satisfied as to subclass B. The Court finds that this precludes certification of subclass B. The Court therefore denies certification as to subclass B. Because all requirements are met, the Court grants certification as to subclass C with respect to accurate wage statements only. Knight provides multiple truckload services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kS4K0H at no extra charge.[CC] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Seeks to Continue All Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patel v. Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04606-ERK-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order requesting that the Court continue all deadlines under the operative scheduling order. As the next deadline under the scheduling order (plaintiffs' Feb. 9, 2026, deadline to submit their expert reports) is fast approaching, the defendants request that the Court address this matter prior to then. Koninklijke develops and manufactures medical systems and consumer electronics products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kcZUtw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William B. Monahan, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 KRISPY KREME: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1.6-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Krispy Kreme has agreed to a proposed $1,616,760 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the donut seller failed to prevent a November 2024 data breach that exposed current and former employees' sensitive personal information. The proposed Krispy Kreme class action settlement, if approved by the court, will cover all United States residents whose private information was impacted by the Krispy Kreme data breach. Court documents state that the private information of 161,676 current and former Krispy Kreme employees was involved in the data breach. Settlement documents state that class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may receive either up to $3,500 in reimbursement for documented losses stemming from the Krispy Kreme data breach or a flat cash payment of approximately $75. According to court documents, all Krispy Kreme settlement class members are automatically eligible to receive, in addition to either monetary reimbursement option and without having to submit a claim form, one year of one-bureau credit monitoring services, which includes $1,000,000 in identity theft insurance with no deductible. Class members seeking reimbursement for data breach-related losses, such as identity theft and/or fraud, must include with their Krispy Kreme claim form reasonable documentation of each loss. Per the settlement agreement, acceptable documentation may include phone records, correspondence (including emails) and receipts. The class action settlement agreement notes that class members may not submit a claim for losses that have already been reimbursed by another source, including the credit monitoring and identity theft protection services provided in Krispy Kreme's initial data breach notice. No proof or documentation is required to submit a claim form for the roughly $75 cash payout, court documents state. The two payment options are mutually exclusive from each other, meaning class members may only claim one or the other. Both settlement benefit options may increase or decrease on a pro rata, or equal share, basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, court documents add. The Krispy Kreme class action lawsuit claimed that the company failed to protect current and former employees' sensitive personal information -- including Social Security numbers, names, driver's license or state ID numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, credit or debit card information, biometric data, health and health insurance information, USCIS or Alien Registration Numbers, military ID numbers, email addresses, passwords, passport numbers and digital signatures -- from a November 2024 cyberattack. [GN] KRISTI NOEM: Bah's Petition for Habeas Corpus Granted ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DJOBO BAH, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ARTHUR WILSON, in his official capacity as ICE Field Officer Director, JOHNNY CHOATE, in his official capacity as the warden of the Aurora Immigration Detention Facility, PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as the United Status Attorney General, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Case No. 1:26-cv-00039-CNS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Sweeney entered an order granting the Petitioner's fully briefed verified petition for Habeas Corpus. Accordingly, consistent with the above analysis, the Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within five days of this Order. At that hearing, Respondents shall bear the burden of justifying Petitioner's continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents shall file a status report within ten days of the date of this Court's order to certify compliance. The status report shall include if and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if bond was denied, the reasons for denial. Because Petitioner is improperly detained under section 1225, the Court agrees with Petitioner that he is entitled to a bond hearing. Respondents concede as much in their response: "Thus, even if the Court finds that Petitioner is detained not under section 1225(b)(2) but under section 1226(a)(1), the proper remedy is a bond hearing -- as expressly contemplated in § 1226(a)(1)." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJ7K73 at no extra charge.[CC] LENDUS LLC: Discovery Order Entered in Greist Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GREIST, et al., v. LENDUS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02411-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a discovery order as follows: -- LendUS may serve written discovery on twenty-one plaintiffs. -- Each party may select one third, and the final third will be selected randomly. Depositions are limited to ten. Written discovery will proceed as follows: The discovery group will be twenty-one plaintiffs (inclusive of opt-in and named plaintiffs), and each party may select one third. The final third will be randomly selected through means agreed upon by the parties. The parties' selections must each come from at least three locations to ensure inclusion of employees from a larger number of former LendUS locations. Written discovery is limited to eight interrogatories and twelve document requests per plaintiff in the discovery group, as LendUS proposes.8 The number of depositions limited to ten. Additional discovery from plaintiffs outside the discovery group who submit affidavits or declarations is denied because there is no specific showing of need. It would defeat the purpose of limiting discovery to a representative sample, here of almost fifty percent of the collective from a wide range of locations. In sum, LendUS may serve eight interrogatories and twelve document requests to twenty-one plaintiffs selected according to the methodology detailed above and may conduct a maximum of ten depositions. This resolves ECF No. 113. IT IS SO ORDERED. Here, LendUS has not demonstrated that it needs written discovery from thirty of forty-six plaintiffs to identify its defenses or show that the collective is not similarly situated. Discovery from plaintiffs employed at different locations is important based on the nature of the plaintiffs' claim that "LendUS had a common, uniform, and widespread policy and practice that discouraged Loan Assistants and Loan Processors from reporting overtime hours." Whether the alleged policy was actually common across locations is a legitimate inquiry regarding the similarity of the collective’s situations, although it may not require discovery from plaintiffs at all twenty locations. The parties in this wage-and-hour collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) disagree about the number of opt-in plaintiffs to be selected for representative discovery following the trial judge's order conditionally certifying the collective action. The Defendant LendUS proposes conducting written discovery as to thirty of forty-six plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that this is excessive and propose limiting the number to eighteen plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are current and former employees (Loan Assistants or Loan Processors) of LendUS, who allege that LendUS failed to pay them for overtime hours worked. The Defendant is a California-based mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dQCsda at no extra charge.[CC] LIDESLAMBOUS INC: Braxton Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JALISHA BRAXTON, et al., v. LIDESLAMBOUS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00119-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar Walker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Defendants' partial motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective is denied in part as moot, with respect to the theories of liability dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). With respect to the remaining theories, the motion to certify is denied. The trial and final pretrial conference dates are vacated, and all other deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order-as well as the deadline to reply to the motion for summary judgment-are stayed until further order of this Court. The parties are ordered to contact the chambers of the Honorable Lawrence R. Leonard, at 757-222-7210, on or before Jan. 30, 2026, to schedule a settlement conference. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as: "All current and former servers employed by the Defendants at Captain George's Williamsburg restaurant who, at any time from and including Oct. 9, 2021, to the present date, were unlawfully denied full statutory minimum wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA, VMWA and VWPA." They also ask for conditional certification of an FLSA collective defined as: "All current and former servers employed by the Defendants at Captain George's Williamsburg restaurant who, at any time from and including Oct. 9, 2021, to the present date, were unlawfully denied full statutory minimum wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA, VMWA and VWPA." The Plaintiffs -- former servers at Captain George's Williamsburg, Virginia restaurant—filed this hybrid collective and class action against the restaurant's owners and corporate entity alleging claims for unpaid wages under federal and state law. Lideslambous is engaged in the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u1MVbf at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Crowder Amended to Nov. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD CROWDER, et al., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00237-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Close of expert discovery: Nov. 6, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for Nov. 20, 2026 class certification and class-related Daubert motion(s): Deadline for the Defendant's oppositions to Dec. 22, 2027 class-certification and Daubert motion(s); Defendant's class-related Daubert motion(s): Deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply to class Jan. 22, 2027 certification and Daubert motion(s); Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant's class related Daubert motion(s): Combined hearing on class certification, April 1, 2027, summary judgment motions, and all at 2:00pm. Daubert Motions: LinkedIn is a business and employment-focused social media platform that works through websites and mobile apps. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d4Sla8 at no extra charge.[CC] MARK CUBAN: Karnas Seeks Modification of Dec. 30 Order ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS et al., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting the motion for reconsideration, 2. Modifying the portion of the Dec. 30 order dismissing Cuban/Mavericks solely to provide the relief of transfer rather than dismissal, 3. Severing the claims against the Defendants Mark Cuban and the Mavericks under Rule 21, 4. Transferring the severed action to N.D. Tex. (Dallas Division) under section 1406(a) and section 1631 (and alternatively section 1404(a)), and 5. Directing the Clerk to effectuate the transfer by opening a new case number, transmitting the docket, and performing such other functions as may be necessary. The action alleges hundreds of millions in damages affecting millions of class members nationwide, has already involved extensive discovery, and likely represents the only viable avenue of recovery for the victims of a massive cryptocurrency fraud. In its December 30, 2025, Order, the Court ruled that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants Mark Cuban and the Mavericks. In harmony with that ruling, Plaintiffs ask the Court to sever the claims against the Defendants and, rather than dismiss, transfer them to the Northern District of Texas. The Defendants themselves proposed that transfer, even if personal jurisdiction was found wanting. Transfer best satisfies the interests of justice. Having urged transfer as the proper alternative to dismissal, Defendants cannot credibly claim unfair prejudice from that same remedy. In August 2022, the Plaintiffs, individual investors who lost money investing through Voyager, filed this action against Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks, along with other promoter defendants, to recover damages they sustained following Defendants' solicitation of sales of the unregistered EPAs on the Voyager platform. Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eFXzZa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Barbara C. Lewis, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Continental Plaza 3250 Mary Street, Suite 202 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com service@moskowitz-law.com barbara@moskowitz-law.com - and - David Boies, Esq. Stephen Neal Zack, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com szack@bsfllp.com - and - Jose M. Ferrer, Esq. Desiree Fernandez, Esq. MARK MIGDAL HAYDEN LLP 8 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: jose@markmigdal.com desiree@markmigdal.com MCLAREN HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $14MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDEPOT reports that current and former patients and other individuals whose personal information was compromised in the 2023 or 2024 data breaches at McLaren Health Care may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,000 and other benefits from a class action settlement. The data breaches impacted an estimated 2,800,000 people. McLaren Health Care Corp. has agreed to pay $14 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to adequately protect patient information, resulting in two separate data breaches. The breaches, which occurred between July 28, 2023, and Aug. 23, 2023, and again between July 17, 2024, and Aug. 3, 2024, may have exposed sensitive personal and health information of patients and others. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- Their personally identifying information or protected health information was accessed during the data breaches that occurred between July 28, 2023, and Aug. 23, 2023, or between July 17, 2024, and Aug. 3, 2024. -- They received a notice from McLaren Health Care Corp. regarding either of the data breaches. How much will the settlement payment be? Class members can submit to receive one or more of the following benefits: -- Credit monitoring: All class members can elect to receive one year of one-bureau credit monitoring services, which includes dark web scanning, $1 million in reimbursement insurance, fully managed identity restoration and lost wallet assistance. Class members that currently have credit monitoring services can still claim this benefit, and will have one year from receipt to redeem it. -- Documented loss payment: Class members can claim up to $5,000 in documented losses and expenses traceable to the data breach. Eligible losses include unreimbursed fraud losses, professional fees related to identity theft or tax fraud, lost interest from delayed tax refunds, credit freeze expenses, credit monitoring expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses such as notary, postage or mileage. -- Pro rata cash fund payment: All class members can also submit a claim for a pro rata cash payment from the remaining net settlement fund. Final payment amount will be determined by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: MHCC Class Action Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 The claim deadline is April 29, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Notice ID and Confirmation Code required to submit a claim online. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or charges due to fraud, receipts, invoices and other proof of monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft. -- Individuals that did not receive a notice, but believe they should be included in the settlement class must mail a paper claim form and provide supporting documentation showing they were impacted by one of the data breaches. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $14 million data breach settlement fund The $14,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $4,666,666.67 -- Attorneys' costs: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $1,500 each -- Credit monitoring costs: Cost determined by number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: March 16, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: April 29, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: April 21, 2026 When is the McLaren Health Care data breach settlement payout date? Payments and credit monitoring codes will be issued to approved claimants after the court grants final approval of the settlement and claim processing is completed. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged that McLaren Health Care Corp. failed to adequately protect the personal and health information of patients, resulting in two data breaches in 2023 and 2024. Plaintiffs claimed they suffered financial and other harm as a result. McLaren denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation. The settlement agreement also requires McLaren to enhance its data security measures. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 Deadline: April 29, 2026 [GN] MELWOOD INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Ingram Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY INGRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MELWOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00405 (D. Md., January 31, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") including Social Security numbers. The complaint relates that Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees who, in order to obtain employment from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. Businesses like Defendant that handle Private Information owe the individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. This duty arises under contract, statutory and common law, industry standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Member. However, Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members when between August 9, and August 17, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer 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 Defendant's possession and subject to further breaches, so long as Defendant fails to undertake adequate measures to protect the data it collects and maintains, says the suit. To recover from Defendant 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 Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its care. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages and equitable relief requiring Defendant 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 Defendant's expense, all Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Lithonia, Georgia. Defendant Melwood, Inc. is one of the nation's leading advocates, employers, and service providers for people with disabilities and their caregivers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT: Appeals Court Order in KE Holdings Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled KE Holdings LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages related to the enforcement of the Metro Sidewalk Ordinance ("Sidewalk Ordinance"), BL2019-1659, and the misuse of funds paid pursuant to the Sidewalk Ordinance. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Aleta A. Trauger granted in part and denied in part on Aug. 8, 2025. Specifically, the motion is granted with respect to (1) all claims brought by Plaintiff Infinium Builders LLC and (2) as to the Plaintiffs' due process claim. Because Selman's claims accrued outside the limitations period, his claims are dismissed. Several of the claims brought by Lafitte and KE Holdings LLC, doing business as Ascent Construction are timely, as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum. Those claims that are untimely, having accrued outside the limitations period, are dismissed. On Aug. 22, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for certificate of appealability and memorandum of law in support, which Judge Trauger granted on Sept. 23, 2025. On Sept. 26, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal and memorandum of law in support, which Judge Trauger granted on same day. All proceedings in this case are hereby stayed until further order of the court. The appellate case is entitled KE Holdings LLC, et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Case No. 26-5099, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on February 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KE HOLDINGS LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON 200 31st Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Defendant-Appellant METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN is represented by: J. Brooks Fox, Esq. THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 862-6341 MICROSOFT CORP: Illegally Stores Biometric Data, Basich Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEX BASICH, KRISTIN BONDLOW, MARQUIS BOYCE, JESSICA BREWER, and JAMARI BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00422 (W.D. Wash., February 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, including voiceprints, without providing the required notice and obtaining the required consent pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA). As alleged, Microsoft's practices of obtaining its Microsoft Teams meeting participants' biometric information and identifiers during live meeting transcription without informed written consent violates BIPA. Moreover, Microsoft's failure to provide a publicly available written policy regarding its schedule and guidelines for the retention and permanent destruction of these participants' biometric information and identifiers violates BIPA. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been injured by Microsoft's conduct, which injury includes the unknowing loss of control of their valuable biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, and violations of their privacy due to Microsoft's collection, capture, and storage of their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek: (i) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and the Class by requiring Microsoft to comply with BIPA's requirements for the collection, storage, and use of biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; (ii) statutory damages; and (iii) reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to the Illinois Compiled Statutes. Plaintiffs Alex Basich, Kristin Bondlow, Marquis Boyce, Jessica Brewer and Jamari Brown are citizens of Illinois who uses Microsoft Teams and have been participants in Teams meetings in which Microsoft meeting transcription was employed. Defendant Microsoft Corporation is a multinational technology company that provides, among its other services, Microsoft Teams, a team collaboration service for chats, virtual meetings, and video conferences.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. Jofrey M. McWilliam, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com jmcwilliam@byrneskeller.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. Nicholas Miranda, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B Miami, FL 33133 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com Nicholas@levinlawpa.com - and - Jonathan Waisnor, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: jwaisnor@labaton.com jfee@labaton.com NFL PLAYER: Alford Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD, et al., v. THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY, & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Rubin entered an order denying class certification motion. The Plaintiffs bring a class action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). On Sept. 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Class Certification Motion to certify the following class: "All participants in the Plan who filed one or more applications for one or more categories of disability benefits under the Plan between Aug. 1, 1970 and [the date of class certification] and are members of at least one of the five Subclasses, defined as the T & P SUBCLASS, the ACTIVE SUBCLASS, the LOD SUBCLASS, the NC SUBCLASS, and the FIDUCIARY SUBCLASS." "The Plan" includes the NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan (formerly the NFL Player Disability, Neurocognitive & Death Benefit Plan, the NFL Player Disability & Neurocognitive Benefit Plan, the NFL Player Supplemental Disability & Neurocognitive Benefit Plan, and the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan); the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan; the Bert Bell NFL Player Retirement Plan; and the Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan. The Plaintiffs seek to certify five subclasses: The T & P SUBCLASS: "All members of the Class who filed one or more applications for Total & Permanent Disability benefits under the Plan; received an adverse determination as part of at least one such application(s) between Aug. 9, 2019 and [the date of class certification]; and are not members of the ACTIVE SUBCLASS. The ACTIVE SUBCLASS: "All members of the Class who filed one or more applications for Total & Permanent Disability benefits under the Plan; received an adverse determination as part of at least one such application between Aug. 9, 2019 and [the date of class certification]; and were within the timeframe to qualify for Active Football or Active Nonfootball Total & Permanent Disability benefits at the time that they applied." The LOD SUBCLASS: "All members of the Class who filed one or more applications for Line-of-Duty Disability Benefits under the Plan and received an adverse determination as part of at least one such application between Aug. 9, 2019, and [the date of class certification]." The NC SUBCLASS: "All members of the Class who filed an application for Neurocognitive Disability benefits under the Plan and received an adverse determination as part of at least one such application between Aug. 9, 2019, and [the date of class certification]." The FIDUCIARY SUBCLASS: "All members of the Class who filed an application for one or more categories of disability benefits under the Plan between Aug. 1, 1970, and [the date of class certification]." NFL Player is an employee welfare plan providing financial assistance to former players for injuries sustained during their careers. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mo8lCj at no extra charge.[CC] NFL PLAYER: Alford Bid to Strike Reply Declarations Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD, et al., v. THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY, & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Rubin entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike reply declarations. In summary, the court declines to strike the Declarations pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1). Any surprise caused by the Declarations was curable by the Plaintiffs, and they declined to do that based on their estimation that there was limited value in undertaking such an effort. The Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify class on Sept. 3, 2024. The Defendants then served their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) on Oct. 9, 2024; the initial disclosures did not identify Garza or Clark as individuals likely to possess discoverable information upon which Defendants may rely for their defense. NFL Player is an employee welfare plan providing financial assistance to former players for injuries sustained during their careers, including Total & Permanent (T&P) disability, Line of Duty (LOD) benefits, and Neurocognitive (NC) benefits. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRHRPQ at no extra charge.[CC] NIKE INC: Bid to Redact Third-Party Employee Names Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CAHILL, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-AB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Baggio entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to redact third-party employee names from the Plaintiff's motion for leave. On Oct. 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. Nike is an American athletic footwear and apparel corporation. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W20iCS at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Said Suit Over Slavery & Involuntary Servitude ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADEL SAID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00034-ARS (D.N.D., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude. According to the complaint, the Defendant has established a system of institutional bondage that functions as modern-day slavery through its absolute and exclusive control of the University of North Dakota. The Defendant utilizes the Eleventh Amendment as a procedural shield to perpetrate substantive violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, causing citizens to be stripped of their earning capacity, professional reputation, and personal liberty while being bound by non-dischargeable debt, suit says. State of North Dakota is a state government in the U.S. [BN] NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: $11.5MM Deal in "Lytle" Has Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Justin Lytle and Christine Musthaler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc., Defendants, Case No. ED CV 19-0835 FMO (SPx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement. The Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on October 11, 2019, asserting claims for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and violations of various state consumer protection laws. The Defendant researches, develops, manufactures, and sells supplements for both humans and household pets, including Cosequin canine joint health supplements containing glucosamine and chondroitin as the main active ingredient. The Plaintiffs alleged that in marketing Cosequin, the Defendant made incomplete and inaccurate claims in advertising and on packaging that misled reasonable consumers into purchasing and continuing to use the Cosequin products, and that joint health claims were refuted by peer-reviewed, randomized, controlled clinical trials. On May 6, 2022, the court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The certified class comprised all persons residing in California who purchased, during the limitations period from May 3, 2016 through May 6, 2022, the following canine Cosequin products for personal use: Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets; Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets; and Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews. The Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed the class certification order. See Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011 (9th Cir. 2024). The parties participated in a mediation on April 10, 2025, where they reached an agreement to settle in principle. Pursuant to the settlement, the Defendant agreed to pay a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $11.5 million to pay class members, class representative service awards, and attorney's fees and costs. The settlement provides for up to 33.33% of the gross settlement amount in attorney's fees and an incentive payment of $7,500 for each named Plaintiff. The settlement administrator, Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc., will be paid by the Defendant directly and not from the settlement fund. Class members who timely submit valid claim forms may receive up to $25.00 per unit of Cosequin products purchased during the Class Period, with a maximum recovery of $150 for multiple Cosequin products purchased, limited to one claim per household. The settlement amount represented 67.2% of the estimated calculated damages of $17,112,007. In addition to monetary relief, the Defendant agreed not to include certain joint health and mobility statements on future Cosequin product packaging, while retaining the right to use the statement Joint Health Supplement. The court found that the settlement was the product of arm's-length negotiations, was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and did not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives. The court also found that the proposed notice plan, which included email notice, publication in newspapers, digital advertising, and a long-form notice on the settlement website, constituted the best practicable notice to class members and complied with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, appointed Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Levin Papantonio Rafferty as class counsel, and appointed Epiq as settlement administrator. The court ordered that class notice be completed no later than March 23, 2026, and set a Final Approval Hearing for August 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse. The deadline for class members to object or exclude themselves from the settlement is June 22, 2026. All other proceedings in the action are stayed pending the final fairness hearing. A copy of the Court's decision dated 2nd February, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y9GujZ from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. are represented by Sean A. Commons (Sidley Austin LLP, 213-896-6000, scommons@sidley.com), Amy P. Lally (Sidley Austin LLP, 310-595-9500, alally@sidley.com), Adriane Kayoko Peralta (Sidley Austin LLP, 213-896-6000, adriane.peralta@sidley.com), and Celia Hope Spalding (Sidley Austin LLP, 213-896-6000, cspalding@sidley.com), together with Joshua A. Glikin (Bowie & Jensen LLC, 410-583-2400, glikin@bowie-jensen.com). Plaintiffs Justin Lytle and Christine Musthaler are represented by Daniel L. Warshaw and Michael Harrison Pearson (Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP, 818-788-8300, dwarshaw@pswlaw.com; mpearson@pswlaw.com); Daniel K. Bryson (Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, 919-600-5000, dan@wbmllp.com); Gregory F. Coleman and Adam A. Edwards (Greg Coleman Law PC, 865-247-0080, greg@gregcolemanlaw.com; adam@gregcolemanlaw.com); and Brenton J. Goodman and Matthew D. Schultz (Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, 850-435-7171 / 850-435-7140, bgoodman@levinlaw.com; mschultz@levinlaw.com OVERLAND SHEEPSKIN: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Overland Sheepskin Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01028-LMP-DJF (D. Minn., February 4, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The cases arises from Defendants' failure to make services of its website, www.overland.com, accessible by screen reader programs. Such failure denied individuals with visual disabilities the benefits of the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class. Headquartered in Fairfield, IA, Overland Sheepskin Co, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers sheepskin and leather apparel for sale. [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 PAMELA BONDI: Must Release Coke from Custody -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVEIN JUMEL COKE, v. PAMELA BONDI, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00071-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order as follows: (1) The Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted in part. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody subject to reasonable conditions of supervision; (2) Within two (2) business days, Respondents shall file a notice with the Court confirming his release; (3) Respondents are prohibited from removing or attempting to remove Petitioner to any third country without providing Petitioner and his counsel, if any, at least ten (10) days' written notice identifying the proposed country of removal and affording Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings before an immigration judge, including the opportunity to seek any available protection or relief; and (4) Petitioner's motion for emergency relief is denied as moot. The Court finds no basis to deviate from the reasoning in Baltodano, Abukaka, and Nguyen, and applies the same reasoning here. The Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief prohibiting Respondents from removing him to a third country without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings. The Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to release because removal to his country of citizenship is not reasonably foreseeable and his continued detention is therefore in violation of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Petitioner Javein Jumel Coke is currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at the Northwest ICE Processing Center. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mvPBZ6 at no extra charge.[CC] PANERA BREAD: Faces Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two new class action lawsuits have been filed against Panera Bread. Why: The lawsuits claim Panera Bread failed to properly secure and safeguard customers' personal information in a recent data breach. Where: The Panera Bread class action lawsuits were filed in Missouri federal court. Two new class action lawsuits have been filed against Panera Bread over a data breach that allegedly compromised the personally identifying information (PII) of millions of customers. Plaintiffs Michael Cardin and Paige Cipriani filed the Panera class action lawsuits in Missouri federal court, alleging Panera failed to properly secure and safeguard their PII. Panera, a popular bakery-café chain, allegedly experienced a data breach in January 2026, during which a hacker group known as ShinyHunters accessed Panera's network and acquired files containing the PII of millions of customers, the Panera Bread lawsuits say. The plaintiffs claim Panera failed to adequately protect the PII it collected and maintained, including names, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and account details. Cipriani, a Washington resident, claims Panera failed to encrypt or redact sensitive data and disregarded known cybersecurity risks. "Defendant failed to adequately protect the plaintiff's and class members' private information — and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information," the Cipriani class action lawsuit alleges. Panera data breach puts customers at risk of identity theft, fraud, lawsuits allege The Panera data breach lawsuits claim that despite the severity of the incident, Panera has not provided any response or notice to the affected individuals. The lawsuits allege Panera's negligence is particularly egregious given that the company suffered a similar data breach in March 2024. The plaintiffs claim Panera was therefore aware of the risks but failed to take the necessary steps to secure the PII. As a result, the plaintiffs and other class members are now at an increased risk of identity theft and fraud, the Panera class action lawsuits say. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in the United States whose PII was compromised in the Panera data breach. They are suing for negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment and are seeking damages and injunctive relief, including identity theft protection services for life. Also in January, Grubhub food delivery service was hit with a class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to protect the PII of its customers and drivers during a data breach in 2025. The plaintiffs are represented by Don M. Downing and Morry S. Cole of Gray, Ritter & Graham P.C.; Gerald D. Wells III and Robert J. Gray of Lynch Carpenter LLP; Maureen M. Brady of McShane & Brady LLC; and M. Anderson Berry, Gregory Haroutunian and Brook Garberding of Emery Reddy P.C. The Panera class action lawsuits are Cardin v. Panera Brands Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00125 and Cipriani v. Panera Bread Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00126, both in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [GN] PANERA BREAD: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Sutcliff Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH SUTCLIFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00172 (E.D. Mo., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information ("PII"), including names, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and account details. 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. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Panera has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite this, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' posted on a popular hacking forums in January 2026, that it stole more than 14 million records, totaling 760 MB of compressed data. The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept. The Defendant does not appear to have provided, any response nor any notice regarding the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives since it appears their information was specifically targeted. 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. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption 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 Sarah Sutcliff is a citizen and resident of the State of New York and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Panera Bread Company is a restaurant company that operates and franchises bakery-cafes offering bread, sandwiches, soups, salads, and beverages across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don M. Downing, Esq. Morry S. Cole, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101-1826 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 E-mail: mcole@grgpc.com ddowning@grgpc.com - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com PEPSICO INC: Inflates Soft Drinks' Retail Prices, Reese Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA REESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC. and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10607 (D. Mass., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of antitrust and consumer protection laws. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive agreement wherein Pepsi agreed to inflate its wholesale prices above competitive levels for Pepsi Soft Drinks to its wholesale customers other than Walmart. The resulting wholesale price inflation enabled Walmart to elevate its retail prices for Pepsi Soft Drinks above competitive levels and forced Walmart's competitors to charge higher prices at retail than they otherwise would have. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful scheme, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered economic injury and deprivation of the benefit of free and fair competition unless the Defendants' conduct is enjoined. PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational snack, food, and beverage manufacturer, headquartered in Purchase, New York. Walmart Inc. is a retailer headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daryl Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP P.O. Box 67101 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Telephone: (617) 999-6473 Email: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com glen@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 834-2044 Facsimile: (858) 255-7772 Email: bgralewski@kmllp.com - and - James Isacks, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Facsimile: (212) 371-6600 Email: jisacks@kmllp.com PHARMERICA PS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Thao Reset to March 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON THAO, v. PHARMERICA PS, LLC, PHARMERICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC, et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00085-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Oberto entered an order resetting case schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline to amend pleadings: July 31, 2026 Non-expert discovery as to class Nov. 12, 2026 certification: Expert discovery deadline as to class Jan. 12, 2027 certification: Deadline to file a motion for class March 12, 2027 certification: Deadline to file an opposition to any March 26, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline to file an optional reply to April 5, 2027 any opposition to any motion for class certification: Hearing on any Motion for class April 21, 2027 at certification: at 9:30 a.m. PharMerica is a major institutional pharmacy provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GgCSUY at no extra charge.[CC] PHIA GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Benosmane Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ABDERREZAK WALID BENOSMANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10547 (D. Mass., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial information ("PII") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: name, Health Insurance Account Member Number, Medical Diagnosis Information, Clinical Information, and Date of Birth. The complaint relates that in the course of its business, Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. In July 8, 2025, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until January 28, 2026. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and continue to be at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. They and are entitled to compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, says the suit. Plaintiff Abderrezak Walid Benosmane is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant The Phia Group, LLC provides healthcare cost containment and compliance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Campbell CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP 529 Main Street, Suite P200 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: 617-872-8652 E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com - and - Rachel Dapeer DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL33009 Telephone: 954-799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com PHIA GROUP: Fails to Secure Private Information, Bryan Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BRYAN, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10579-AK (D. Mass., February 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, and health insurance information (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")) and for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") including medical diagnosis information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals whose Private Information and/or the Private Information of their family members was provided to the Defendant. Because of this, Defendant has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite this, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach on July 9, 2024. Despite learning about the breach in July 2024, the Defendant waited until January of 2026 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, asserts the complaint. 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 himself 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 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 John Bryan is a resident and citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff received a data breach notice informing him that his Private Information was compromised during the Data Breach. Defendant The Phia Group, LLC is a provider of healthcare cost containment techniques based in Massachusetts. Phia offers various services such as empowers health benefit plans and sponsors through innovative consulting, cost containment, and plan management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: 212-223-6444 Facsimile: 212-223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com PHIA GROUP: Williams Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ JULIAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10559 (D. Mass., February 4, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. As a result of collecting and storing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendant had a continuous duty to adopt and employ reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from disclosure to third parties. On July 9, 2024, Defendant "discovered suspicious activity that temporarily disrupted the operability of [its] computer network." The Defendant then "determined that some data may have been acquired between July 8, 2024, and July 9, 2024" by an unauthorized actor. Phia Group has not disclosed which of its clients and partners were impacted by the Data Breach. Defendant did not begin notifying affected individuals until January 2026, adds the complaint. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) Negligence, (2) Breach of Implied Contract; and (3) Unjust Enrichment. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to adopt reasonable information security practices to secure the sensitive PII and PHI that Defendant collects and stores in its databases and to grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Julian Williams is a resident and citizen of Flowery Branch, Georgia. Defendant The Phia Group, LLC is the leading cost containment and consulting firm in the health benefits industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: 415-788-4220 Facsimile: 415-788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law PLUG POWER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Plug Power, Inc. ("Plug Power" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PLUG) securities during the period of January 17, 2025 through November 13, 2025, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Plug Power investments, you have until April 3, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit, check https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/power-plug-inc : What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (i) Plug Power had materially overstated the likelihood that funds attributed to the DOE Loan would ultimately become available to Plug Power, and/or that Plug Power would ultimately construct the hydrogen production facilities necessary to receive those funds and (ii) as such, Plug Power was likely to pivot toward more modest projects with less commercial upside. On October 7, 2025, Plug Power issued a press release and filed a current report on Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announcing that Defendant Andrew Marsh would step down from his role as the Company's Chief Executive Officer, "effective as of the date [Plug Power] files its [2025] Annual Report", and that Sanjay Shrestha would step down from his role as the Company's President, "effective as of October 10, 2025[.]" Plug Power concurrently announced the appointment of Chief Revenue Officer Jose Luis Crespo to both roles. On this news, the price of Plug Power shares declined by $0.26 per share, or approximately 6.3%, from $4.13 per share on October 6, 2025 to close at $3.87 on October 7, 2025. Then, on October 8, 2025, Plug Power issued a press release announcing it had entered into an agreement inducing the immediate exercise of the entirety of its outstanding warrants issued in the offering to a single institutional investor. Plug Power announced that this agreement yielded gross proceeds of approximately $370 million. In consideration for the immediate exercise of the offering warrants, Plug Power granted the investor new warrants to purchase a total of 185,430,464 shares of common stock with an exercise price of $7.75, representing a premium of approximately 100% to Plug Power's last closing stock price on October 7, 2025. Plug Power stated that it would receive approximately $1.4 billion in gross proceeds if the new warrants are fully exercised on a cash basis. In contrast to the Company's earlier statements connecting offering proceeds to capital expenditures necessary to construct the Graham, Texas facility, Plug Power stated it intended to use proceeds from the new warrants "for working capital and general corporate purposes." On this news, the price of Plug Power shares declined by $0.21 per share, or approximately 5.4%, from $3.87 per share on October 8, 2025 to close at $3.66 on October 9, 2025. Then, on November 10, 2025, Plug Power issued a press release reporting its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, and filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC that reported the same. That same day, Plug Power held a related conference call to discuss those results. During the call, Defendants announced that they expected to generate more than $275 million in liquidity after signing a nonbinding letter of intent to monetize their electricity rights in New York and one other location in partnership with a major U.S. data center developer, and that "[a]s a result, we have suspended activities under the DOE loan program, allowing us to redeploy capital." This represented a significant pivot for Plug Power. Defendants had not previously discussed the possibility of suspending activities under the DOE Loan and during the Class Period, and, just eight months earlier, had specifically advised analysts that they should "not expect revenue from that segment [i.e., data center power generation] of any size over the next two to three years." On this news, the price of Plug Power shares declined by $0.09 per share, or approximately 3.4%, from $2.65 per share on November 7, 2025 to close at $2.56 on November 10, 2025. Then, on November 13, 2025, The Washington Examiner reported that Plug Power "confirmed . . . . that it suspended activities" on "its plans to construct six facilities to produce and liquefy zero or low-carbon hydrogen, putting at risk" the $1.66 billion DOE Loan it closed in January. On this news, the price of Plug Power shares declined by $0.48 per share, or approximately 17.6%, from $2.73 per share on November 12, 2025 to close at $2.25 on November 14, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plug Power securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] POLAROID AMERICA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Cantin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA CANTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLAROID AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01110 (N.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intentionally incorporating a host of tracking technologies for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes on its website, www.polaroid.com without disclosure to its users, including the tracking technologies provided by Third Parties. The complaint relates that on November 29, 2025, Plaintiff accessed Defendant's Website -- while in California -- and purchased a Polaroid I-2 Instant Camera, Color i-Type Film, and a premium camera case on Defendant's Website. Despite Defendant's representations of confidentiality, Plaintiff's communications during this visit were intercepted and disclosed to Third Parties through the tracking technologies, including communications that contained Plaintiff's identity and information about her purchases. Neither Defendant nor the Third Parties procured Plaintiff's consent prior to these interceptions, nor was Plaintiff on notice of the fact that such interceptions were occurring. In fact, Plaintiff expressly rejected such tracking. Such disclosures are a violation of Plaintiff's privacy and were done intentionally for targeted advertising purposes, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff was unaware that Defendant intercepted and disclosed her communications until just prior to filing this lawsuit. The complaint alleges that by using the Tracking Technologies to record and communicate their sensitive and confidential online communications, Defendant intentionally invaded Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy rights under the California Constitution. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not authorize Defendant to record and transmit Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive confidential online communications. Accordingly, Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass seek all relief available for invasion of privacy claims under California's Constitution. Plaintiff Vanessa Cantin is a resident and citizen of Oakland, California. Plaintiff maintained active accounts with Facebook and TikTok. When creating her accounts, Plaintiff provided the Third Parties with her PII, including her full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Plaintiff used the same device to access the Website that she did to access her Facebook and TikTok accounts. Defendant Polaroid America Corp. is a retailer of instant film cameras and accessories. Defendant Polaroid owns and operates the Website where consumers can browse and purchase various instant cameras, film, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com POMDOCTOR LTD: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants PomDoctor Ltd., Zhenyang Shi, Li Xu, Cogency Global, Joseph Stone Capital, LLC, and Marcum Asia CPAs, LLP (collectively, the "Defendants"). The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Louie v. PomDoctor Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01013, asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased PomDoctor Securities ("POM") between October 9, 2025, and December 11, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is April 6, 2026. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON APRIL 6, 2026 PomDoctor 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 "develop[ing] 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 company is headquartered in China. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in its securities. The complaint alleges that Defendants were uniquely situated to orchestrate a pump-and-dump scheme on its class A ordinary shares. After plaintiffs and class members purchased POM, the complaint alleges that PomDoctor's stock became the subject of an illicit social-media-based promotion scheme that artificially inflated its price. These reports detail how impersonators claiming to be legitimate financial advisors touted PomDoctor in online forums, chat groups, and through social media posts with sensational but baseless claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON APRIL 6, 2026 If you purchased PomDoctor Securities between October 9, 2025, and December 11, 2025, inclusive, and have suffered significant losses, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Mollie Chadwick at (619) 233-4565, or via email at mchadwick@scott-scott.com, for more information. The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is April 6, 2026. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 6, 2026. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Mollie Chadwick at (619) 233-4565, or via email at mchadwick@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With 150 attorneys plus supporting staff in eight offices in the United States as well as one office in Canada and three in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our attorneys have been recognized across legal publications, including by Lawdragon for being among the 500 Top Financial Lawyers and the 500 Leading Global Antitrust & Competition Lawyers. In addition, we have received top rankings by WWL: Commercial Litigation, Legal 500 in Antitrust as well as Securities Litigation, Chambers, and Best Lawyers. Our attorneys have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit www.scott-scott.com. Mollie Chadwick, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-4565 mchadwick@scott-scott.com [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Kobus Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE KOBUS, et al., v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00770-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims. The case is also abated until sixty days after the date that written notice is served, or until the Plaintiffs amend their complaint such that it no longer asserts a cause of action under Texas's consumer protection law. Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of the date of this order, and may not add any new claims or defendants. The Court further sets a case management conference on Feb. 24, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio capabilities. The parties are further directed to file a joint case management statement by Feb. 17, 2026. The Plaintiffs allege that five of Defendant's products are prominently labeled to include "retinol," a skincare ingredient which "is widely understood by the consuming public" to "reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, fade dark spots on skin, prevent premature aging, and to generally maintain healthy skin." These products allegedly cannot provide such benefits because "[b]y design and according to the products' directions for use," each of the products "is washed off the skin with water soon after it is applied, preventing any meaningful interaction with the skin." The Plaintiffs contend that the advertising "conveyed by the product packaging and reinforced by other marketing and advertising" is deceptive. They assert violations of state consumer protection laws on behalf of a multistate class and unjust enrichment on behalf of a nationwide class. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=59G5vj at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Nailing Bid for Class Certification Stricken ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xavier Nailing, et al., v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-07770-WLH-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order striking Plaintiff's motions for class certification. The Plaintiff's attempts to certify a class have no nexus to the operative complaint and fail to comply with the Court’s Local Rules1 governing the noticing of motions, the Court finds them inappropriate and premature The Defendant is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lzHXNh at no extra charge.[CC] PSEG LONG: Court Narrows Claims in "Hinds" ------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Andre Hinds, Plaintiff, v. PSEG Long Island LLC, Long Island Electric Utility Servco LLC, National Grid Electric Services LLC, Michael Abrams, and Michael Star, Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-08701 (RER) (LGD) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss an employment discrimination complaint. Plaintiff Andre Hinds, a Black man of Jamaican descent, sued two corporate entities and two individual supervisors for years of alleged race- and disability-based discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Executive Law Section 296, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York Section 8-107. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants PSEG Long Island LLC and Long Island Electric Utility Servco LLC jointly employed him, and that Michael Abrams and Michael Star were his supervisors. Plaintiff was hired in 2004 to work in the gas department in Long Island and Queens. He alleged a series of discriminatory incidents spanning nearly two decades, including racially derogatory comments by a trainer in 2005, denial of a promotion to the Emergency Service Specialist position in 2010 in favor of less qualified white employees, a suspension upon return from medical leave in 2011, humiliating posters distributed by coworkers in 2016, threats of discipline for wearing a George Floyd face mask in 2020 while coworkers wore similar political masks without consequence, assignment to work outside in sweltering heat for thirteen and a half hours in June 2021 while white coworkers worked indoors, a threat of demotion after disclosing hypertension to Abrams in July 2021, a noose found in a PSEG tool container in September 2021, a second rope found in November 2021, disproportionate discipline following a minor vehicle collision in March 2022, a parking prohibition after a swastika was discovered on PSEG property in October 2022, and denial of a new tool in spring 2024. Claims Against PSEG and National Grid Dismissed The court found that Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing that PSEG and Servco were a single employer or that they jointly employed him. Plaintiff merely alleged in a conclusory manner that Defendants jointly employed him, providing no supporting facts. Therefore, all claims against PSEG and National Grid were dismissed without prejudice. NYCHRL Jurisdiction Upheld Defendants argued the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims because the alleged discrimination did not impact New York City. The court disagreed, finding that Plaintiff's allegation of working two to three days each week in Queens sufficiently demonstrated that the discrimination had, or at least could have had, an impact in New York City. The court further held that it retained supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims. Discrimination Claims Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his ADA disability discrimination claim, and that cause of action was therefore dismissed. Under Title VII and Section 1981, the court found that Plaintiff adequately pled discrimination based on the post-collision training and truck access restrictions, as he sufficiently alleged that similarly situated white coworkers faced less harsh punishments for more serious at-fault collisions. The court also found that being assigned to work outside in sweltering heat for over thirteen hours while white coworkers worked inside, and the September 2021 noose incident, constituted adverse actions with discriminatory intent. These claims survived as to Servco and Abrams. The surviving Section 1981 discrimination claims were dismissed as to Star, as those incidents did not involve him. Under NYSHRL and NYCHRL, the same three incidents survived dismissal as to Servco and Abrams. Retaliation Claims The court dismissed all federal retaliation claims, finding that Plaintiff failed to allege a protected activity preceding each adverse action. The court noted that Plaintiff's allegation that Abrams threatened to demote him and imposed a six-week driving suspension after Plaintiff disclosed his hypertension would have constituted a valid ADA retaliation claim, but was untimely. Under NYSHRL and NYCHRL, however, the court found that Plaintiff's disclosure of hypertension to Abrams constituted a protected activity, and that Abrams' subsequent threat of demotion and six-week driving suspension survived dismissal as to Servco and Abrams. Hostile Work Environment Claims The court found that Plaintiff adequately pled a hostile work environment under Section 1981, anchored in the post-collision restrictions, the heat assignment, and the noose incident, finding these sufficiently part of the same overall discriminatory practice. The ADA hostile work environment claim was dismissed for failure to allege a disability-motivated incident. Under NYSHRL and NYCHRL, the court applied the continuing violation doctrine to revive several untimely disability-based incidents, including Abrams' ridiculing of Plaintiff's shoulder injury in 2010, Star's humiliating comment calling Plaintiff a wounded animal in 2010, locker taunting in 2011, the 2011 suspension following medical leave, and the 2016 humiliating flyers mocking Plaintiff's approved medical absences. Aiding and Abetting Claims The court found that both Abrams and Star were plausibly responsible for aiding and abetting the discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment targeted at Plaintiff. Accordingly, aiding and abetting claims survived dismissal as to both individual defendants. Conclusion The court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation under NYSHRL and NYCHRL, and aiding and abetting claims proceeded as to Servco, Abrams, and, where applicable, Star. All claims against PSEG Long Island and National Grid were dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 2, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3fOTwU from PacerMonitor.com. Defendants Michael Abrams, Jason Deasey, Craig Hanson, Rob Jenson, Robert Jeung, Jamie Shand, and Michael Star are represented by Joseph Gusmano (631-247-4741; [jgusmano@littler.com](mailto:jgusmano@littler.com)), William H. Ng (631-247-4707; [wng@littler.com](mailto:wng@littler.com)), and Kelly Courtney Spina (631-247-4744; [kspina@littler.com](mailto:kspina@littler.com)) of Littler Mendelson. Defendant Long Island Electric Utility Servco LLC, located at 80 Park Plaza, Newark, New Jersey 07102, is represented by Maria H. Keane ([mkeane@paulweiss.com](mailto:mkeane@paulweiss.com)), Isen Kang (212-373-3000; [ikang@paulweiss.com](mailto:ikang@paulweiss.com)), and Liza M. Velazquez (212-373-3000; [lvelazquez@paulweiss.com](mailto:lvelazquez@paulweiss.com)) of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Defendant PSEG Long Island LLC, located at 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Uniondale, New York 11553, is likewise represented by Maria H. Keane, Isen Kang, and Liza M. Velazquez of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Defendant National Grid Electric Services LLC, located at 1 Metrotech Center, 15th Floor West, Brooklyn, New York 11201, is listed as a defendant; counsel information is not provided in the record excerpt. Plaintiff Andre Hinds is represented by Tracey Lyn Brown (212-553-9165; [tbrown@cochranfirm.com](mailto:tbrown@cochranfirm.com)) of The Cochran Firm. RANCHO MATEO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Orcel Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RANCHO MATEO STEAK HOUSE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01064 (D.N.J., February 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.ranchomateo.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on September 11, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to learn more about the restaurant's menu and to place an online order. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied an experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded browsing experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff KEVIN ORCEL is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant RANCHO MATEO STEAK HOUSE CORP. owns and operates the website which presents ranchomateo.com as the online platform for its Mexican-style restaurant that features traditional dishes such as tacos, enchiladas, fajitas, and burritos, along with combination platters and beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RATHER OUTDOORS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bennett Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rather Outdoors Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01283 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website, https://www.zebco.com, contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and visually-impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in St. Petersburg, FL, Rather Outdoors Corporation owns and operates the website which offers fishing equipment and related accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law RUSSELL HOLT: Ramirez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO PEREZ RAMIREZ, v. RUSSELL HOLT, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00156-SCM (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Meredith entered an order denying Petitioner Perez Ramirez's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, as follows: District Courts within this Circuit—and all over the nation—are wrestling with issues like those the Petitioner has raised. Indeed, another case in this District arrived at a different outcome after thorough analysis of a similar petition. While this Court appreciates the thoughtful and thorough analyses of the courts that have reached the opposite conclusion, it agrees with those that have been convinced that section 1225(b)(2)(A) compels mandatory detention for those noncitizens who are in the Petitioner's position. Ricardo Perez Ramirez is a noncitizen who has been detained without bond by the Department of Homeland Security while he is undergoing removal proceedings. He has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it is unlawful for DHS to detain him without a bond hearing. But he is not entitled to a bond hearing. To the contrary, the applicable statutory language provides that he "shall be detained" during removal proceedings. Accordingly, his habeas petition is denied. The Petitioner contends that his detention violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is true that aliens like the Petitioner have due process rights even though they are present in the country without ever having been admitted. However, their right to due process goes no further than the process Congress has chosen to give them. Here, the Petitioner is receiving that process. Thus, he has no valid claim under the Fifth Amendment. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5vwYVj at no extra charge.[CC] RXVANTAGE INC: Standing Order Entered in Villageliu Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO VILLAGELIU, v. RXVANTAGE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00360-PA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered a standing order: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 28 5-3.1 within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint. Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court, including all status and settlement conferences. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4, the United States District Court for the Central District of California requires electronic filing of documents. Information about the Court's Electronic Case Filing system is available in Local Rule 5-4 and on the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Local Rules, and unless otherwise ordered by the Court, Judge Anderson does not require parties to provide Mandatory Chambers Copies of documents filed through the Court's CM/ECF System. Rxvantage develops digital platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7SQqo9 at no extra charge.[CC] SHIMANO INC: Crankset Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Escape Collective reports that a US federal judge has given final approval to the class-action settlement case over Shimano's Hollowtech II road crank recall, finalising the preliminary deal presented in July 2025. The deal covers US owners of recalled Shimano Dura-Ace and Ultegra 11-speed cranksets made before July 2019. It adds a two-year extension of Shimano's "express warranty" for the bonding separation and delamination, covering any issues until 29 July 2027. It will also reimburse riders who have paid for replacement cranks out of their own pocket, and update the inspection programme. Shops must now use an expert-reviewed manual, complete training and inspect the cranks with a Shimano-provided, light-equipped magnifier. Shimano has opened a claims process for US riders affected by the recall, allowing reimbursement and warranty submissions through this website. The recall, which opened in 2023. covered some 760,000 cranksets in the US. Shimano has repeatedly denied any wrondoing regarding the handling of the issue, and said that the recall was voluntary, and that most cranksets work properly. [GN] SOUNDCLOUD INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that SoundCloud faces a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the music streaming platform failed safeguard the private information of users and employees, leading to a data breach that reportedly impacted more than 29.8 million accounts. The 34-page data breach lawsuit contends that the cyber incident discovered by SoundCloud in December 2025 was the "direct and proximate result" of the music platform's negligent failure to implement and follow basic cybersecurity procedures. According to the suit, the SoundCloud data breach exposed a wealth of personally identifiable information (PII) to the hacker group behind the cyberattack, known as ShinyHunters. The exposed information included names, email addresses, contact details, geographic locations, profile statistics and login details, the filing says. The case argues that consumers and employees who handed over their personal information to access SoundCloud's services expected that the data would be protected and disclosed only in authorized, necessary circumstances. The lawsuit says that SoundCloud recklessly failed to implement standard cybersecurity measures and, in doing so, ultimately enabled unauthorized parties to access the data. "Based on the value of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII to cybercriminals, SoundCloud knew or should have known the importance of safeguarding the PII entrusted to it and of the foreseeable consequences if its data security systems were breached," the case states. According to the complaint, Soundcloud's lack of data security protections constitutes a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act as the company allegedly engaged in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in its failure to comply with industry-standard security measures, including failing to timely report the breach. The plaintiff, a California resident, claims to have suffered actual injury as a result of the SoundCloud data breach, including lost time engaging in mitigation efforts, the now-diminished value of his privacy, and fear that the information might be used for nefarious purposes or posted on the dark web. "Once Private Information is stolen, fraudulent use of that information and damage to victims may continue for years," the case emphasizes. On December 15, 2025, SoundCloud posted a statement to its newsroom in which it confirmed the breach but assured that no sensitive data, like financial or password information, was compromised, stating that the compromised data included only information already publicly visible on about 20 percent of the platform's accounts. The company added to the post on January 13, reaffirming that no sensitive data was taken and that the company would be taking steps to reinforce its cybersecurity defenses. The SoundCloud data breach class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States whose personal information was compromised in the SoundCloud data breach. [GN] SOUNDCLOUD INC: Merkel Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER MERKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUNDCLOUD INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00980 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, email addresses, geographic locations, profile statistics and usernames. 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. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, SoundCloud has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite this, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' stole information from more than 29.8 million accounts. The Defendant does not appear to have provided any response nor any notice regarding the Data Breach. 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, risks which may last for the rest of their lives since it appears their information was specifically targeted. 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. For this reason, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 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 Alexander Merkel is an adult who was a resident and citizen of the state of California. Defendant SoundCloud Inc. is a music streaming and sharing platform that empowers artists and fans to connect and share through music globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com SPRING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Salinas Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SALINAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING MANAGEMENT OK, LLC, D/B/A LUMIO DENTAL F/K/A SPRING DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00066-SH (N.D. Okla., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Spring Management OK, LLC, doing business as Lumio Dental, formerly known as Spring Dental, is a dental care services company, headquartered in Jenks, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com STOCKX LLC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STOCKX LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01257-NEB-DJF (D. Minn., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.stockx.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 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. StockX LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TAPESTRY INC: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment vs Ayala Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS AYALA, v. TAPESTRY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01052-BAS-BJW (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The Court grants summary judgment in Defendants' favor on their affirmative defense of executive exemption under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 11070. The claim for reimbursement of business expenses, which the Defendants did not move on, shall proceed to trial. Finally, the Court grants summary judgment in the Defendants Kate Spade, LLC and Stuart Weitzman IP, LLC's favor as to all claims against these Defendants. In conclusion, finding all six elements satisfied, the Court grants the partial motion for summary judgment in Defendants' favor, having shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense. The Plaintiff started work for the fashion brand Coach as an "associate store manager" in October 2015. In December 2019, he was promoted to "store manager." Tapestry is an American holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9LrFLu at no extra charge.[CC] TEN FORWARD: Tucker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEN FORWARD LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01108 (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. 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://drohhiraprobiotics.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: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Ten Forward LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TRANSDEV SERVICES: Classes in Lovejoy Lawsuit Decertified --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order decertifying classes, granting the Defendant's motion to stay, denying plaintiff’s motion for approval of notice, and staying action. 1. The instant action is decertified for all classes and the Order to Show Cause is discharged. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for approval of the class action notice and notice plan is denied as moot. 3. The Defendant's motion to stay the instant action is granted. 4. The instant action is stayed, pending resolution Reese v. Veolia Transp., No. 21STCV29413 (Cal. Super. Ct.). 5. No later than April 27, 2026, and every 60 days thereafter, the parties must file a joint status report addressing the progress of the settlement approval process in Reese v. Veolia Transp., No. 21STCV29413 (Cal. Super. Ct.). Accordingly, the Court grants each request by the parties pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and takes judicial notice of the identified state court records and the public record filed with California Secretary of State. On Feb. 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant class action, alleging that the Defendant violated California's wage and hour laws by paying Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Bus Driver/Operator employees for idealized "'paddle' estimates" of hours to be worked, rather than actual hours worked. The proposed class is defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from Aug. 10, 2017 to final judgment and who reside in California." (Subclass A) "All class members who were required by Defendants to stay on the Defendants' premises for rest breaks." (Subclass B) "All class members who received overtime compensation at a rate lower than their respective regular rate of pay because the Defendants failed to include all non-discretionary bonuses or other incentive-based compensation in the calculation of the regular rate of pay for overtime pay purposes." The proposed class is defined as: "All persons who have been employed by the Defendant as Non-Exempt Employees or equivalent positions, however titled, in the state of California within four (4) years from the filing of the Complaint in this action until its resolution. (collectively referred to as the "Class" or "Plaintiff's Class" or "Class Members")." Transdev provides passenger transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JNlFaC at no extra charge.[CC] TRI COUNTY TELEPHONE: Loses Bid to Recoup Class Suit Legal Bills ---------------------------------------------------------------- CJ Baker of Powell Tribune reports that though local telecommunications provider TCT defeated a long-running class action lawsuit in 2023, the victory apparently came at a high cost. TCT, or Tri County Telephone Association Inc., said in court filings that it spent over $4 million defending the suit, and the company's attempt to recoup that money recently came up short. Last month, a federal judge ruled that TCT's insurer doesn't have to cover any of the expenses related to the decade-old lawsuit. The litigation stemmed from TCT's switch from a member-owned cooperative to a private, for-profit company in early 2015. Coop members around the Big Horn Basin overwhelmingly approved a sale to Meeteetse businessman Neil Sclenker, but former TCT board member Joe Campbell, who'd opposed the deal, joined with his wife and filed a 119-page class action lawsuit later that year. The Campbells contended that TCT's members had effectively been the victims of a broad conspiracy that resulted in them selling the coop for far less than it was really worth. The suit was eventually dismissed in 2022, when District Court Judge Jason Conder found that the plaintiffs didn't have the evidence to back up their allegations against TCT. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Conder's ruling in 2023 and the eight-plus years of litigation finally came to an end in early 2024. The class representatives -- the estate of Joe Campbell, who died in 2020, his wife Barbara Campbell, and former coop board member Bill Loveland -- were ordered to pay about $42,600 worth of TCT's costs. However, that was just a fraction of TCT's legal bills. In later court filings, TCT indicated that it had spent "in excess of $4 million" defending the class action -- a sum the company called "substantial" but "necessary to the defense (and livelihood) of TCT." Court records indicate a significant chunk of the defense was funded by a $4 million pot of money that had been set aside during the sale for "any undisclosed liabilities," but TCT believed its then-insurer should have covered the legal bills. In a 2024 suit filed in Wyoming's U.S. District Court, TCT argued that Twin City Fire Insurance Company was obligated to defend the company from the suit and was wrong to deny coverage. However, Twin City's policy contained a clause that generally excluded "insured versus insured" claims -- such as suits brought by former company managers like Joe Campbell. After combing through the fine print and the arguments of the parties, U.S. Chief District Judge Kelly Rankin ultimately concluded that Twin City was not obligated to defend TCT from the class action. The judge issued a judgment in the insurer's favor and against TCT on Jan. 12. As for the plaintiffs in the class action, court records indicate they also incurred substantial costs. By late 2021, the plaintiffs' attorneys reported that they'd spent over $400,000 on costs -- a figure that didn't include the many hours put in by their attorneys or costs from the final years of the litigation. The plaintiffs did recoup $100,000 from a 2021 settlement they secured from TCT's former legal counsel, which was one of the defendants in the class action. The remainder of that $200,000 settlement -- roughly $94,000 -- was distributed to 720 former members of the TCT coop. Coop members collectively received $29 million from the 2015 sale. [GN] ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- National plaintiffs' law firm Berger Montague PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ: RARE) ("Ultragenyx" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased Ultragenyx common stock during the period from August 3, 2023 through December 26, 2025 (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased Ultragenyx common stock during the Class Period may, no later than April 6, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. To learn your rights, check https://bergermontague.com/cases/ultragenyx-pharmaceutical-securities-fraud/ . Ultragenyx is a biopharmaceutical company that acquires and develops novel products for treatment of rare genetic diseases. It is headquartered in Novato, Calif. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued overwhelmingly positive statements to investors concerning the ORBIT and COSMIC Phase 3 programs, clinical trials to test setrusumab as a treatment for Osteogenesis Imperfecta. When, on December 29, 2025, Ultragenyx disclosed that neither study achieved its primary endpoint of reducing the annualized clinical fracture rate, the price of its shares dropped more than 42%, from a closing price of $34.19 per share on December 26, 2025 to a close of $19.72 per share on December 29, 2025. If you are a Ultragenyx investor and would like to learn more about this action, check https://bergermontague.com/cases/ultragenyx-pharmaceutical-securities-fraud/ or please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bergermontague.com or (215) 875-3015, or Caitlin Adorni at cadorni@bergermontague.com or (267)764-4865. About Berger Montague Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. With more than $2.4 billion in 2025 post-trial judgments alone, the Firm is a leader in the fields of complex litigation, antitrust, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For over 55 years, Berger Montague has played leading roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE. For more information or to discuss your rights, please contact: Andrew Abramowitz Berger Montague (215) 875-3015 aabramowitz@bergermontague.com Caitlin Adorni Berger Montague (267) 764-4865 cadorni@bergermontague.com [GN] UNITED NETWORK: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 17 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING, Case No. 3:24-cv-00629-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Roderick C. Young entered an order that: -- All non-expert-related discovery, including the required time period for response to any discovery demand(s), must be concluded not later than April 17, 2026, except by order of the Court. -- All expert discovery in this matter, including expert depositions, shall be completed on or before June 5, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any class motions under Rule 23 on or before July 17, 2026. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' certification motion on or before Aug. 7, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their certification motion on or before Aug. 14, 2026. -- The parties shall appear for a hearing on the certification motion before the undersigned on Oct. 29, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. -- All dispositive motions shall be filed not later than Aug. 28, 2026. The Defendant is a private, nonprofit membership organization that coordinates the nation's transplant system. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w63Spn at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Appeals Renewed Motion for Stay Order to D.C. Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to dismiss and granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for a stay in the lawsuit entitled Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-2471, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. On Dec. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 12, 2025. On Dec. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a stay. On Feb. 2, 2026, Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an Order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for a stay. The Court rules that maintaining Haiti's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation pending resolution of this case will prevent harm to the Plaintiffs and their families, employers, and communities. By contrast, the Government identifies no harm that would result from continued TPS during the pendency of this litigation. The appellate case is styled as Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-5050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on February 6, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Yaakov M. Roth, Esq. Drew C. Ensign, Esq. Sarah Welch, Esq. Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Esq. Johnny H. Walker, III, Esq. Dhruman Y. Sampat, Esq. 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2525 UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Cert in Urbani Suit Due Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Urbani, et al., v. United States of America, Case No. 3:23-cv-01920 (D. Or., Filed: Dec 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered a scheduling order as follows: Initial Disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) must be made by Feb. 16, 2026. The deadline to confer and file a Joint ADR Report is August 14, 2026. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due September 15, 2026. The Defendants' response in opposition to class certification is due Oct. 15, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification is due Nov. 12, 2026. The deadline to complete fact discovery is Dec. 31, 2026. The deadline for all parties to serve initial expert disclosures is March 1, 2027. The deadline for all parties to serve rebuttal expert disclosures is March 30, 2027. The deadline to complete expert discovery is April 30, 2027. The deadline to file dispositive motions is May 14, 2027. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Theus Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAKA THEUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01151 (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) arises from the negligent failure of Defendant to properly create, maintain, preserve, and/or store confidential, personal information of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated. The Defendant allegedly allowed such unencrypted personal information on the University's Oracle E-Business Suite environment, to be exfilrated or taken by an unauthorized third-party, between August 13 and August 22, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and for violations of of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the California Business and Professions Code. Based in Phoenix, AZ, University of Phoenix, Inc. offers online college degrees and courses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Rosemary C. Khoury, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com ikhoury@ckslaw.com rkhoury@ckslaw.com - and - Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com VA CLAIMS INSIDER: Warriors Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARRIORS AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE CENTER LLC, TONYA PRICE, MANRING & FARRELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW, AND CLIFFORD FARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VA CLAIMS INSIDER, LLC, BRIAN T. REESE, and LAUREL REESE f/k/a LAUREL DANIELSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-01473-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel. In short, a class action is the most efficient, fair, and practical method for adjudicating Plaintiffs' claims. Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement is therefore satisfied. The Plaintiffs seek to certify their false advertising claim under the Lanham Act (Count I -- Violation of the Lanham Act's Prohibition of False Advertising 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a)(1)(B)) on behalf of the following Class: "All persons who were VA-Accredited Representatives between Dec. 4, 2020, and the day the Court enters an order approving the Class notice plan." VA Claims is an education-based Coaching and Consulting company for disabled veterans. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FZdRyo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com service@vandwlaw.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1434 Spruce Street, Suite 301 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com VISTA HM: Scroggins Seeks OK of Amended Bid for Conditional Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE SCROGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VISTA HM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03492-CNS-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the amended motion for conditional certification and court authorized notice. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs easily satisfy the lenient standard applicable at this first-stage of the two-step conditional certification process, the Court should – as it and others in this District have done repeatedly (including with less evidence than here) – grant conditional certification of the following collective: "All current and former Auto Brokers who worked for HM Vista LLC and its predecessors in Colorado at any time on or after Nov. 3, 2022, to the present, and who were classified as exempt from minimum wage (the "Auto Broker Collective")." The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to pay them and all other similarly-situated Auto Brokers minimum wage in accordance with the FLSA and Colorado wage and hour laws. VISTA owns and operates an automobile brokerage business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pNtVrg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Mark Baird, Esq. Beth Doherty Quinn, Esq. BAIRD QUINN LLC 2036 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 813-4500 E-mail: jmb@bairdquinn.com bdq@bairdquinn.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Engines ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Audi of America Inc., and their parent companies. Why: The plaintiffs claim certain Volkswagen and Audi vehicles have defective engines that consume excessive oil. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Volkswagen and Audi vehicles equipped with a certain engine have a defect that causes excessive oil consumption. Plaintiffs Lauren Reece, Margaret Ponder, Diana Ferrara and Loretta Moutra claim Volkswagen and Audi vehicles equipped with the EA888 2.0-liter TSI engine have an oil consumption defect that causes carbon buildup. The plaintiffs claim the carbon buildup causes the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve to stick, resulting in crankcase overpressurization that damages seals and expands and cracks the plastic oil pan cover, resulting in substantial oil leaks and consumption. "Had Plaintiffs and the other Class Members known about the Defect, they would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them," the Volkswagen class action says. Volkswagen, Audi refuse to honor warranties, plaintiffs claim The plaintiffs argue the defect is covered by Volkswagen and Audi's warranties, however the automakers refuse to honor the warranties. "Moreover, Defendants have not released or made freely available a countermeasure that adequately fixes the Defect, including more robust piston rings," the Volkswagen class action says. They want to represent a nationwide class and state subclasses of consumers who purchased or leased a Volkswagen or Audi vehicle equipped with the EA888 2.0-liter TSI engine. The plaintiffs claim Volkswagen and Audi are guilty of breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent omission and violations of state consumer protection statutes. They demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. Recently, Volkswagen recalled 356,000 Audi vehicles due to a software error that may prevent the rearview camera image from displaying correctly. The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi and Caroline F. Bartlett of Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello P.C. and W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, H. Clay Barnett III, James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Dylan T. Martin and Trenton H. Mann of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C. The Volkswagen class action lawsuit is Lauren Reece, et al. v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00745, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] VOZZCOM INC: Bid to File Class Cert Opposition Extended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Vozzcom, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-61793 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is extended to April 16, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Vozzcom provides wireline telecommunication services.[CC] WESTERN ELECTRICAL: Settles 2024 Data Breach Suit for $500,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Western Electrical Contractors Association (WECA) has agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the electrical training and apprenticeship organization failed to safeguard the private student information stored on its systems, which led to a January 2024 data breach. The WECA class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 22, 2025 and covers all United States residents whose personal information was acquired by an unauthorized third party during the January 2024 data breach, including those who received written notice of the breach and those confirmed in WECA’s records. Per court documents, approximately 35,290 individuals will be covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Western Electrical Contractors Association data breach settlement can be found at WECADataSettlement.com. According to the settlement site, WECA settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses attributable to the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000, also referred to as "Cash Payment A" in all court documents. The settlement agreement explains that out-of-pocket expenses cannot already have been reimbursed by another third-party and include those related to credit monitoring, identity theft protection, credit/debit card charges, bank fees, and costs to replace identification. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, WECA class members may instead file a claim to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $100. According to the settlement agreement, no proof is required from a class member who files a claim form to receive this benefit. WECA class members may elect to receive their cash payout via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration, court documents add. In addition to any monetary benefits, all class members may also file a claim to receive two free years of identity theft protection and one-bureau credit monitoring, which also includes dark web scanning, identity restoration, and identity theft insurance, the site notes. Finally, as part of the settlement, WECA has agreed to enact certain business practice changes to enhance its security system and reduce the risk of any future data breaches. To submit a Western Electrical Contractors Association settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as listed on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator listed on the first page of the document. All WECA claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by April 21, 2026. Consumers who believe they may be a WECA settlement class member but did not receive a notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and obtain their login information. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the WECA data breach settlement at a hearing on April 17, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Western Electrical Contractors Association class action lawsuit alleged that the California-based non-profit organization failed to protect electrical trainees and apprentices from a targeted cyberattack that occurred between approximately January 21, 2024 and January 22, 2024. Court documents state that the private information potentially impacted in the breach included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information and treatment costs. [GN] WILD OAK: SFR Services Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SFR SERVICES L.L.C., v. WILD OAK BAY VILLAS I,II,III OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all Owners located in Wild Oak Bay Villas, Case No. 8:25-cv-02162-KKM-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day extension of time, up to and including April 3, 2026, to file a motion for class certification. Additional time is required to prepare and file the motion for class certification because the parties are currently engaged in ongoing settlement discussions (and the parties expect this case to globally resolve) that may impact whether such a motion is necessary. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wt74JE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Alper, Esq. Daniel Genossar, Esq. SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 477-7800 Facsimile: (561) 477-7722 E-mail: jalper@sbwh.law dgenossar@sbwh.law WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Hudgins Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISHA HUDGINS and MARION BOVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WINDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00523-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of up to 30 days, to file a motion for class certification. An extension of the class certification deadline is appropriate so that the Plaintiffs will have the benefit of Defendant's discovery responses in preparing a motion for class certification and evaluating the merits of such a motion. The requested extension will promote efficiency, avoid unnecessary motion practice, and allow the issues to be presented to the Court in a more complete and informed manner. This is the first request for an extension of time regarding class certification. On Oct. 31, 2025, the Plaintiffs served their initial disclosures on Defendant. The parties anticipate that some portions of the Defendant's discovery responses will not be produced until after the current deadline for Motions for Class Certification. Windstream provides networking solution. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98KSq4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1 Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com WISNER BAUM: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Winer Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MAX WINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. WISNER BAUM, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01157-HDV-AS (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its inadequate data security, and for breaching its duty to handle private information with reasonable care. According to the complaint, up to and through October 8, 2025, the Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information and stored that Private Information, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant Wisner Baum's network, from which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve sensitive Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. In a data breach notice, Defendant claimed that it learned of the data breach on October 8, 2025, yet it waited for over 4 months before sending its data breach notices. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages including, without limitation, time related to monitoring their financial accounts for fraudulent activity, facing an increased and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, the lost value of their personal information, and other economic and non-economic harm. Plaintiff and Class members will now be forced to expend additional time, effort, and potential expenses to review their credit reports, monitor their financial accounts, and monitor for fraud or identify theft. Since October 2025, Plaintiff noticed a significant increase in spam calls, texts and emails. To recover from Defendant for his sustained, ongoing, and future harms, Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to: (1) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of Private Information accessed, obtained, or exposed by the hackers; (2) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of Private Information possessed by Defendant; and (3) provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime identity theft protection services, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Max Winer is a resident and citizen of Marlton, New Jersey. Defendant Wisner Baum, LLP is a law firm with approximately 20 lawyers based in Los Angeles, California. Its practice areas include class/mass actions, personal injury, aviation accidents, pharmaceutical liability, and consumer fraud cases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Uribe Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO URIBE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOUND TECHNOLOGY NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00284 (M.D. Fla., February 4, 2026) seeks to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class members' private information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendant failed to maintain reasonable and/or adequate security measures to protect Plaintiff's and other Class members' private information from unauthorized access and disclosure. In or about February 2026, a data breach occurred and approximately 160,000 patients records nationwide containing the highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members were accessed, viewed, and acquired by unauthorized parties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages for identity theft, fraud, and time spent, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and practices. Headquartered in Orlando, FL, Wound Technology Network, Inc. is a healthcare services company that provides wound care to patients across multiple U.S. States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - and - Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Michael W. Olson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com YERBAE LLC: Thackrah Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN THACKRAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YERBAE', LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00271 (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) asserts claims for breach of express warranty, and for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently displays in its energy drink products' labels that the said products are naturally sweetened. However, these products are made with stevia leaf extract--an artificial sweetener ingredient used in food and beverage products. Moreover, the Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium product that is free from artificial sweeteners, says the suit. Headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ, Yerbae' LLC manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells Yerbae' brand energy drink products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com ZHEALTH INC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Schultz Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZHEALTH, INC. d/b/a ZHEALTH EHR, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01049 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyber incident. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving service from Defendant's Clients, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. On January 27, 2026, Defendant experienced a data breach. The ransomware group Kazu has since claimed responsibility for the cyberattack. Kazu infiltrated Defendant's IT Network and extracted 15 GB of data, totaling over 1.2 million records. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes Defendant's Clients' patients' names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical, health and financial information. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries, including but not limited to: (a) present, certainly impending, and continuing threats of fraud, scams, and other misuses of their Private Information; (b) diminution of value of their Private Information; (c) loss of benefit of the bargain (price premium damages); (d) loss of value of privacy and confidentiality of the stolen Private Information; (e) illegal sales of the compromised Private Information; (f) mitigation expenses and time spent responding to and remedying the effects of the Data Breach; (g) fraud insurance costs; (h) "out of pocket" costs incurred due to actual fraud; (i) credit freezes/unfreezes; (j) expense and time spent on initiating fraud alerts and contacting third parties; (k) decreased credit scores; (l) lost work time; and (m) anxiety, annoyance, and nuisance; (n) continued risk to their Private Information, which remains in Defendant's possession and is subject to further breaches so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries it has inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's possession. Plaintiff ALEXANDRA SCHULTZ is a resident and citizen of Clarkston, Michigan and is a former patient of one of Defendant's Clients. Defendant zHealth, Inc. is a San Francisco-based software company founded in 2015 that provides an all-in-one, cloud-based practice management and electronic health record ("EHR") platform specifically to chiropractors, acupuncturists, and wellness providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ZULILY LLC: Class Cert Bid in Smith Suit Due March 26 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion to extend certain case deadlines. The pre-certification discovery deadline is extended until March 13, 2026, and the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must move for class certification is extended to March 26, 2026. Zulily offers a curated selection of apparel, footwear, home goods, and beauty products for families. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fNvT6R at no extra charge.[CC] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Co-Defends 3,700 Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, as of December 31, 2025, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,700 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,500 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, is expected to represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in nineteen of the twenty cases tried to a jury." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/31fW1W4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Faces Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company, like many other industrial companies, is a defendant in lawsuits claiming losses and injuries related to alleged exposure by workers and others to asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other hazardous materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Liabilities for environmental remediation and worker exposure claims exclude possible insurance recoveries. It is reasonably possible that our exposure will exceed amounts accrued. However, due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites and worker exposure lawsuits, such amounts are not reasonably estimable. Total reserves related to environmental remediation and worker exposure claims were $2,129 million and $2,003 million at December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/49w9e8ax ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $708MM Total Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At December 31, 2025, the Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs, was $708 million ($791 million at December 31, 2024). A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/vj9kmfs3 ********* 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 ***