260219.mbx

260219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 19, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 36 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Georgia Cities Sue Over Water Supply Contamination ADASA LTD. INC: Jenkins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ALABAMA: Mayors Drop Class Suit Over State Internet Sales Taxes ALDI INC: Santos Suit Removed to C.D. California AMAZINO SYNERGY LOGISTICS: Wilkinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN ECONOMY: Court Certifies "Glasner" Class ANDRA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Says ATP TOUR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Website Data Sharing BIBI KNITTING YARN: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLOCKRATIZE INC: San Diego Balks at Illegal Online Sports Gambling CAREPARTNERS MANAGEMENT: Rathjen Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CARY PEDIATRIC: Inadequately Safeguards Personal Info, Barker Says CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Kessler Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana CATALYST RCM: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, McGee Says CERNER CORPORATION: House Sues Over Recent Cyberattack CIBC ASSET: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Closet Indexing Suit CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Center Files Suit in D. Oregon CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Doeden Files Suit in D. Oregon CLOSE SPRING MOUNTAIN: Meggs Sues Over Inaccessible Property COAST CENTRAL: Ex-Staff Sues Over California Labor Code Violations COMODO GROUP: Counsel to Receive $650,000 from TCPA Settlement Fund COMPORIUM INC: Boyd Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation COOLSYS LIGHT COMMERCIAL: Randolph Suit Removed to N.D. California COUNSELING CENTER: ClassAction.org Probes Alleged Data Breach CRAFTS GROUP: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIOCESE OF CAMDEN: Agrees to Pay $180MM to Sexual Abuse Survivors EASYSHIP INC: Yoshida Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ELEMIS USA: Wade Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ENNKAR INC: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FCA US: Chrysler Settlement Resolves Warranties Class Action Suit FCA US: Face Class Action Over Defective Seat Adjusters FCA US: Faces Class Action Suit Over Jeep Battery Defects FERRARA CANDY: Anstett Sues Over Toxic Arsenic in Products FERRARA CANDY: Consumers Claim Toxic Arsenic Content in Candies FIRST BRANDS: Hernandez Suit Alleges WARN Act Breach FIRST LITE LLC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GENERAL MOTORS: Metcalf Class Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. GENERATOR SUPERCENTER: Buckner Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: $2.8MM Settlement Final Hearing Set August 31 GYM MANAGEMENT: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Voting System Violates ADA, Class Suit Claims HATTIESBURG, MS: Mallory Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit HOMESUBLIME LLC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ICON PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Investors INSPYR SOLUTIONS: Harrison Files Suit in S.D. Florida IRON MOUNTAIN: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Riordan Says J.H. BAXTER: District Judges Decertify Noxious Odors' Class Suits JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Judge Denies Dismissal of Property Tax Lawsuit JARQUIN CONSTRUCTION: Faces Tzalam Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Nev. JEFFREY YU: Faces Class Action Over Fake $ZEREBRO Crypto AI JOINT CORP: Fails to Safeguard Health Info, Merical Suit Alleges KDDI CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims KEMPER CORPORATION: McDonald Suit Removed to C.D. California KEMPER CORPORATION: Rosenwald Suit Removed to N.D. California KORAN LANDSCAPE: Court Partially OKs Bid for New Trial KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set April 13 KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims LEMARK REALTY: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Faces Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MADHAPPY INC: Moran Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store MADISON COUNTY: Smith Sues Over Unrefunded Surplus Proceeds MAPLES CARE: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over COVID-19 Deaths MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Omitted Owens Merger Info MASTERCRAFT BOAT: Taylor Balks at Deal's Director Removal Process MCLAREN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach MED ATLANTIC INC: Carroll Files Suit in E.D. Virginia MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Ford Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina MEREO BIOPHARMA: Dodge Balks at Misleading Company Material Info MERKLE INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Eastman Says META PLATFORMS: Facilitates Stock Manipulation Scams, Suit Claims MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Judge Grants Dismissal of Securities Class Suit NAVITAS LLC: Sells Contaminated Organic Chia Seeds, Soumekh Claims NEURO SOLUTIONS: Frank-Klein Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages NEW ESTRELLA: Encarnacion Seeks Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages NEW JERSEY: Estate Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit NORDSTROM INC: Truelove Suit Removed to N.D. California NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Objectors Appeal Over $600MM Derailment Payout OASIS LANDSCAPE: Caverly Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation OCUGEN INC: Files Petition to Validate Corporate Acts in Delaware OX SECURITIES: Wartenburg Sues Over Illegal CFD Trading Scheme PANDA RESTAURANT: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $2.45MM PENDLETON COMMUNITY: Settles Overdraft Fees' Suit for $750,000 PHIA GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Sinatra Says PIATT COUNTY, IL: Conyers Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois PINEHURST RADIOLOGY: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Class Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Soliman Suit Removed to N.D. California REBOUND ORTHOPEDICS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM ROADELO LLC: Barco Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in "Brown" SHANI DARDEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Says SHIPINSURE INC: Carlos Sues Over Deceptive Addition of Junk Fees SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $8.5MM SOUNDCLOUD INC: Murphy Files Suit Over Data Breach SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Amato Suit SWINERTON BUILDERS: Zamora Suit Removed to N.D. California T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Action Suit Failed Gift Cards Promotion TARGET CORP: Settles Wage Transparency Class Suit for $2.225-Mil. THRASIO LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Stain Removers TRUE FINANCE LLC: Ware Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington TRUE RELIGION: Website Lists Fake Regular Prices, Samuel Says TTCU FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees' Class Suit for $3MM UDR INC: Jackson Suit Removed to D. Columbia ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Bailey Sues Over Securities Laws Breach ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6 UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit UNIQURE NV: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Over Immigration Raid in Wilder, Id. UNITED STATES: Appeals Petition for Relief Order in Morales Suit VANGUARD MARKETING: Judge OKs Motion to Dismiss $100 Exit Fee Suit VERY GREAT BRANDS: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VIDAXL LLC: Echols Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store WALGREEN CO: Toney-Joseph Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. WES-T-GO FUELS: Faces Romero Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls WYANDOTTE, KS: Sues Fire Truck Makers Over Alleged Price Fixing Z5X GLOBAL: Intentionally Discloses Personal Info, Shahbaz Says Z5X GLOBAL: Shahbaz Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy [] Beasley Allen Experts Discuss Class Action, Mass Tort Trends [] IBA Committee Names Wongsawangsiri as Publications Head [] Proximity Ties Up With FRT for Class Action Services [^] Emerging Firms in Class Action & Mass Tort Litigation ********* 3M COMPANY: Georgia Cities Sue Over Water Supply Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Georgia cities Blakely, Cartersville, Chatsworth, Meigs and Pelham filed a class action lawsuit against 3M Company. Why: The cities claim 3M knowingly contaminated Georgia's water supply with PFAS. Where: The 3M class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court. How to get help: If you were diagnosed with certain cancers or ulcerative colitis, you may be eligible to pursue compensation through a PFAS drinking water lawsuit. Five Georgia cities have hit 3M Company with a class action lawsuit arguing the company knowingly contaminated the state's water supply with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as "forever chemicals." The cities of Blakely, Cartersville, Chatsworth, Meigs and Pelham claim 3M was the sole manufacturer of PFOS in the United States and its primary manufacturer globally until 2002. The cities argue PFAS never degrade and, as a result, have become known as "forever chemicals." "3M's PFAS has contaminated, and continues to contaminate, the wastewater-treatment facilities and property of the proposed class representatives and class members," the 3M class action says. The cities want to represent a class of all governmental entities in Georgia that own a wastewater-treatment facility that has influent or effluent with PFOS or PFOA above four parts per trillion, among other things. Despite dangers, 3M only agreed to phase out PFOS, PFOA in 2000, class action says The cities argue 3M had known about the dangers of PFOS and PFOA for decades, including that the chemicals would make their way into groundwater, surface water, wastewater-treatment facilities, and ultimately into animals and humans. "3M knew that it was selling tons of PFAS into Georgia, where they were contaminating wastewater-treatment facilities, surface water, groundwater, farmland, and, ultimately, people," the 3M class action says. The cities further claim 3M only agreed to phase out PFOS and PFOA in 2000 under pressure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty in 2006 for failing to disclose the health risks and environmental persistence of PFAS. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. 3M previously agreed to pay up to $12.5 billion to settle a PFAS lawsuit claiming it contaminated the U.S. public drinking water system. Have you been affected by PFAS contamination in Georgia? Let us know in the comments. The cities are represented by Michael B. Terry, Jason J. Carter, Tiana Mykkeltvedt, Jeffrey W. Chen and Amanda D. Bradley of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP; Virgil L. Adams of Adams, Jordan & Herrington P.C.; Casondra Turner of Milberg PLLC; and James Benjamin Finley and N. Nickolas Jackson of The Finley Firm P.C. The 3M PFAS lawsuit is City of Blakely, et al. v. 3M Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00008-LAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. [GN] ADASA LTD. INC: Jenkins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adasa, LTD Inc. The case is styled as Angel Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Adasa, LTD Inc. d/b/a "Couture Candy," Case No. 802233/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Feb. 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Disability). ADASA -- https://adasa.com/ -- specializes in providing a wide range of designer dresses and gowns for various occasions including prom, weddings, homecoming, and formal events.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com ALABAMA: Mayors Drop Class Suit Over State Internet Sales Taxes --------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Duggins, writing for Alabama Public Radio, reports that it looks like Alabama cities like Tuscaloosa and Mobile may be getting a larger share of state internet sales taxes. Mayors Walt Maddox and Spiro Cheriogatis are among the city leaders who are dropping a class action lawsuit against the Alabama Department of Revenue has been dropped. The suit, brought by the City of Tuscaloosa and other municipalities, claimed the eight-percent Simplified Sellers Use Tax, caused them to lose millions of dollars in online sales tax revenue. Mayor Walt Maddox announced he and the other plaintiffs would drop the lawsuit, and instead work with members of the Alabama legislature to find a solution to the dilemma. Maddox and Cheriogatis helped lead the charge over trying to get bigger share of the sales tax Alabama charges for buying things on the internet. The fee is called the Simplified Sellers Use Tax. It reportedly earned eight hundred and fifty million dollars every year. Half of the money goes to the state and the rest is split up between Alabama cities and counties. Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox complained that's not enough. He claimed the Druid City generated fifteen million dollars in internet sales that were distributed elsewhere. Maddox sued and the judge in the case has ordered mediation. Mobile Mayor Spiro Cheriogatis signed onto the action, saying Alabama's Port City wants a bigger cut as well. [GN] ALDI INC: Santos Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jacob Santos, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALDI INC., an Illinois Corporation; AI CALIFORNIA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; EVAN BERG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2507077 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00518-SP. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against the ALDI Defendants and also purports to assert claims against Defendant Evan Berg. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (against ALDI Defendants); Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity (against ALDI Defendants); Retaliation for Exercising Labor Code Rights (against ALDI Defendants); Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention (against ALDI Defendants); Failure to Provide Rest Periods (against ALDI Defendants and Mr. Berg); Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Separation (against ALDI Defendants and Mr. Berg); Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (against ALDI Defendants and Mr. Berg); Failure to Maintain Required Payroll and Employment Records (against ALDI Defendants); Failure to Provide Employment Records Upon Request (against ALDI Defendants); Personal Liability for Wage Violations (against Mr. Berg); and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason E. Murtagh, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619 239 8700 Fax: 619 702 3898 Email: jason.murtagh@bipc.com AMAZINO SYNERGY LOGISTICS: Wilkinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazino Synergy Logistics, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Wilkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazino Synergy Logistics, LLC, Case No. 26STCV04039 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Amazino Synergy Logistics LLC is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Anaheim, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com AMERICAN ECONOMY: Court Certifies "Glasner" Class ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JEFFREY GLASNER, DWIGHT SEELEY, PAMELA SEELEY, ARIJ ALI, and MALINA ALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11047-DJC (D. Mass.), and the related case captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, KENNETH BLACK, CRAIG DOBBS, and NANCY DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed both sets of Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and allowed in part and denied in part Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment. According to the Court, the Glasner Plaintiffs, on behalf of Liberty-affiliated policyholders in nine states, alleged breach of contract and sought declaratory relief based on Defendants’ practice of depreciating labor costs when calculating actual cash value payments under replacement cost less depreciation methodology. The Fassina Plaintiffs brought a parallel putative class action on behalf of Liberty-affiliated policyholders in a different but overlapping set of nine states, asserting the same legal theory that Defendants breached standard form homeowners policies by withholding labor costs from covered structural damage claims adjusted with Xactimate or Symbility software. Upon careful examination, the Court stated that Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ substantially similar motions warranted joint consideration for purposes of class certification and partial summary judgment and that class certification would be addressed before summary judgment. The Court concluded that resolving class certification first would not prejudice Defendants and would better serve efficiency because the summary judgment motions targeted only a subset of Plaintiffs and state laws, while the class issues extended across multiple Defendants, states, and policy forms. The Court first addressed Article III standing and held that the named Plaintiffs, including those who later received replacement cost value payments, had standing to pursue breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims individually and on behalf of the proposed classes. The Court explained that the RCV Plaintiffs alleged an invasion of a legally protected contractual interest because they were parties to insurance contracts and claimed that Defendants breached those contracts by depreciating labor from actual cash value payments. The Court further held that Plaintiffs alleged a concrete financial injury in the form of the lost time value of money between the allegedly underpaid ACV payments and later RCV payments, and that this alleged prejudgment interest injury preserved a live controversy. The Court rejected Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs lacked standing to represent class members whose claims involved steep and high roofs. The Court noted that the Seeleys’ claim did involve a steep and high roof and that Plaintiffs advanced a single labor depreciation theory of breach, encompassing depreciation achieved through settings that failed to include corresponding removal and installation line items for steep or high pitched roofs. Accordingly, the Court held that the named Plaintiffs had a sufficient personal stake to litigate on behalf of all class members whose labor costs were depreciated, including those with steep and high roof claims. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs satisfied the class action requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) and therefore certified both proposed classes. The Court found numerosity satisfied because there were thousands of structural damage claims in which Defendants withheld labor costs from ACV payments across the identified Liberty entities and states. The Court held that commonality was met because a central common question was whether Defendants’ standard form homeowners policies permitted depreciation of labor costs in calculating actual cash value, and that this question could be resolved in one stroke for all class members. As to typicality, the Court determined that the named Plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same course of conduct as those of the class, namely Defendants’ alleged practice of depreciating labor from ACV payments under standard policy forms, and that the claims were based on the same legal theory of breach of contract. The Court held that differences between RCV Plaintiffs and policyholders who only received ACV payments did not defeat typicality because all class members asserted the same contractual duty and alleged the same type of breach and sought prejudgment interest on withheld labor. Regarding adequacy, the Court found no fundamental conflict between the named Plaintiffs and the absent class members and concluded that all class members sought the same form of relief based on the same theory. The Court also appointed Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel after finding they were qualified, experienced, and able to vigorously conduct complex labor depreciation class actions. The Court concluded that the proposed classes were ascertainable because membership could be determined using objective criteria: geography, time period, structural damage claims, issuance of an ACV payment calculated through Xactimate or Symbility, operation of defined depreciation settings described as manipulation of estimating software, policy type, and whether policy limits were not exhausted by the initial ACV payment. The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that reviewing numerous claim files rendered the class unascertainable, reasoning that clerical review of claims data does not defeat administrative feasibility. [ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws](https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/80270714/08dd4d73-db23-4707-9911-e65654e5127d/Glasner_v_American_Economy_Insurance_Company__madce-21-11047__0170.0.pdf) Accordingly, the Court held that common questions predominated under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court framed the predominating question as whether, as a matter of law, Defendants breached standard form homeowner policies by depreciating labor from ACV payments and concluded that this contract interpretation issue was central and capable of classwide resolution. The Court distinguished cases relied upon by Defendants that focused on whether the ultimate payment reasonably matched the property’s value, explaining that Plaintiffs’ theory here concerned a separate contractual promise to use a prescribed method of calculating ACV without labor depreciation. The Court therefore held that the legality of labor depreciation was a common liability question that predominated over individualized damages issues. The Court further held that individualized damages questions did not defeat predominance, noting that Rule 23(b)(3) does not require every element to be susceptible to classwide proof and that damages could be determined using a standard mathematical formula applied to Defendants’ claims data. The Court cited authority that individualized calculations of withheld labor and prejudgment interest could be handled through computer records and objective criteria, while the overarching contract interpretation and breach issues remained common. Factual background and claims The Court recounted that between September 2019 and May 2021, Plaintiffs’ insured residences in Arizona, Ohio, Illinois, Alabama, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin sustained covered property damage losses. Plaintiffs submitted timely claims under personal lines homeowners policies issued by various Liberty affiliates, including American Economy Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, LM Insurance Corporation, and Liberty Insurance Corporation. After determining that the losses were covered, Defendants calculated ACV payments under a replacement cost less depreciation methodology using Xactimate or Symbility estimating software. The Court noted that Defendants’ ACV calculations started with replacement cost value, subtracted applicable deductibles, and then applied depreciation settings that reduced line items for materials and labor, including certain roof removal labor, future repair labor, and associated overhead and profit. The Court stated that the disputed line items included some amount of labor costs that Defendants depreciated as part of ACV, resulting in lower initial ACV payments or payments that fell below deductibles. According to the Court, after receiving these ACV payments, the RCV Plaintiffs repaired their properties, submitted proof of completed repairs, and then requested and received RCV payments reflecting the difference between ACV and full replacement cost. Plaintiffs alleged that, even though they ultimately received RCV, Defendants’ initial withholding of labor in ACV payments breached the policies and deprived them of the time value of money. The Court summarized the procedural history by noting that Glasner filed the first complaint on June 24, 2021, against American Economy Insurance Company, and Fassina filed the related action on September 12, 2022, against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed second amended complaints in March 2024, adding additional named Plaintiffs and Liberty entities and asserting breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims on behalf of nationwide classes limited to specific “States at Issue.” In May 2025, the Glasner Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of American Economy, Liberty Mutual Personal, and Safeco Indiana policyholders; the Fassina Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of Liberty Mutual Fire, Safeco, LM, and Liberty Insurance policyholders. In July 2025, Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment directed to the individual claims of certain RCV Plaintiffs. Summary judgment rulings on individual claims After certifying the classes, the Court turned to Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment as to the individual breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims of Thomas Larsen, the Seeleys, the Alis, Black, and the Dobbs. The Court applied the governing contract law of Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, and Maryland, which require proof of a valid contract, performance, breach, and damages. The Court assumed, for purposes of summary judgment, that the RCV Plaintiffs could establish breach based on the earlier legal analysis of policy language and labor depreciation but focused on whether they could show damages beyond the ACV and RCV amounts already paid. The Court held that the RCV Plaintiffs could not recover additional contractual damages where the insurers ultimately paid the full replacement cost actually and necessarily incurred to repair the insured properties as required by the loss settlement provisions. According to the Court, although the RCV Plaintiffs asserted a theory of damages based on the lost time value of money and prejudgment interest on the withheld labor, the Court concluded that, under the record presented, they had not established legally cognizable damages under the applicable state contract law sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The Court further held that Plaintiffs’ late raised arguments regarding nominal damages were waived because they were not presented in the summary judgment briefing and were raised for the first time at oral argument. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment on the individual breach of contract claims of Larsen, the Seeleys, the Alis, and the Dobbs for failure to prove damages as a matter of law. The Court separately analyzed Black’s claim under Maryland law and concluded that his breach of contract claim likewise failed for lack of recoverable damages beyond the RCV payments already made. Therefore, the Court allowed Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment as to each RCV Plaintiff’s individual breach claim. As to the RCV Plaintiffs’ individual declaratory judgment claims, the Court held that they were duplicative of the breach of contract claims because they relied on the same factual allegations and legal theory that Defendants’ policies prohibited withholding labor costs when adjusting losses under the RCLD methodology. The Court exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decline duplicative relief and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the RCV Plaintiffs’ individual declaratory judgment claims. However, the Court emphasized that these summary judgment rulings on individual claims did not negate the previously found standing and did not undermine the certified class claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief, which continued to proceed on behalf of the classes represented by remaining named Plaintiffs, including Glasner, Fassina, and Edelen. For these reasons, the Court allowed the Glasner Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Glasner,allowed the Fassina Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Fassina, D. allowed the Glasner Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Glasner, D. 134, and allowed the Fassina Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in part as to the Dobbs’breach of contract and the Dobbs and Black’s declaratory judgement claims and denied same in part as to Black’s breach of contract claim, Fassina A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated 12 February is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CANxXt from PacerMonitor.com Defendants American Economy Insurance Company Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana Represented by: Daniel W. Sack – Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar LLP – 617-720-2880 – dws@dcglaw.com Daniel P. Tighe – Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar LLP – 617-720-2880 – dpt@dcglaw.com Marilyn Marie Brown – Jackson Walker L.L.P. – 512-236-2379 – mbrown@jw.com Michael Curtis Roberts – Jackson Walker L.L.P. – 512-236-2251 – mroberts@jw.com Maggie I. Burreson – Jackson Walker LLP – 214-953-6051 – mburreson@jw.com David T. Moran – Jackson Walker LLP – 214-953-6051 – dmoran@jw.com Christopher A. Thompson – Jackson Walker LLP – 214-953-6032 – cthompson@jw.com Plaintiffs Jeffrey Glasner Arij Ali Malina Ali Dwight Seeley Pamela Seeley Represented by: Jonathan M. Feigenbaum – 617-357-9700 – jonathan@erisaattorneys.com J. Brandon McWherter – McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC – 615-354-1144 – brandon@msb.law Erik D. Peterson – Mehr Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC – 859-225-3737 – edp@austinmehr.com T. Joseph Snodgrass – Larson King, LLP – 651-312-6500 – jsnodgrass@larsonking.com ANDRA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Says ----------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andra Group, LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-193 (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, www.herroom.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cruz and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 15, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for full-cup bras. During the search, she came across the Defendant's website. While navigating the website using her screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to complete the purchase. Specifically, the navigation menu with drop-down menus could not be accessed using the keyboard. Plaintiff Cruz attempted to use the "Tab" and arrow keys but was unsuccessful. The website relied on functionality that required specific devices, such as a mouse, and was therefore not accessible to legally blind users, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Andra Group, LP operates the website that offers a selection of women's intimate apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ATP TOUR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Website Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Brooks, writing for USA Herald, reports that a California resident has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against ATP Tour Inc., claiming the tennis organization shared personal information from its website users with Google and other third parties, despite assuring visitors they could reject nonessential data collection. The lawsuit, filed Monday, February 9, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleges the ATP Tour website used embedded third-party tracking technology to collect data on what pages users visited, how they navigated the site, and the devices they were using. That information was reportedly shared with advertising and analytics partners to enable targeted marketing, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Nathaniel Bee argues that visitors who selected the "essential cookies only" option were misled. "Even when users attempted to limit tracking, the defendant failed to prevent third parties from receiving data generated by users' website communications," the lawsuit states. The complaint claims this conduct violates California's Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, and several state advertising regulations. Bee compared browsing on the ATP Tour website to attending a live tennis event in person. Just as in-person activities can reveal personal interests, he said, digital interactions on the website provide detailed behavioral insights. "Users reasonably expect that their online communications occur as part of their direct interaction with the defendant, not as a broadcast to unseen third parties," the complaint says. The lawsuit also names Comscore Inc., a company that provides data analytics and insights on consumer behavior, as another recipient of the information. According to the complaint, users have no way to verify whether ATP Tour honored their cookie preferences, and this lack of transparency prevents them from controlling the economic value of their personal information. The proposed class covers all users nationwide who opted for limited cookies, with a specific subclass for California residents. ATP Tour users visit the site to access live scores, match coverage, player statistics, and other features, making the alleged data collection widespread. Bee and the proposed class are represented by Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC. ATP Tour has not commented on the lawsuit, and legal counsel for the organization was not immediately available. [GN] BIBI KNITTING YARN: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bibi Knitting Yarn LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-04033-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://Michiganfineyarns.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of knitting and crochet supplies, including luxury and specialty yarns, project kits, knitting needles, crochet hooks, patterns, notions, and fiber-arts accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BLOCKRATIZE INC: San Diego Balks at Illegal Online Sports Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------------ LORENZO MIRO SAN DIEGO, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCKRATIZE, INC. d/b/a POLYMARKET, ADVENTURE ONE QSS, INC. d/b/a POLYMARKET.COM, and QCX LLC d/b/a POLYMARKET US, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00973 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2026) arises out of the Defendants' operation of an illegal online sports gambling platform that is marketed as a "prediction market," but in reality, is an unlicensed sports betting enterprise prohibited under various state laws. The Defendants own and operate Polymarket, www.polymarket.com one of the popular prediction gambling markets. Through Polymarket, users can place bets on the outcome of sports games, individual player metrics, team results, and sometimes even a combination of events (i.e. Parlays). These bets materially resemble those offered at traditional casinos or sportsbooks. Throughout the Class period, Polymarket has routinely marketed its product as betting on sports games and events. Allegedly, Polymarket has repeatedly misled consumers that through its sports betting platform, they can gamble on their website. Through its operation of an unlicensed sports-betting platform, Polymarket has violated applicable state anti-gambling laws, engaged in deceptive practices, and unjustly enriched itself at the expense of consumers in the United States, including California and New York, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, seeks all available remedies at law and equity, including damages, restitution, declaratory, and injunctive relief. Blockratize, Inc., d/b/a Polymarket, owns and operates the sports gambling website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Edwin Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Omer Kremer, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9470 E-mail: omer@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com CAREPARTNERS MANAGEMENT: Rathjen Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Rathjen, individually and for others similarly situated v. CAREPARTNERS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-38320-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00428. The Complaint alleges rest and meal break wage and hour claims on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class of hourly workers in Washington.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dan M. Forman, Esq. Linda Wang, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 612-6300 Email: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com lwang@cdflaborlaw.com CARY PEDIATRIC: Inadequately Safeguards Personal Info, Barker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROSETTE BARKER, individually on behalf of her minor children S.B., E.B., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARY PEDIATRIC CENTER, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 26CV004848-910 (Super. Ct., Wake Cty., N.C., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including their names, Social Security numbers (SSN), address, date of birth, and other identifying information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) including Plaintiff and Class Members' medical record number. The complaint relates that the Defendant collected and continues to collect the PII of its customers and clients throughout its usual course of business operations. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving benefit from Plaintiff and the Class's PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those persons, and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff and Class's PII from unauthorized disclosure and/or criminal cyber activity. However, on January 17, 2026, the ransomware group Qilin gained access to the Defendant's network and computer systems and obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's files. The Defendant breached its numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class are now faced with a present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft or fraud. These risks are made all the more substantial, and significant because of the inclusion of their SSN and other static PII, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose PII was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to inadequate data security practices employed by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of her minor children and the Class, asserts claims for Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity by law, or any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. Plaintiff Rosette Barker is a citizen of Apex, North Carolina. Plaintiff's minor children have been patients of Cary Pediatric Center for several years. Defendant Cary Pediatric Center is a long-established pediatric medical practice in Cary, North Carolina that provides pediatric healthcare services to infants, children, and adolescents, including childcare, sick visits, developmental screenings, immunizations, and management of chronic pediatric conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612)-336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Kessler Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Summer Kessler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., Casey's Marketing Company, Casey's Retail Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-02971 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Feb. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00045-PPS-AZ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Casey's Retail Company -- https://www.caseys.com/ -- is a chain of convenience stores in the Midwestern and Southern United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Loren Donnell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 447 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Marc Hepworth, Esq. David Roth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. Rebecca Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC 192 Lexington Ave., Ste 802 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Brendan Johnson, Esq. John Lassetter, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON - MN 80 South 8th Street, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 486-2049 CATALYST RCM: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, McGee Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW MCGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALYST RCM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01062 (S.D. Tex., February 10, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Protected Health Information (PHI) that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. 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. The Defendant made promises and representations to individuals', including Plaintiff and Class Members, that the Private Information collected from them would be kept safe and confidential, and that the privacy of that information would be maintained. However, between November 8, 2025, and November 9, 2025, Defendant experienced a cyber incident on a server used to store data of Clients' patients. As a result of the Data Breach, an unauthorized third-party was able to access and copy files containing the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The following types of Private Information were compromised in the Data Breach: name, date of birth, health insurance information, and medical information. On February 6, 2026, Defendant sent letters to notify impacted individuals about the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiff Andrew McGee is a citizen and resident of Valrico, Florida. He is a patient of one of the Defendant's Clients. Defendant Catalyst RCM LLC is a revenue cycle management provider that assists its clients with revenue tracking. Accordingly, Defendant provides services to numerous medical facilities and providers (hereinafter, the "Clients" or "Defendant's Clients").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214/744-3000 Facsimile: 214/744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com CERNER CORPORATION: House Sues Over Recent Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------ Kellie House, Charnica McLamore, Raymon McLamore, and Camren McLamore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Case No. 4:26-cv-00360-JD (D.S.C., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred as early as January 22, 2025. Following an internal investigation, on information and belief, Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, Social Security number as we as well as personal health information, "(PHI"), including patient medical records, medical record numbers, doctors, diagnosis, medicines, test results, images, care, and treatment. Plaintiffs refer to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information." The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former patients and prospective patients. The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are victims of Defendants' negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendants with their Sensitive Information. But Defendants betrayed that trust. Defendants failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs received medical care from Defendant MUSC, maintained patient relationships with MUSC, and suffered harm as victims of the Data Breach. Cerner is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations, lost control over its affiliated entity and client's patients' highly sensitive personal information, including MUSC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLP 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Phone: (816) 714-7112 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 Email: thudson@wcllp.com CIBC ASSET: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Closet Indexing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a proposed class action against CIBC Asset Management Inc. (CAM), alleging that the company engaged in closet indexing in certain mutual funds, has now been certified by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The certification decision follows an earlier ruling, which found that while most of the elements that qualify a lawsuit as a proposed class action are present in this case, the plaintiffs had failed to establish that a common issue involving alleged closet indexing actually exists. However, in that 2022 decision, the court also granted leave for the plaintiffs to submit further evidence to prove that a potential common issue exists. In the meantime, three other proposed class actions based on closet indexing allegations (against TD Asset Management Inc., RBC Global Asset Management Inc., and HSBC Global Asset Management) have already been certified as class actions. According to the court's decision, in this case, the plaintiffs have now submitted evidence -- including affidavits from a professor at University of Toronto that included an analysis of specific CIBC funds' performance -- that, they argue, indicate that the fund manager engaged in closet indexing that harmed investors in those funds by charging fees for active management, but only delivering index-like performance. The defendants, including CAM, CIBC, and CIBC Trust, opposed certification, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to establish a basis in fact supporting the proposed common issue. However, the court sided with the plaintiffs, finding, among other things, that competing expert evidence "illustrates that a common issue actually exists." The analysis of fund performance "provides an evidence-based argument that the performance of the funds was economically and statistically linked to the benchmark," the court noted. "Whether that linkage was sufficient to attract legal liability is a complex issue that cannot be answered simply by looking at graphs or performance reports," it said. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff "shown some basis in fact the defendants charged the class members active management-level fees for returns they could have realized by investing in low-cost passive index funds" -- and that they also provided evidence that the disclosure of the funds' investment strategies may have been inadequate. None of the allegations have been proven. However, the court found that the plaintiffs provided a basis in fact for the alleged common issues, and it ordered the case certified as a class action. [GN] CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Center Files Suit in D. Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clackamas Community College. The case is styled as Emma Center, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clackamas Community College, Case No. 3:26-cv-00248-AN (D. Ore., Feb. 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Clackamas Community College -- https://www.clackamas.edu/ -- is a public community college in Oregon City, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@tousley.com CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Doeden Files Suit in D. Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clackamas Community College. The case is styled as Mychal Doeden, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clackamas Community College, Case No. 3:26-cv-00247-AN (D. Ore., Feb. 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Clackamas Community College -- https://www.clackamas.edu/ -- is a public community college in Oregon City, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@tousley.com CLOSE SPRING MOUNTAIN: Meggs Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------------ John Meggs and Access 4 All, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. CLOSE SPRING MOUNTAIN PLAZA, a Nevada Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:26-cv-00255 (D. Nev., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. The Plaintiff, John Meggs, visited the Commercial Property in November 2025 and plans on returning to the Commercial Property in early 2026. The Commercial Property is one of the Plaintiff preferred dining locations. The Defendant has 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 ADA. The Defendant has discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against Plaintiffs in violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities by January 26, 1992. The Plaintiffs are without adequate remedy at law and are suffering irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel and are entitled to recover attorney's fees, costs and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual with T10 paraplegia who is a manual wheelchair user. CLOSE SPRING MOUNTAIN PLAZA, was and is a Nevada Limited Partnership located in Nevada and doing business in the State of Nevada, owning and operating a Plaza in the State of Nevada, and deriving substantial revenue from the State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Iglody, Esq. IGLODY LAW 2580 St Rose Parkway, Suite 330 Henderson, Nevada 89074 Phone: 702-425-5366 Email: lee@iglody.com - and - John A. Salcedo, Esq. THE MINEO SALCEDO LAW FIRM, P.A. 5600 Davie Road Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-463-8100 Email: Service@mineolaw.com COAST CENTRAL: Ex-Staff Sues Over California Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Music, writing for Kym Kemp, reports that a former employee of Coast Central Credit Union has filed a lawsuit in Humboldt County Superior Court alleging the credit union violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code and is seeking to have the case certified as a class action. The complaint, filed January 8, 2026, names Jackson Crockett as the plaintiff and lists Coast Central Credit Union as the defendant. Crockett brings the case on behalf of himself and other current and former non-exempt employees in California who allegedly experienced similar workplace practices. According to the complaint, Crockett worked for Coast Central from July 2024 to August 2025 as a non-exempt hourly employee. The lawsuit defines a proposed "California Class" that would include non-exempt employees who worked for the credit union during the four years prior to the filing of the complaint through a date to be determined by the court. The complaint alleges the amount in controversy for the class exceeds $5 million. The lawsuit alleges Coast Central failed to properly compensate employees for all hours worked, including time allegedly worked during meal periods or while off the clock. It claims employees were at times required to perform work during what should have been off-duty meal breaks and that meal period time was rounded in a manner that benefitted the employer. The complaint also alleges the credit union did not consistently provide legally required 30-minute meal periods and 10-minute rest breaks depending on shift length. Beyond break-related claims, the lawsuit alleges Coast Central failed to properly calculate overtime and premium pay by excluding non-discretionary incentive compensation from the regular rate of pay. It further claims the credit union issued inaccurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay sick leave at the correct rate, did not reimburse certain business expenses such as personal cell phone use for work purposes, and failed to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The complaint also includes a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law. Although filed by a single former employee, the lawsuit is not limited to Crockett alone. It is structured as a proposed class action, meaning the plaintiff is asking the court for permission to represent a broader group of employees who may have been affected by the same alleged practices. If the court certifies the class, the case would proceed on behalf of all employees who fit the class definition, unless they choose to opt out. If the court declines to certify the class, the case could continue as an individual lawsuit. Crockett is seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and a jury trial. Redheaded Blackbelt reached out to Coast Central Credit Union for comment, however, their representative was unavailable for comment on short notice prior to publication. We will update or provide follow-up reporting if/when additional information becomes available. Update: In response to our request for comment, Christian Hill, Public Affairs Officer for Coast Central Credit Union emailed us this response: We are aware of the lawsuit that has been filed. As this is active litigation, it is our policy not to comment on the matter. What we can say is that we take great pride in being the premier employer in our market, a distinction we have earned and upheld throughout our 75-year history. Our employees are critical to our success, and we remain deeply committed to supporting them and fostering a respectful, compliant, and positive workplace. [GN] COMODO GROUP: Counsel to Receive $650,000 from TCPA Settlement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Troutman of TCPAWorld reports that in Johnson v. Comodo Group, 2026 WL 296417 (D. N.J. Feb. 4, 2026) the court approved a class action settlement agreement whereby Comodo will pay $1,625,000 to settle the case, with average recovery of approximately $596 for each class member. The claim arose out of alleged telemarketing calls made to sell the defendant's encrypted software to consumers without consent. The court had previously certified a broad class of: (1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number Comodo made a telemarketing call (3) using a prerecorded voice (4) within four years of the filing of the complaint. There were 12,757 class members identified, which means Defendant agreed to pay about $127.00 per class member– not terrible for a prerecorded marketing case with no consent. After notice to the class there were 1,266 valid claims, which represents a solid 10.2% claim rate. Those 1,266 valid claims are associated with 4,631 separate calls, with the average number of calls per valid claim of 3.66– meaning a "full" recovery to each claimant would have been $1,830.00 each. $596.00 out of a potential $1,830.00 isn't bad–although the non-claiming class members received zero. There were no objections to the settlement. Here's where it gets really interesting though. Plaintiff's counsel will receive $650,000 (40% of the settlement fund) PLUS reimbursement of $92,283.46 in expenses. Meaning over 45% of the settlement funds will go to the lawyers who brought the case! Now it is normal for the plaintiff's attorneys to receive huge dollars in these cases, but 45% is the highest I recall seeing off hand. Plus the Plaintiff himself will receive a genuinely massive incentive award of $40,000! I have never seen an award that high approved. Usually an incentive award is $20k or less. And in some circuits they aren't even allowed. Really an unusual resolution here but it shows just how profitable TCPA class litigation is for the Plaintiff's lawyers. Still this isn't a bad outcome for Comodo given the alleged conduct here. Just another day in TCPAWorld I suppose. If you want to avoid TCPA class actions like these (not good) be sure to request your FREE copy of the Troutman Amin, LLP 2026 TCPA Annual Review, presented by Contact Center Compliance! Chat soon! [GN] COMPORIUM INC: Boyd Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Boyd, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPORIUM, INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-00429-MGL (D.S.C., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought arising out of the Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), and common law. The Plaintiff and the other Representatives routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the Plaintiff and the other Representatives, even those Plaintiff and the other Representatives who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours. Because Plaintiff and the other Representatives typically worked scheduled shifts of at least 40 hours per week, their required pre- and post-shift work was nearly always overtime work, compensable at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. The Defendant is liable for its failure to pay its Plaintiff and the other Plaintiff and the other Representatives for all work performed, and at the appropriate overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Call Services Representative from July 2015 to February 2018, when he became a Business Service Representative. Comporium is a phone, internet, and cable provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 1459 Stuart Engals Blvd., Suite 202 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: 843.579.7373 Fax: 843.614.6417 Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Ethan Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 436-8453 COOLSYS LIGHT COMMERCIAL: Randolph Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lutricia Randolph, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. COOLSYS LIGHT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; COOLSYS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV483534 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01143. The Complaint, styled as a class action, asserts claims for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Complaint Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in violation of the California Labor Codes and the violation of California Business & Professions Codes (Unlawful Business Practices).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dan M. Forman, Esq. Linda Wang, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 612-6300 Email: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com lwang@cdflaborlaw.com COUNSELING CENTER: ClassAction.org Probes Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties Security Incident: What Happened? The Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties, a community behavioral health agency based in Ohio, has reported to the Maine Attorney General's Office a data breach impacting 83,354 people. After experiencing a system disruption, the Counseling Center was notified of suspicious activity by a third-party vendor in early March 2025. A forensic investigation of the Counseling Center data breach determined that an unauthorized actor had likely accessed one of its servers on March 2 of that year and obtained certain information stored therein the following day. A review of the personal information involved in the Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties data breach concluded on December 9, 2025. According to a report provided to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, the exposed information includes Social Security numbers, medical records and financial account information. The organization began notifying affected individuals by mail in early February 2026. The Counseling Center has four locations across northeastern Ohio, with its main office in Wooster. What You Can Do After the Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Counseling Center of Wayne and Holmes Counties to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] CRAFTS GROUP: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crafts Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04032-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.knitpicks.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 3, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to purchase knitting supplies, specifically yarn. While navigating the website, Cole encountered multiple accessibility barriers that made navigation inaccessible and prevented him from completing a purchase. On the product detail page, product images contained ambiguous alternative text that did not adequately describe the image, which hindered the Plaintiff's ability to understand the product's features. These barriers to access have denied him full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, the Plaintiff says. Plaintiff Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Crafts Group, LLC operates the website that offers knitting supplies, including yarn, needles, hooks, patterns, books, tools, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law DIOCESE OF CAMDEN: Agrees to Pay $180MM to Sexual Abuse Survivors ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Diocese of Camden, New Jersey and the Official Committee of Tort Claimant Creditors -- charged with protecting the interests of more than 300 survivors of sexual abuse -- represented by Lowenstein Sandler's Bankruptcy & Restructuring Department, has reached a settlement with several hold-out insurance carriers after a five years-long dispute arising from claims of sexual abuse by members of the Diocesan clergy. The settlement supplements an earlier settlement reached between the Diocese and the Committee and provides for the Diocese and its insurers to pay $180 million into a trust for the benefit of survivors -- more than six times the amount originally proposed in the Diocese's 2021 reorganization plan. The proposed settlement remains subject to Bankruptcy Court approval. Lowenstein partner Jeffrey D. Prol, who has represented the Committee, along with his colleagues, since 2020, says: "The Committee is pleased to have reached a consensual resolution of this long running dispute." He continues: "I am in awe of the fortitude of these survivors, who have waited years to receive compensation for the horrible wrongs they have suffered. We are honored to have stood with them throughout this portion of their protracted struggle, and we are hopeful that resolving this bankruptcy case will prove to be a step forward in their personal recovery journeys." John Collins, Chair of the Committee, says: "While no financial recovery can undo the profound harm suffered by survivors, this settlement represents meaningful progress toward accountability and equitable compensation. The Committee believes it achieves a fair and just outcome under difficult circumstances, and throughout this process our priority has always been to ensure that survivors' voices were heard and their interests fully protected." In 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey approved a plan of reorganization proposed by the Diocese and the Committee which approved the 2022 settlement between the Diocese and the Committee. Several insurers appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to confirm the plan, and the case has been on appeal since then. The final settlement was reached with the assistance of Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro, who was appointed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to mediate the issues on appeal, and his law clerk Logan Fairbourn. The Diocese's willingness to make an additional contribution to the trust above what was required by the 2022 settlement was instrumental in reaching this final settlement with the insurers. In addition to Prol, the Lowenstein team also includes Brent Weisenberg, Michael A. Kaplan, and Colleen M. Restel. About Lowenstein Sandler LLP Lowenstein Sandler LLP is a national law firm with over 400 lawyers based in New York, Palo Alto, Roseland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. The firm represents leaders in virtually every sector of the global economy, with particular emphasis on investment funds, life sciences, and technology. Recognized for its entrepreneurial spirit and high standard of client service, the firm is committed to the interests of its clients, colleagues, and communities. [GN] EASYSHIP INC: Yoshida Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EasyShip, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Daisuke Yoshida, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. EasyShip, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00971-JLT-FRS (E.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Easyship -- https://www.easyship.com/ -- is a technology company that provides eCommerce sellers with a one-stop solution to ship their orders worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com ELEMIS USA: Wade Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The case ALEXIS WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELEMIS USA, INC., Case No. 26-2-01846-4 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00515 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading information in the subject lines. Elemis USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of skincare products based in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter A. Talevich, Esq. Abraham M. Weill, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 623-7580 Email: peter.talevich@klgates.com abe.weill@klgates.com - and - Ronie M. Schmelz, Esq. Avril G. Love, Esq. 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Eighth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Email: ronie.schmelz@klgates.com avril.love@klgates.com ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Evon Martin, an individual; DORIAN MEDINA, an individual; Shirita Moore, an individual; Keya Thornabar, an individual; Cheryl Weston, an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENDURANCE WARRANTY SERVICES LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; and DOES 1-1,000; Case No. 2025-CH-10084 was removed from the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01334. The Complaint alleges two causes of action arising out of Plaintiffs' receipt of unsolicited commercial email advertisements. The Plaintiffs assert two claims in the Complaint: violations of California's Commercial Email Law and Aiding and Abetting.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Butcher, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 255-7200 Email: abutcher@scopelitis.com ENNKAR INC: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ennkar, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Hudson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ennkar, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00270 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ennkar Inc. Company -- https://www.ennkar.com/ -- is a lender in Orange, California, for private hard money loans on residential, commercial, and vacant land properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com FCA US: Chrysler Settlement Resolves Warranties Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) US has agreed to a settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the automotive giant failed to offer sufficient warranties for MultiAir actuators and fuel injector components in certain 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 vehicles. The FCA class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 2, 2025 and covers all individuals who, as confirmed by FCA US's records, purchased a model-year 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 vehicle that was originally sold as a Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (PZEV) in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Washington. The vehicles at issue are referred to as the "Class Vehicles" in all settlement documents. The court-approved website for the FCA class action settlement can be found at MultiAirActuatorFuelInjecttorSettlement.com. Per the settlement website, FCA settlement class members do not have to do anything to receive an extension of FCA's existing warranty obligations and repair of a failed MultiAir Actuator or Fuel Injector component in each class vehicle. The settlement will automatically cover the cost of parts and labor needed to for repairs as long as it is performed at an authorized FCA US dealership within fifteen years past the last date of the initial vehicle purchase or lease or 150,000 miles, whichever is earlier. Additionally, FCA US class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive reimbursement for prior repairs of a failed MultiAir Actuator or a fuel injector in their class vehicle. The agreement states that claims for reimbursement must be accompanied by proof of a previously paid repair, such as an invoice, receipt, or credit card statement. Class members must also submit documentation identifying the vehicle and its VIN, the owner, the component repaired or replaced, and the name and contact information of the business that completed the repairs. Court documents add that class members will receive their payout via physical check mailed to the address listed on their claim form, which must be cashed within 90 days of issuance. To submit an FCA settlement claim form online, class members can visit the page and enter the class member ID found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator listed on the first page of the document. All FCA US settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than March 30, 2026. Settlement documents add that the settlement administrator will decide each class member's settlement payment and, within 60 days of claim form submission, will send a written notice informing them of the amount, if any, that FCA US will reimburse, as well as their right to correct any unapproved claim. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the FCA US settlement at a hearing on June 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Fiat Chrysler Automobiles class action lawsuit alleged that the car manufacturer did not provide appropriate warranty coverage for MultiAir actuators and fuel injector components in 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 PZEV vehicles that should be covered for 15-years or 150,000 miles as "emissions-related parts" under the California Emissions Warranty. [GN] FCA US: Face Class Action Over Defective Seat Adjusters ------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) knowingly sold more than two million Dodge and Chrysler vehicles equipped with defective electric seat height adjusters manufactured by Lear Corporation. The 33-page automotive lawsuit contends that the electric mechanisms used to raise and lower the passenger and driver seats in several Dodge and Chrysler vehicle models were inadequately tested and designed by FCA and Lear. In particular, the suit relays, the seat height adjuster bracket, which is riveted to the seat in a vehicle and shares the same approximate dimensions as "a stick of DoubleMint gum," is prone to collapse in the event of a rear-end collision. The class action lawsuit accuses the companies of ignoring their obligation under federal law to disclose that, in rear-end collisions at low speeds, the seat height adjusters at issue will collapse and cause the seat to suddenly drop out from under the occupant, leaving them "out of position" relative to the seat belts and other impact safety systems in the vehicle. According to the complaint, a seat height adjuster is mounted to the seat frame and designed to impart motion in the corresponding direction that the occupant presses the switch. When a seat occupant presses down on the switch, a screw turns clockwise and moves the nut and bracket closer to the motor, moving the seat downward, the suit says. When an occupant pulls the switch up, the screw instead turns counterclockwise and moves the nut and bracket farther from the motor, moving the seat upward, the case states. The lawsuit says that the plaintiff's counsel engaged engineers and testing facilities to document the performance of the seat height adjusters in rear-end crashes. The testing showed that even a rear collision at 25 mph could cause the seat height adjuster bracket to fail, the filing relays. "The Defective Seat Height Adjuster creates an unreasonable risk of injury or death and the higher the Seat is raised, the greater the risk of injury or death," the complaint asserts. Per the case, the seat height adjuster defect is present in the following vehicle models: -- 2011-2023 Dodge Charger; -- 2011-2023 Chrysler 300; -- 2011-2023 Dodge Challenger; -- 2011-2017 Chrysler 200; and -- 2013-2016 Dodge Dart. The case further argues that the FCA and Lear, in their alleged concealment of the defect and any further vehicle discussions, committed mail and wire fraud. "FCA and Lear acting singularly and in concert, personally and through their enterprise(s), used the U.S. Mail or interstate wires or caused the U.S. Mail or interstate wires to be used 'for the purpose of' advancing, furthering, executing, concealing, conducting, participating in, or carrying out a scheme to defraud the [Plaintiffs and class members]," the suit claims. In utilizing the United States mail and/or interstate wires to communicate information about vehicle restraint systems in advertising campaigns, owner's manuals, and supposed certification and safety compliance reports, the automotive giant and the manufacturer violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the class action suit alleges. The FCA seat height adjuster class action lawsuit seeks to represent all current and former owners and lessees of a new or used class vehicle residing in the United States or its territories, excluding any individual who pursued a separate action for damages, injury, or death stemming from the defective seat height adjuster. [GN] FCA US: Faces Class Action Suit Over Jeep Battery Defects --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a Jeep owner is suing FCA US LLC and Doug Smith Autoplex Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims the automaker sold Jeep Wrangler 4XE and Grand Cherokee vehicles with a battery defect that makes them prone to fires. Where: The Jeep battery defect class action lawsuit was filed in Utah federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Jeep Wrangler 4XE and Grand Cherokee vehicles have a battery defect that makes them prone to fires. Plaintiff Lisa Humphreys filed the Jeep class action complaint against FCA US LLC and Doug Smith Autoplex Inc. on Jan. 21 in a Utah federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the battery defect affects Jeep Wrangler 4XE models from 2020 to 2025 and Jeep Grand Cherokee 4XE models from 2022 to 2026. These vehicles are equipped with high voltage lithium-ion battery packs manufactured by Samsung SDI. The Jeep class action claims that the battery defect can cause the vehicles to spontaneously catch fire, even when the ignition is off and the vehicle is parked. The complaint alleges FCA has issued multiple recalls for the affected vehicles but has failed to provide an effective remedy. The recall notices reportedly instructed owners not to recharge their vehicles and to park them outside and away from structures. Class action: Jeep concealed defect and misled consumers The Jeep class action lawsuit says Humphreys and other class members are left with vehicles they cannot safely charge or park in their garages. Humphreys claims that FCA was aware of the defect as early as March 2021 but failed to adequately address it and that the automaker has not redesigned the batteries or provided a solution to fix the defect. The lawsuit also accuses FCA of concealing the defect and making misleading statements about the safety and reliability of the affected vehicles. The class action lawsuit alleges that the defect has caused underhood fires, expensive repairs, car rentals, towing charges, and loss of use of the vehicles. Humphreys is looking to represent anyone who purchased or leased a model year 2020-2025 Jeep Wrangler 4XE and/or 2022-2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4XE plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. She is suing for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied and express warranties, unjust enrichment and violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act. She is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. A similar class action was filed against Stellantis N.V. and FCA US LLC on March 4 in New York federal court also involving Jeep Wrangler 4XE Grand Cherokee 4XE vehicles. The plaintiff is represented by David S. Head of Head Law, PLLC and Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC. The Jeep battery defect class action lawsuit is Lisa Humphreys, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00053, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. [GN] FERRARA CANDY: Anstett Sues Over Toxic Arsenic in Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Christina Anstett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01304 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought seeking actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees under state statutes and common law doctrines due to Defendant's acute failure to ensure that the Products were: fit and safe for their ordinary purpose which is to be consumed, marketed free from omissions regarding the inclusion of arsenic in the Products. Among the candy sold by Defendant includes exceptionally popular candy brands, including Black Forest Gummy Bears, Laffy Taffy, NERDS, Sweet Tarts, Sweet Tarts Ropes, and Trolli gummy candies (the "Products"). According to scientific lab testing by the State of Florida (where Plaintiff lives), Defendant's Products contain toxic amounts of arsenic. Indeed, according this testing, just a mere consumption of six small, 15-ounce boxes of NERDS Products, for example, exceeds the annual limit of arsenic of what a child, like Plaintiff's child who regularly consumes NERDS, should consume annually. One movie sized box of NERDS candy, according to this testing, exceeds the annual amount of arsenic that a child should consume in a year. The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by paying a price premium for the Products which they otherwise would not have paid due to the presence of arsenic--or would not have purchased the Products at all. Had Defendant marketed their Products accurately and refrained from making these vital omissions regarding the presence of toxic levels of arsenic in their Products, Plaintiff Anstett would have been aware of this and would not have purchased the Products or would have paid substantially less for them., says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products. Ferrara Candy Company, is one of the most well-known candy brands in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 1050 30th Street, N.W. Georgetown, WA, D.C. 20007 Phone: (929)709-1493 Email: byagman@sshhzlaw.com FERRARA CANDY: Consumers Claim Toxic Arsenic Content in Candies --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that the Ferrara Candy Company has failed to warn consumers that a number of its popular treats contain highly toxic levels of arsenic. The 38-page lawsuit contends that several popular Ferrara candies -- including certain Black Forest Gummy Bears, Laffy Taffy, NERDS, Sweet Tarts, Sweet Tarts Ropes, and Trolli gummy candies -- are contaminated with toxic levels of arsenic that greatly exceed recommended consumption limits. For instance, the suit says, testing done in Florida revealed that one movie-sized box of NERDS contains more arsenic than a child should consume in a year. "This is an incredible level of arsenic that, unlike in other instances of food contamination, far surpasses toxic limits with ease," the complaint reads. The lawsuit relies on data ascertained via independent testing conducted by the state of Florida as part of its initiative to create "clean and transparent food systems" for the public. In particular, the Florida laboratory analyzed samples of 10 different Ferrara candies bought at "common retailers" in the state, and utilized vetted quality-assurance testing methods to determine trace elements of arsenic, the complaint describes. According to the lawsuit, eight out of 10 Ferrara candy varieties tested positive for "toxic levels of arsenic," with some of the worst offenders being Sweet Tart Ropes, which, the case says, exceed yearly arsenic levels in less than half of the package; Banana Laffy Taffy, which exceed yearly arsenic levels in just four pieces; and NERDS products, which exceed yearly arsenic levels in one movie-theater sized box. "Toxic contaminants find their way into the food supply through a failure to monitor and eliminate them," the complaint asserts. The lawsuit highlights concerns brought by many major health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which consider arsenic to be a known carcinogen and link exposure to an array of other symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle weakness, cramping, skin rashes and increased risk of infections. The health agencies, along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, stress that any level of arsenic consumption is dangerous for children, the complaint emphasizes. The class action lawsuit stresses that the labels of Ferrara candies have no mention or disclosure about potential arsenic contamination and, the suit claims, are marketed in a way that undoubtedly appeals to children. "With colorful and cartoonish designs and fun product names, Defendant knows that its target demographic for consumption is children," the complaint argues. Despite the Florida lab test results, no recall has been issued for any Ferrara candies, and the National Confectioners Association, the largest candy trade association in the United States, has denied the findings in the state's testing, the case says. The Ferrara candy class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States who purchased any of the products listed on this page (Black Forest Gummy Bears, Laffy Taffy, NERDS, Sweet Tarts, Sweet Tarts Ropes, and Trolli gummy candies) at any time from the beginning of any applicable statute of limitations period to the date of judgment, or until the alleged conduct stops. [GN] FIRST BRANDS: Hernandez Suit Alleges WARN Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------- GIANCARLO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated; Plaintiff v. FIRST BRANDS GROUP, LLC and BRAKE PARTS INC INDIA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26-03038 (S.D. Tex., February 10 2026) is a class action and adversary proceeding complaint against the Defendant for failing to provide Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act Notices and benefits to terminated employees. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was on injury leave in late January from his facility under the Family and Medical Leave Act when he was notified, via an in-person meeting, that the Company was sold. He, and the other employees, were told at the time that the sale would not affect their employment. The Defendants ceased production on January 23, 2026, at Plaintiff's facility and anticipated re-opening the following week. The re-opening of Plaintiff's facility was continuously delayed week by week until, on February 3, 2026, Plaintiff and others similarly situated received an email including a WARN notice that the layoff and/or plant closing would be effective February 27, 2026. Defendant failed to provide 60 days advance written notice to employees or staff as required by the WARN Act, asserts the complaint. Moreover, Defendants' reduction in its workforce at the Facilities constituted a mass layoff or plant closing. As such, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, should have received the full protection afforded by the federal WARN Act and the Illinois WARN Act, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff's claims, as well as the claims of all similarly-situated employees, are entitled to partial administrative expense status pursuant to United States Bankruptcy Code and partial, or alternatively, full priority status, up to the priority cap, with the balance, if any, being a general unsecured claim, says the complaint. Plaintiff Giancarlo Hernandez is a citizen of the United States and resident of McHenry, Illinois. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at the McHenry, Illinois, facility. He was hired by Defendant in August of 2022 and is an "aggrieved employee". Defendant First Brands Group, LLC dictates the personnel policies for Brake Parts Inc India LLC and retains control over all employment policies for Brake Parts. Defendant Brake Part Inc India LLC's operations are part and parcel to Defendant First Brand Group, LLC's operation, which directly derives revenue from Brake Parts Inc India LLC's operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Sparacino, Esq. S. Margie Venus, Esq. MCKOOL SMITH, PC 600 Travis Street, Suite 7000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 485-7300 Facsimile: (713) 485-7344 E-mail: jsparacino@mckoolsmith.com mvenus@mckoolsmith.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.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 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com FIRST LITE LLC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Livingston Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. First Lite, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01292 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://firstlite.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase apparel and gear designed for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts, including merino wool base layers, outerwear, pants, accessories, and camo systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law GENERAL MOTORS: Metcalf Class Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case GARRETT METCALF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and DOES 1-100 inclusive v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC and QUALITY CHEVROLET OF ESCONDIDO, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV38886, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01523 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for violations of Lemon Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent repair, and misrepresentation. General Motors LLC is an automotive manufacturer, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. Quality Chevrolet of Escondido is an automobile dealer, headquartered in Escondido, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 Email: anassihi@shb.com - and - Nalani L. Crisologo, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 Email: ncrisologo@shb.com - and - Jennifer Stevenson, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 Email: jstevenson@shb.com GENERATOR SUPERCENTER: Buckner Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generator Supercenter - Atlanta LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Buckner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nissan Marietta, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00028-LMM (N.D. Ga., Feb. 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Generator Supercenter -- https://generatorfranchise.com/ -- offers a standout home generator franchise opportunity for entrepreneurs considering a new business venture with multiple revenue streams.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: $2.8MM Settlement Final Hearing Set August 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gryphon Healthcare has agreed to a $2.8 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information. The Gryphon Healthcare settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was potentially exposed in the Gryphon Healthcare data breach in July 2024. This includes individuals who received a data breach notification letter from Gryphon. According to the class action lawsuit resolved by this settlement, Gryphon failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented the Gryphon Healthcare data breach. The plaintiffs in the case argued that Gryphon's failure to protect their information from cybercriminals was negligent and in violation of state laws. Gryphon Healthcare is a medical billing company that provides services to hospitals, clinics and other healthcare providers. Gryphon has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.8 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Gryphon Healthcare settlement, class members can receive a cash payment or reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. Class members who experienced data breach-related losses such as identity theft, fraud, credit-related fees, ID replacement costs and more can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for these expenses. Class members must provide documentation of these expenses in order to receive reimbursement. Class members who did not experience data breach-related losses can receive a smaller payment of $100. No documentation is required for these alternative payments. All class members are eligible for two years of free identity theft protection and medical data monitoring through CyEx Medical Shield Complete. This service includes $1 million in medical identity theft insurance and other benefits. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 17, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Gryphon Healthcare data breach settlement is scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 16, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was potentially exposed in the July 2024 Gryphon Healthcare data breach, including those who were sent a data breach notification letter. Potential Award Up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses or a cash payment of $100. Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses, such as bank statements or receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/16/2026 Case Name Morris, et al. v. Gryphon Healthcare LLC, et al., Case No. 2024-77384, in the Texas District Court for Harris County Final Hearing 08/31/2026 Settlement Website GryphonHealthcareDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Morris v. Gryphon Healthcare LLC c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@GryphonHealthcareDataSettlement.com (833) 647-8963 Class Counsel Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC A. Brooke Murphy MURPHY LAW FIRM Tyler J. Bean SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Defense Counsel Lindsay Nickle David Yudelson CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP [GN] GYM MANAGEMENT: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gym Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kristen Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gym Management Services, Inc., Case No. 26STCV04003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Gym Management Services, Inc. (GMS) provides management solutions and software for fitness centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Byron Talbot Ball, Esq. THE BALL LAW FIRM APC 100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3602 Phone: 310-980-8039 Email: btb@balllawllp.com HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Voting System Violates ADA, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Isa Gonzalez-Montilla, writing for Click 2 Houston, reports that Harris County faces a lawsuit claiming its current voting system is not accessible for people with disabilities, especially those with reading and writing challenges. Who is involved? Plaintiffs: Cedric Bryant, Ted Galanos, Louis Maher, Michael McCullouch, and the National Federation of the Blind of Texas (NFBTX). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Disability Rights Texas and Brown Goldstein & Levy law firm. Defendants: Teneshia Hudspeth in her official capacity as County Clerk of Harris County, Texas and Harris County. What is the lawsuit about? The plaintiffs say Harris County's vote-by-mail program is inaccessible to voters with print disabilities (those who have difficulty reading or handling printed materials) because the county only offers paper ballots for mail voting. Thus, making it hard to cast ballots privately and independently. The plaintiffs want an accessible electronic vote-by-mail system that would allow voters with print disabilities to use assistive technology to read and mark ballots on their own. The lawsuit points out that Harris County already provides electronic ballots to military, overseas voters, and even astronauts in space, but does not extend this option to voters with print disabilities. When and where was it filed? The lawsuit was filed on February 3, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Why was it filed? The plaintiffs say Harris County's vote-by-mail program makes it very hard or even impossible for people with print disabilities to vote privately and independently. This violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the lawsuit, the Disability Rights Texas and others have requested that Harris County implement an accessible electronic vote-by-mail system, but court documents say the county refuses to provide this option. How do people with disabilities vote today? The Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities says voters with disabilities have a legal right to assistance when registering to vote and casting ballots. If you need help voting at a polling location: -- The Texas Election Code Section 64.031 allows voters to ask a person of their choice or a poll worker for assistance. The code does not require voters to provide proof of their disability to receive help. -- If you need help entering a polling location, you can ask your helper to meet you either at the entrance or at your parked car curbside with your ballot. When you are ready to vote, your helper will collect your slip and put it in the ballot box for you. -- If you plan to vote alone but need assistance, it's highly recommended to call the polling location ahead of time to let workers know you'll need help. For more information on voting laws and accessibility for people with disabilities, visit https://tcdd.texas.gov/voting-and-accessibility-what-people-with-disabilities-should-know/ If you want to vote by mail, you must be: -- Sick or have a disability. -- 65 years or older. -- Out of the country on Election Day and during in-person early voting. -- Expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day. -- In jail with eligibility to vote. [GN] HATTIESBURG, MS: Mallory Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- GERRY MALLORY is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Gerry Mallory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Hattiesburg, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Civil Rights Act. On Mar. 26, 2025, and Apr. 9, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Keith Starrett granted on Oct. 14, 2025. The case is closed. On Oct. 16, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion to alter judgment, which Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. denied on Jan. 29, 2026. The appellate case is entitled Mallory v. City of Hattiesburg, Case No. 26-60065, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on February 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GERRY MALLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard Joseph Lajaunie, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Telephone: (601) 544-0631 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF HATTIESBURG, et al. are represented by: Robert Lane Dossett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. DOSSETT 17 Hammett Road Petal, MS 39465 Telephone: (601) 544-0458 - and - Robert W. Wilkinson, Esq. WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, BOSIO & SESSOMS, PLLC 734 Delmas Avenue P.O. Box 1618 Pascagoula, MS 39568 Telephone: (228) 762-2272 HOMESUBLIME LLC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Homesublime, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01280 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.blindsgalore.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 15, 2025, while searching online for window treatments, Plaintiff Bennett accessed the Defendant's website and decided to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his ability to complete a purchase. Specifically, the website contained several unlabeled buttons on the home page that were not properly identified by his screen reader, making it difficult for him to understand their purpose or function. These accessibility barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the Plaintiff. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Homesublime, LLC operates the website that offers a wide selection of custom blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ICON PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of ICON plc (NASDAQ: ICLR) resulting from allegations that ICON plc may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased ICON securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34903 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 12, 2026, ICON issued a press release entitled "ICON plc Provides Update on Timing of Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Results and Investigation into Accounting Practices." The release stated that ICON "intends to release its fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings results on or prior to April 30, 2026. The Company also announced an ongoing internal investigation initiated by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors in late October 2025 into certain of the Company's accounting practices and controls, following concerns reported to the Audit Committee through Company management." On this news, ICON ordinary shares plummeted in intraday trading on February 12, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ("Inovio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INO) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between October 10, 2023 and December 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Inovio investors have until April 7, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/inovio-pharmaceuticals-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) manufacturing for Inovio's CELLECTRA device was deficient; (2) accordingly, Inovio was unlikely to submit the INO-3107 Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") by the second half of 2024; (3) Inovio had insufficient information to justify the INO-3107 BLA's eligibility for FDA accelerated approval or priority review; (4) accordingly, INO-3107's overall regulatory and commercial prospects were overstated; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On December 29, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced it had accepted Inovio's Biologics License Application ("BLA") for INO-3107, a treatment for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, on a standard review timeline. Inovio filed its BLA under the accelerated approval pathway, but the FDA stated that the Company did not submit adequate information to justify eligibility for accelerated approval. Inovio also announced it does not currently plan to seek approval under the standard review timeline, and will request a meeting with the FDA to discuss how it may still pursue accelerated approval. On this news, Inovio's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or 24.45%, to close at $1.73 per share on December 29, 2025. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. 310-692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] INSPYR SOLUTIONS: Harrison Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspyr Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Derrick Harrison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Inspyr Solutions LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-60308-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. INSPYR Solutions, LLC -- https://www.inspyrsolutions.com/ -- provides professional services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com IRON MOUNTAIN: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Riordan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISA RIORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-93 (D.N.H., February 9, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. 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, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant was recently a victim of a ransomware attack that occurred on February 4, 2026. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Lisa Riordan is a citizen and resident of San Clemente, California. She is a patient of one of Defendant's Clients. Defendant Iron Mountain Incorporated provides storage information management and digital solutions to numerous businesses.[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 E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W Monroe St. Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com J.H. BAXTER: District Judges Decertify Noxious Odors' Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bull, writing for KLCC, reports that two class action lawsuits against the J.H. Baxter company have been reclassified as civil suits. Both filed in the spring of 2021, they stemmed from noxious odors and dioxins from its now-shuttered Eugene plant. The lawsuits essentially charged that emissions from J.H. Baxter's wood treatment plant threatened the well-being of Bethel-area residents and their properties. The roughly 80-year-old facility had long been the target of complaints, investigations, fines and concerns before permanently closing four years ago. On Jan. 29, U.S. District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken granted a motion to decertify the case, Bell-Alanis v. J.H. Baxter. This essentially reduces the number of plaintiffs from potentially thousands of people to the four originally listed when the case was filed in June 2021. The amount of damages sought then was $750,000. Then, on Feb. 6, another district judge, Mustafa Kasubhai, ordered the decertification of the second class action suit, Hart v. J.H. Baxter, leaving two originally-listed people as plaintiffs back when the case was filed in April 2021. No damages were specified in the initial filing. In October, both cases were deemed settled. But one attorney told KLCC that the details were confidential, and hinted strongly that any settlement reached would be disappointing to plaintiffs. In both motions to decertify the cases, J.H. Baxter was deemed incapable of satisfying a class judgment for financial damages, and therefore any class level settlement wouldn't be able to be "fairly and efficiently administered." This also implies that any damages eventually awarded with the lawsuits may amount to little, if anything. An attorney working on Hart vs. J.H. Baxter, Laura Sheets, said her plaintiffs' claims deserved a different outcome. "Unfortunately, the facts have borne out that that's not a possibility, that this company is insolvent," said Sheets. "And we're going to hope and rely on the Superfund designation to hopefully bring some relief to the immediate neighborhood and for the remaining residents in the area. "They hopefully have some consolation that this facility is no longer operating," she said. Since shutting down, the J.H. Baxter plant has undergone extensive cleaning and deconstruction by crews working for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In July 2025, the EPA listed the facility as a Superfund site, which allows millions of federal dollars to be allocated towards its cleanup and restoration. Company president Georgia Baxter-Krause was sentenced to 90 days last year after pleading guilty to violating several federal environmental laws and then lying to regulators about it. She was incarcerated at a federal penitentiary in the Seattle area, and a Bureau of Prisons record shows that she was released ten days earlier than scheduled in December. The BOP told KLCC that Baxter-Krause was discharged early for supervised release through the First Step Act, which is geared towards reducing recidivism and improving prison conditions. The decertification of the two lawsuits also leaves open the possibility of other legal actions against J.H. Baxter, though with its assets appearing largely reduced to a few contaminated properties, any potential for a sizable settlement appears unlikely. [GN] JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Judge Denies Dismissal of Property Tax Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Boring of KCTV5 reports that a Jackson County judge denied the county's bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit over the 2023 property tax assessments, clearing the way for the case to move forward. Since September 2024, plaintiff Nancy Wheeler and her attorneys have pushed for a class action settlement regarding the high increases homeowners experienced. Refunds sought in Jackson County class action suit over property assessment hikes The class action side is seeking refunds for Jackson County homeowners who dealt with more than a 15% increase in property tax assessments in 2023 and 2024. At court hearing, February 10, Judge Jacqueline Cook dismissed the County's effort to dismiss the suit. From there, Judge Cook heard arguments from both sides on why this class action should be certified. Attorney Nichelle Oxley said that nearly 200,000 people would be a part of the class if it is certified. She continued adding that they don't want to relitigate that the county continued with mistaken assessments, but rather move forward to remedies for taxpayers. Jackson County's Attorney Daryl Taylor said the county opposes class certification, adding that it is unnecessary and premature. He agreed with the judge that the county feels those who paid more than 15% needed to go through the appeal process. Jackson County Executive Phil LeVota has shared the county's plan to give tax credits to those who faced high increases. Jackson County assessor removed, tax credits announced for personal property owners Taylor later went on to say that this is about determining if the assessed valuation is correct or not. Oxley stated this is about ensuring taxpayers are paid for the mistakes. The judge did not decide on the class action certification at court hearing. Judge Cook is giving the attorneys 10 days to provide proposals on the certification and how it would work, or why they disagree. Mediation ends in Jackson County class action lawsuit, filing says county still defies STC order The Judge said that if this moves forward with the class action being certified, then they would work to send out notices to those affected. If she does not certify it, the attorneys said they would both be ready to present more evidence for the suit. The case goes back to court on April 6 at 9:30 a.m. in Jackson County. [GN] JARQUIN CONSTRUCTION: Faces Tzalam Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK LUIS TZALAM CHUB, ALVARO MARCOS TZALAM CHUB, ELDER RAMIRO TZALAM TZALAM, JORGE MAURILIO MARQUIN TZALAM and SERGIO JOSE JOAQUIN HOO TZALAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JARQUIN CONSTRUCTION L.L.C., KIWI II CONTRUCTION INC., HADFIELD DEVELOPMENT INC., and MARVIN SAMAYOA, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00352 (D. Nev., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at any time between 2018 and 2026. Jarquin Construction LLC is a construction firm doing business in Clark County Nevada. Kiwi II Construction Inc. is a construction firm doing business in Clark County Nevada. Hadfield Development Inc. is a construction firm doing business in Clark County Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 South Rainbow Blvd., Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 Email: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com JEFFREY YU: Faces Class Action Over Fake $ZEREBRO Crypto AI ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Robert, writing for ABA Journal, reports that the founders of a cryptocurrency project called Zerebro have been accused of promoting fake artificial intelligence, manipulating token markets, and staging one of their deaths to draw attention away from mounting questions over insider trading. According to a proposed class action lawsuit, which was brought by Canadian investor Jonathan Beckwith and filed in federal court in New York on Monday, February 9, Jeffry Yu and Agustin "Tint" Cortes marketed Zerebro as a venture-grade AI infrastructure project that was supported by proprietary AI models and a token, $ZEREBRO, which was described as its economic engine, Law.com reports. The suit alleges that while purchasers were told that the token's value would appreciate with the expanded adoption of the AI technology, Yu and Cortes secretly controlled the token supply and operated an undisclosed market-making operation, Law.com reports. The suit also alleges that as public scrutiny grew over the absence of the purported technology, the price of $ZEREBRO collapsed, and defendants exited with millions of dollars. Yu, amid the collapse, publicly staged what appeared to be a suicide and arranged for the release of an obituary, according to Law.com, citing the suit. He later appeared alive and continued to launch other cryptocurrency projects, according to the story. "This case is not about a failed startup or ambitious founder," the complaint said, according to Law.com. "It is about misrepresentations, concealed market manipulation, and the deliberate exploitation of public trust in emerging technology." The suit, which seeks damages on behalf of the proposed class of token purchasers, asserts claims including fraud, false advertising and deceptive business practices. [GN] JOINT CORP: Fails to Safeguard Health Info, Merical Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- GISELA GONZALEZ MERICAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE JOINT CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00974-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal., February 4, 2026) is an action for legal and equitable remedies for Defendant's violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and for invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all patients who booked an appointment for chiropractic care online through Defendant's website, www.thejoint.com According to the complaint, the patients maintain reasonable expectations of privacy related to their health information. Despite these expectations, and Defendant's duty to safeguard the health information of its patients, the Defendant supplies outside parties with the exact identity, and exact location, of every person who schedules an appointment for chiropractic care. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has purposefully installed various tracking application programming interfaces into the code of its website to aid, employ, agree with, or otherwise enable several third parties including Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, The Trade Desk, Inc., and TikTok Inc. to intercept patient communications as they fill out online appointment forms, including communications containing protected health information. The Joint Corp. provides chiropractic treatment in the U.S. Currently, there are over 950 chiropractic offices under the brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com KDDI CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of KDDI Corporation (OTC: KDDIY) resulting from allegations that KDDI may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased KDDI securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=52883 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 6, 2026, KDDI posted an announcement on its website entitled "Notice Regarding Expectation that Disclosure of Earnings Report for the Third Quarter of the Fiscal Year Ending March 2026 Will Exceed the 45-Day Period Following the End of Such Quarter." The announcement stated that KDDI has "decided to postpone the disclosure of its earnings report" and that the reason for postponement was due to uncertainties regarding the quarterly results, in light of a previously announced internal investigation. On this news, KDDI American Depositary Receipts (under the ticker symbol "KDDIY") fell 11.4% on February 6, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] KEMPER CORPORATION: McDonald Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Carlos McDonald, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEMPER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; KEMPER FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; UNITRIN AUTO HOME AND INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation; MERASTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV37580 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01171. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: failure to provide meal and rest breaks; failure to pay overtime and minimum wages; failure to reimburse necessary work-related expenses; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements and to provide records of the same; failure to pay timely wages upon termination of employment; violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"); and violation of unfair business practices (California Business and Professions Code Section 17200).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert S. Blumberg, Esq. Alexandria Rafizadeh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: rblumberg@littler.com awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com - and - Edgar Sargsyan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: esargsyan@littler.com KEMPER CORPORATION: Rosenwald Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Judah Rosenwald, Craig Chouraki Lewin, and Cindy Rutter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. CGC-25-631058 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01086-LB. The Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class in San Francisco County Superior Court (the "State Court Action"). the Plaintiffs' Complaint brings two claims against Kimberly-Clark: violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class they purport to represent are "consumers who have purchased or used" Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes (the "Wipes"), a product that was manufactured by Kimberly-Clark, in California. The Plaintiffs allege that the product packaging for the Wipes misled them into believing that the Wipes remove germs not by wiping them away, but instead through a chemical germicide that is harsh enough to kill germs on contact. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages, restitution, attorney's fees, punitive damages, and statutory penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy W. Loose, Esq. Patrick J. Fuster, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: tloose@gibsondunn.com pfuster@gibsondunn.com KORAN LANDSCAPE: Court Partially OKs Bid for New Trial ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Juan Ventura; Jose Efraim Granados; Casto Cuadra; Jose Lidio Reyes Granados; Carlos Humberto Chavez; Heber Alfaro; and Luis Alfaro Dominguez, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Koran Landscape Service Inc.; Bill Koran; and Brad Wine, Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-CV-1478 (JS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion for a New Trial, or alternatively, Remittitur, filed by Koran Landscape Services, Inc. and Bill Koran. On March 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the complaint, generally alleging Defendants failed to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, failed to pay additional hours at minimum wage for each day worked more than ten hours, and failed to provide written notice of pay rates and wage statements. Following a June 2025 trial, the jury rendered verdicts in favor of all Plaintiffs. Four Plaintiffs -- Carlos Humberto Chavez, Casto Cuadra, Jose Lidio Reyes Granados, and Jose Efraim Granados (collectively, the Motion Plaintiffs) -- were awarded damages for 2019, a period the court found was not included in the complaint. On August 14, 2025, Defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing the jury erred by awarding damages for 2019 causes of action not included in the complaint. The court found that the continuing violation doctrine is inapplicable to FLSA claims, which involve a series of repeated violations, each giving rise to a new cause of action. Because FLSA violations accrue during each respective pay period, any potential violations from 2019 were for separate and unpleaded causes of action. The Motion Plaintiffs never moved to amend the complaint, and the parties never explicitly consented to the inclusion of the 2019 claims. The court granted Defendants' motion to the extent that, if the Motion Plaintiffs do not accept remittitur by way of a reduction of damages -- $2,240.00 for Chavez, $4,590.00 for Cuadra, $4,860.00 for Reyes Granados, and $5,130.00 for Efraim Granados -- a new trial will be scheduled. However, the court denied Defendants' request to modify the Wage Statement Penalties, finding that Defendants' single-sentence assertions failed to cite any case law supporting such action and did not identify which portions of the penalty figures related to work completed in 2019. The Motion Plaintiffs were ordered to file a letter with the court by March 12, 2026, advising whether they accept the remittitur. If no timely response is filed, the court will deem the remittitur rejected and will proceed to schedule a new trial. In all other respects, Defendants' motion was denied. A copy of the Courts Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fpKbo1 from PacerMonitor.com For Plaintiffs: Katelyn Marie Schillaci, Esq., Helen F. Dalton and Associates, P.C., Kew Gardens, New York. For Defendants: Saul D. Zabell, Esq., and Ryan M. Eden, Esq., Zabell and Collotta, P.C., Bohemia, New York. KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set April 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: KD) on behalf of purchasers or acquirers of Kyndryl publicly traded securities between August 7, 2024 and February 9, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces. Captioned Brander v. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc., No. 26-cv-00782 (E.D.N.Y.), the Kyndryl class action lawsuit charges Kyndryl and certain of Kyndryl's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors who purchased Kyndryl publicly traded securities during the Class Period have until April 13, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the action. To learn more, visit the following page: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-kyndryl-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit-kd.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Kyndryl operates as a technology services company and IT infrastructure services provider. The Kyndryl class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kyndryl's financial statements issued during the Class Period were materially misstated; (ii) Kyndryl lacked adequate internal controls and at times materially understated issues with its internal controls; and (iii) as a result, Kyndryl would be unable to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2025. The Kyndryl class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 9, 2026, Kyndryl filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 announcing it would be unable to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2025 within the necessary time. Kyndryl also allegedly disclosed that: "The Company, through the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors, is reviewing its cash management practices, related disclosures (including regarding the drivers of the Company's adjusted free cash flow metric), the efficacy of the Company's internal control over financial reporting, and certain other matters following the Company's receipt of voluntary document requests from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") relating to such matters," and that "the Company anticipates reporting material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial reporting for the period covered in the Quarterly Report, as well as for the full fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, and the first two fiscal quarters of fiscal year 2026, which are expected to include, but may not be limited to, the effectiveness and strength of certain functions at the Company, including with respect to controls related to information and communication and tone at the top." Kyndryl further revealed that "David Wyshner departed from his position as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and Edward Sebold departed from his position as General Counsel of the Company, effective immediately. In addition, on the same date, Vineet Khurana stepped down from his position as Senior Vice President and Global Controller of the Company and assumed a different role at the Company," the complaint alleges. On this news, the price of Kyndryl stock fell 55%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Kyndryl publicly traded securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Kyndryl class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Kyndryl investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Kyndryl shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Kyndryl class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: KD) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after significant stock drops resulting from the potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Kyndryl, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/kyndryl-holdings-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until April 13, 2026, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Kyndryl securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is captioned Brander v. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:26-cv-00782. Why is Kyndryl Being Sued for Securities Fraud? Kyndryl is a provider of enterprise technology services offering advisory, implementation, and managed service capabilities to customers in more than 60 countries. Kyndryl is the world's largest IT infrastructure services provider. As alleged, Kyndryl misrepresented its cash management practices, including the drivers of its adjusted free cash flow metric, and the efficacy of Kyndryl's internal controls over financial reporting for FY2025 and the first three quarters of FY2026. Why did Kyndryl's Stock Drop? On February 9, 2026, Kyndryl announced that it would delay the release of its fiscal Q3 2026 financial statement pending an accounting review into its cash management practices and related disclosures, including regarding the drivers of Kyndryl's adjusted free cash flow metric, and certain other matters following document requests from the SEC. Kyndryl also announced the immediate departures of its CFO and General Counsel. This news caused the price of Kyndryl stock to drop $12.90 per share, or 55%, from a closing price of $23.49 per share on February 8, 2026, to $10.59 per share on February 9, 2026. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/kyndryl-holdings-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Kyndryl, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information for the Kyndryl ($KD) Class Action by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/kyndryl-holdings-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Adam McCall, Esq (212) 789-3619 adam@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, "Litigation Stars" by Benchmark Litigation, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: LAKE) resulting from allegations that Lakeland may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Lakeland securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50020 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 9, 2025, Lakeland Industries issued a press release entitled "Lakeland Fire + Safety Reports Fiscal Third Quarter 2026 Financial Results." In this press release, Lakeland announced that it was withdrawing its previously issued financial guidance for the 2026 fiscal year and that it would "not be providing financial guidance going forward." On this news, Lakeland's stock fell 38.97% on December 10, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LEMARK REALTY: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeMark Realty. The case is styled as Kimberly Hudson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LeMark Realty, Case No. 2:26-cv-01158 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LeMark Realty -- https://www.lemarkitsold.com/ -- is a real estate agency in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Faces Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00943 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://lagence.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Ruth Straight-Leg Jean from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Los Angeles Collective, LLC operates the website that serves as a contemporary fashion retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MADHAPPY INC: Moran Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON BENAVIDES MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADHAPPY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01210 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 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://www.madhappy.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. Madhappy, Inc. 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 MADISON COUNTY: Smith Sues Over Unrefunded Surplus Proceeds ----------------------------------------------------------- GERALD M. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADISON COUNTY, New York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00216-FJS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., February 10, 2026) is a class action seeking relief from New York governmental taxing authorities' practice of unconstitutionally taking Plaintiff's and Plaintiff Class members' property for public use without providing just compensation. Plaintiff Gerald M. Smith owned a property in Madison County located at 3821 Clockville Road, Lincoln, New York. Defendant Madison County foreclosed on the Smith Property due to approximately $10,232.11 in taxes, fees, and/or penalties owed. The complaint relates that after Madison County took title to the Smith Property, the property was sold to a third-party for approximately $42,000.00, the deed reflecting this sale and transfer being recorded on October 13, 2022. Madison County wrongfully deprived Plaintiff Smith of any opportunity to regain any of the Surplus Proceeds from the sale of his former property to a third party, being approximately $31,767.89, which is the approximate difference between the price for which the County sold the property ($42,000) and the amount owed of ($10,232.11), and which the County retained without returning to, or for which the County has failed to compensate, Plaintiff. To this day, Madison County has neither refunded the Surplus Proceeds to Plaintiff Smith nor provided an opportunity for him to regain the Surplus Proceeds. The County undertook the same conduct as to the members of the plaintiff class, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting takings without just compensation, violation of the Takings Clause, Article I, Section 7 of the New York Constitution, for violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of excessive fines, violation of Article I, Section 5 of the New York Constitution that prohibits the imposition of excessive fines, for unjust enrichment, money had and received, an equitable accounting, and inverse condemnation, together with prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George F. Carpinello BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 Facsimile: (518) 434-0665 E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com - and - Jack Wilson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: jwilson@bsfllp.com - and - David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2515 Jay Avenue, First Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 423-6599 E-mail: pbrickman@tzlegal.com fbartela@tzlegal.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Shana M. Solomon, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. Michael D. Hanify, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207)791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com ssolomon@preti.com equinby@preti.com mhanify@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Zahra R. Dean, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com zdean@kohnswift.com - and - Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq. MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS 28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 831-0042 Facsimile: (216) 831-0542 Fax E-mail: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com MAPLES CARE: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over COVID-19 Deaths ------------------------------------------------------------ Arturo Chang of CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit naming the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and the former operator of a long-term care home that was the site of Manitoba's deadliest COVID-19 outbreak is going ahead. Court of King's Bench Associate Chief Justice Shane Perlmutter has certified the lawsuit launched by children of Ethel Lewsey, 99, and Manuel Calisto, 88, two of 56 residents whose deaths were linked to an outbreak at the Maples Long Term Care Home that was declared on Oct. 20, 2020, and lasted until Jan. 12, 2021. The class includes anyone who contracted COVID-19 as a Maples resident during the outbreak, as well as the estate of those who died then as well as their family members as defined under the Fatal Accidents Act. "There is some basis in fact for the determination of the alleged breaches as common issues," Perlmutter said in a Feb. 2 decision certifying the class action. "It is uncontested that Maples had the highest attack rate (78.5 per cent) and percentage of deaths (23.5 per cent) of the 10 personal care homes in the category of large personal care homes in Winnipeg," he wrote. During the nearly three-month-long Maples outbreak, 157 residents living in the 200-bed facility tested positive for the virus, according to a report commissioned by Manitoba Health. As well, 74 staff working at the home tested positive during the outbreak. The outbreak prompted an external review that made 17 recommendations for the care home, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, and for Manitoba's health incident command structure and health department. 'We cannot forget what happened': plaintiff The representative plaintiffs for the class action, Eddie Calisto-Tavares and Lawrence Lewsey, allege Revera, the for-profit operator then in charge of the care home, was negligent and did not adequately plan for or respond to the outbreak. They claimed the Winnipeg health authority failed to immediately address staffing shortages in the care home, among other issues. Calisto-Tavares received special permission to enter Maples during the COVID-19 lockdown and care for her father, Manuel Calisto, on what were his last days alive after contracting the virus. The certification of the class action lawsuit brings a moment of joy for Calisto-Tavares, who wants the court process to bring awareness of what residents experienced at the long-term care home during the outbreak. "We cannot forget what happened. Those residents, regardless of age and regardless of where they were in their life cycle, they mattered," she told CBC on Saturday, February 7. She is hopeful recounting her father's experience and those of other class action members will act as a reminder of lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, and she hopes that higher standards of care will follow the suit. "I'm now a senior. I'm 67 years old and I have no idea what the future holds. But while I have a voice . . . I will continue to fight for this," she said. Darryl Singer, head of the class action group at Diamond & Diamond Lawyers, said his team and the representative plaintiffs felt a sense of "elation" after the class-action lawsuit was certified. Singer said it's often difficult for class-action lawsuits to "get over that hump" of the certification process. Now that it will be moving forward, he said that the "real work is going to begin." He said his clients are "seeking change" alongside financial compensation. The allegations in the lawsuit have not been tested in court. Shared Health and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority told CBC News they can't comment on this matter because it is before the courts. CBC has contacted Revera for comment. Extendicare took over the long-term care homes Revera was operating in Ontario and Manitoba in 2023. In 2024, the Ontario Superior Court certified six class-action lawsuits on behalf of long-term care residents who contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic, including one naming Revera.[GN] MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Omitted Owens Merger Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all sellers of Masonite International Corporation (NYSE: DOOR) (k/n/a Owens Corning's Doors) common stock between June 5, 2023 and February 8, 2024. Masonite is a leading global designer, manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of interior and exterior doors and door solutions for the residential and non-residential building construction markets' new construction and repair, renovation and remodeling sectors For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Masonite International Corporation (DOOR) Misled Investors Regarding its Acquisition by Owens Corning's Doors According to the complaint, this action arises from defendants' material omissions and misrepresentations concerning Owens Corning's offers to purchase all of Masonite's outstanding common stock at significant premiums to the Company's stock price and the Company's repurchases of millions of dollars' worth of its shares without disclosing material nonpublic information about Owens Corning's offers, which, if disclosed as required, would have indicated to investors that Masonite's stock was worth significantly more. Plaintiff alleges that Masonite made no disclosure concerning Owens Corning's offers for approximately eight months, while the Company repurchased millions of dollars of its own shares at prices far below Owens Corning's offers. In total, Masonite repurchased nearly 270,000 of its outstanding shares from unsuspecting investors for approximately $25 million between June 2023 and December 2023, despite knowing that Owens Corning was continuously proposing offers at a significant premium to Masonite's then stock price. At the same time, defendants made numerous misleading statements touting this significant repurchase activity, repeatedly updating investors about these buybacks during the class period and telling investors the buybacks were meant to "distribut[e] capital back" to investors, all with no disclosure concerning Owens Corning's credible offer(s) to acquire Masonite shares at materially higher prices. On February 9, 2024, Masonite issued a press release announcing the execution of the arrangement agreement. Finally, eight months after receiving the offer, defendants apprised investors that Owens Corning was willing to pay a significant premium over the market price for Masonite common stock. On this news, Masonite's common stock price skyrocketed to $130.51 at market close on February 9, 2024, a 35.1% increase over the closing price on the prior trading day. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Masonite International Corporation. Shareholders, who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by April 7, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://edge.prnewswire.com/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4617352-1&h=2573501096&u=https%3A%2F%2Frobbinsllp.com%2Fmasonite-international-corporation%2F&a=here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] MASTERCRAFT BOAT: Taylor Balks at Deal's Director Removal Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated stockholders, Plaintiff v. MASTERCRAFT BOAT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0201 (Chancery Ct., Del., February 11, 2026) is a verified stockholder class action challenging Defendant's recent entry into a Stockholders Agreement that gives certain prospective stockholders the ability to prevent a majority of the Company's stockholders from removing certain directors. The complaint relates that on February 5, 2026, MasterCraft agreed to acquire Marine Products for a mix of cash and stock. In connection with the Merger, MasterCraft entered into the Stockholders Agreement with entities affiliated with members of the Rollins family, who control Marine Products. The Stockholders Agreement provides the Rollins Stockholders with the right to nominate two director candidates to the Board going forward once the Merger closes as long as they control more than 15% of the voting power of the pro forma Company. The Stockholders Agreement purports to require the consent of the Rollins Stockholders to remove any of their director nominees from the Board "in addition to any vote of stockholders otherwise required by the Charter, Bylaws and applicable Law." Thus, the Stockholders Agreement does not merely bind the signatories' votes, but instead purports to add an external, third-party approval right as an additional condition to the effectiveness of a valid stockholder removal vote. Imposing an additional requirement to remove directors above and beyond the vote of stockholders violates both the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") and a Charter provision approved by stockholders in 2019, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Bruce Taylor is a Company stockholder. Defendant MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc. is a leading innovator, designer, manufacturer and marketer of recreational powerboats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Michael Wagner, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com mwagner@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Amanda Crawford EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 - and - Richard Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, PC 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 204-6292 MCLAREN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Chad Van Alstin, writing for Health Exec, reports that a Michigan-based health system that fell victim to two significant data breaches in as many years has settled a class-action lawsuit with representatives of victims for $14 million. The first breach on McLaren Health Care -- a health system with 15 hospitals, a health plan, multiple surgery centers and other clinics -- happened in August 2023, with the second breach happening almost exactly a week later in August 2024. In both instances, it suffered a ransomware attack where hackers were able to access patient data and lock down systems. The first data breach was more widespread, impacting 2.5 million people, mainly patients and employees. That same cyberattack would result in 6 TB of data being posted for sale on the dark web, with infamous cybercrime syndicate ALPHV/BlackCat claiming credit. In a press release, the Michigan Attorney General's office said the group threatened to sell the trove unless a ransom was paid. The health system has never made a statement confirming whether it paid a ransom, and it's assumed the data trove was posted for sale. The second incident, reported on Aug. 7, 2024, shut down McLaren's network and it resorted to paper backups to maintain patient continuity. There were care disruptions that occurred during that intrusion -- also confirmed to be a ransomware attack -- that ended up seeing 740,000 records, including protected health information, exposed to hackers. By Aug. 28, 2024, McLaren confirmed it was back to near full operations, after purging its systems of ransomware and updating its electronic health records to incorporate the patient backups. It was later revealed that another notorious cybercrime gang, Inc Ransom, was responsible for the attack. Once again, it's unclear if the nonprofit integrated healthcare system paid a ransom, or what happened to the data taken offsite, which has value on the black market for the purposes of identity theft, future data breaches and other nefarious acts. Lawsuits related to both incidents were consolidated in court, with plaintiffs accusing the health system of acting negligently with regard to its cyber defenses and failing to secure sensitive data on patients. McLaren sent the HIPAA-required notifications to all known victims after both incidents were investigated with the help of cybersecurity experts. It also said it bolstered its security to prevent future attacks. The exact nature of how hackers gained access was not revealed in either incident. Compromised data included information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, details on dates of services, diagnoses, insurance information and more. McLaren never admitted to wrongdoing, as is customary in most civil litigation settlements. However, it did agree to meet certain benchmarks for future cybersecurity to better detect attacks and protect data in the future. Cash payment for class members Per the terms of the agreement between attorneys representing plaintiffs and McLaren, anyone who was a victim of the data breach and signs on as a claimant is eligible for a cash payment, in an amount to be determined after legal fees and other payouts are settled. Those who can show they were financially or personally damaged by the data breaches are eligible to recoup losses of up to $5,000. Additionally, as is required by federal law, all those impacted are eligible for a year of credit monitoring services. A hearing is scheduled on April 21, 2026 for a judge to finalize the terms of the agreement. HealthExec reached out to McLaren for comment. [GN] MED ATLANTIC INC: Carroll Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Med Atlantic, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Carroll, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Med Atlantic, Inc. doing business as: Virginia Urology, Case No. 3:26-cv-00089-RCY (E.D. Va., Feb. 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Med Atlantic, Inc. doing business as Virginia Urology (VU) -- https://uro.com/ -- has a long history of providing quality urological care to the Greater Richmond metro area for over 75 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (509) 822-2463 Fax: (928) 833-4212 Email: rrodriguez@sirillp.com MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Ford Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronnie Ford, Ronald Russell, Dr. Timothy Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP, MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., and MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC,, Case No. 1:25-cv-04348 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Feb. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00400-DCN to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mercedes-Benz -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- combines luxury with performance across the full line of models including luxury sedans, SUVs, coupes, roadsters, convertibles & more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 521-6700 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org - and - Lane L. Vines, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: lvines@bergermontague.com - and - Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (773) 666-4316 Fax: (215) 875-4604 - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: crodriguez@bm.net olanctot@bm.net The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Rudolph Simpson, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP - AL 505 20th Street N, Suite 815 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (404) 231-1400 Fax: (404) 240-4249 - and - Henry Carlton Hilson, Esq. Ronald D. Scott Williams, Esq. Michael L. Lucas, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 458-5195 Fax: (205) 458-5100 Email: chilson@burr.com mlucas@burr.com - and - Zachary J. McCormack, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 815-3000 Fax: (678) 576-2743 Email: zmccormack@burr.com - and - Jonathon Andrew Fligg, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 1331 Spring St NW, Ste 1400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 962-7541 Fax: (404) 870-8186 MEREO BIOPHARMA: Dodge Balks at Misleading Company Material Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN DODGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEREO BIOPHARMA GROUP PLC, DENISE SCOTS-KNIGHT, and JOHN A. LEWICKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00988 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mereo American Depositary Shares between June 5, 2023 and December 26, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. Mereo BioPharma Group PLC operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning their expected results for the Phase 3 ORBIT and COSMIC studies for setrusumab in Osteogenesis Imperfecta. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in setrusumab's ability to ultimately reduce the annualized fracture rates of the tested patients and in the study itself to put setrusumab in an opportunity to succeed in reaching statistical significance of this key endpoint. The Defendants provided these positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and materially misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of the Phase 3 ORBIT and COSMIC programs; neither of which hit its primary endpoints of reducing annualized clinical fracture rate compared to the placebo or bisphosphonate control groups, respectively. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Mereo's ADS at artificially inflated prices, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com MERKLE INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Eastman Says ---------------------------------------------------------- VERNETTA EASTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERKLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00568 (D. Md., February 11, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant receives and maintains the highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") of thousands of its employees. In collecting and maintaining the PII, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on August 31, 2025. Defendant waited until February 6, 2026 -- more than five months after the Data Breach was discovered -- to begin notifying victims. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has already spent several hours researching the Data Breach, contacting counsel, calling the breach hotline, and contacting Experian. And in the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, calls, and text messages, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Vernetta Eastman is a Data Breach victim and a former employee. Defendant Merkle, Inc. is a business consulting and customer experience management company that operates in more than 30 countries throughout the Americas, EMEA, and APAC, with more than 16,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com META PLATFORMS: Facilitates Stock Manipulation Scams, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Meta turns a blind eye to stock scammers who buy ads on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to promote pump-and-dump schemes designed to cheat consumers out of millions of dollars. The 35-page lawsuit contends that Meta accepts business from scammers who, after purchasing advertising space on Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, prey on unsuspecting users with the promise of life-changing investment opportunities. The suit accuses the social media giant of failing to implement technology, devote personnel and design processes to monitor, identify and prevent scam ads. "Instead, Meta has invested billions into developing generative artificial intelligence tools that have only worsened the proliferation of fraudulent advertisements and their effectiveness by generating hundreds of variations of advertisements that are optimized to drive engagement by vulnerable users," the lawsuit alleges. According to the complaint, the majority of these investment opportunities are no more than fraudulent pump-and-dump schemes, in which scammers convince a large group of people to invest in a stock that ordinarily has little value -- typically under the guise of anticipated growth or a looming business collaboration -- and present it as a strategic opportunity for investment before selling the stocks off at an inflated price. The lawsuit was filed in the wake of an April 2025 rug pull that reportedly cost Facebook and Instagram users over $500 million as a result of advertising that encouraged them to purchase shares of Jayud Global Logistics, a Chinese stock listed on NASDAQ as JYD. Reportedly, the scammers had first acquired 50 million shares of JYD stock in December 2024 at highly discounted prices and "pumped" the share price up to a high of nearly $8 per share before the "dump" phase of the scam commenced, the filing says. Using personal data collected via Meta's tracking technologies and artificial intelligence, pump-and-dump scammers curate uniquely targeted advertisements on Meta's Ads Manager for users whose activity suggests an interest in investing, and often illegally rely on the unlicensed likeness of celebrities and well-known investors to convey trustworthiness. Per the complaint, Facebook and Instagram users who clicked on these ads were added to groups on WhatsApp, another entity owned by Meta, wherein the scammers communicated with investors and pressured them into putting as much money as possible into the stock. The plaintiffs lost hundreds of thousands of dollars after falling victim to the JYD scam, the complaint says. "Meta's advertising tools were the primary means through which the scheme was implemented, which led to Plaintiffs and other victims interacting with and being victimized by the scammers," the lawsuit argues. "The JYD scammers could not have accomplished their scheme without Meta's proprietary tools, data, and active assistance." The case further alleges that Meta has "long been aware" of scam ads on Facebook and Instagram due to lawsuits dating back as early as January 2018 that claimed Meta allowed scam ads that unlawfully used celebrity names and likenesses to proliferate on its platform. Though Meta's Community Standards page states that the company prohibits the promotion of risk-free and "get-rich-quick" investment schemes, the lawsuit claims that Meta does not hold itself accountable and, in recent years, has canned anti-scam initiatives that CEO Mark Zuckerberg believed to withhold "billions" from overall company revenue. "[E]ven if Meta believes the advertiser is likely a scammer, it allows the advertiser to remain active, but charges higher ad rates -- essentially allowing scammers to pay a premium for the privilege of targeting Facebook and Instagram users with scam ads," the complaint alleges. The Meta scam ads class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who were lured into investing in JYD as a direct or indirect result of fraudulent ads on Facebook or Instagram between March 21, 2025 and April 2, 2025, and suffered losses as a result. [GN] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Judge Grants Dismissal of Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that on February 3, 2026, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class fraud action asserting claims against a semiconductor company, and its CEO and CFO, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-00191-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 3, 2026). In granting defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court held that the amended complaint did not adequately plead falsity or scienter. Plaintiffs are investors who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between March 29, 2023, and December 18, 2024 (the putative "Class Period"). According to plaintiffs, in the year leading up to the Class Period, the semiconductor chip industry experienced a downturn which affected sales of the Company's DRAM and NAND chips, and caused the Company's revenue to drop and inventories to increase. However, by the start of the Class Period, the Company allegedly began predicting a gradual recovery in its supply-demand balance, issuing increasingly optimistic statements over the next year. While the Company experienced growth during this time and increased DRAM sales, sales of NAND products slowed at the end of the period. On December 18, 2025, citing the drop in NAND demand, the Company issued reduced earnings guidance which allegedly caused the stock price to drop. Plaintiffs alleged that, throughout the Class Period, defendants falsely overstated global supply-and-demand dynamics for the Company's microchips, at the same time that the CEO allegedly entered a plan to sell a large amount of his Company stock. Plaintiffs identified 32 alleged material misrepresentations throughout the Class Period regarding relevant market conditions and the Company's revenue growth and forecasts. In granting defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court first addressed the issue of scienter, which plaintiffs alleged based on (1) the CEO's alleged stock sale, (2) a confidential witness's alleged statements about the Company's detailed and rigorous process for forecasting demand, and (3) Plaintiffs' retained expert's analysis of the Company's inventory levels and ratios. The Court held that the amended complaint failed to support an inference of scienter based on the CEO's alleged stock sales because the CEO sold less than half of his holdings, at a time when the Company's stock price was lower than the price following the December guidance, and because no other insiders made similar sales. The Court also held that the alleged statements by the confidential witness fell short of establishing scienter because, while the confidential witness attested as to the Company's general practices, that account did not indicate that defendants knew of the eventual downturn in NAND sales or otherwise acted with deliberate recklessness in issuing growth forecasts prior to that. Finally, the Court held that plaintiffs' expert's analysis did not support scienter because the expert did not have any relevant personal knowledge and based his opinions on SEC filings, and the amended complaint did not provide any information about his methodology. Because the absence of scienter provided "such a clear basis for dismissal," the Court conducted a "fairly brief" analysis of falsity. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely predicted market recovery, but the Court held that the fact that the Company's December disclosures were weaker than what investors anticipated, due to the drop in demand for NAND sales, did not render defendants' alleged statements misleading. In addition, the Court observed that the Company did in fact report record revenue and increased overall demand for its product, notwithstanding the decline in NAND product sales at the end of the Class Period as compared to the increase in DRAM sales. Moreover, the Court held that many of the alleged misrepresentations—such as "[w]e believe that [the product] will grow to a new record in calendar 2025 and will continue to outpace the growth of the semiconductor industry thereafter"—were forward-looking statements that are protected by the PSLRA's Safe Harbor, or otherwise constituted inactionable corporate puffery. Having found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead an underlying Section 10(b) claim, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' control person liability claims under Section 20(a). The Court granted leave for plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. [GN] NAVITAS LLC: Sells Contaminated Organic Chia Seeds, Soumekh Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER SOUMEKH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVITAS LLC d/b/a NAVITAS ORGANICS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00794-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law, negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Organic Chia Seeds. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated or are at risk of being contaminated with Salmonella, a bacteria that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Had the Plaintiff and the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased the products, or, at the very least, would not have paid nearly as much for the products, says the suit. Navitas LLC, doing business as Navitas Organics, is an organic superfoods manufacturer, with its headquarters in Novato, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com NEURO SOLUTIONS: Frank-Klein Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE FRANK-KLEIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEURO SOLUTIONS 100, LLC d/b/a NEUROSOLUTIONS 100, NEURODYNAMICS 100, INC., MICHAEL BINGHAM, and MARK KECK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00963 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. This suit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, wages at employees' regular hourly rates, wages at the applicable minimum wage, spread-of-hours pay, and statutory penalties for Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers -- i.e., Defendants' staff who work or have worked at Neuro Solutions. Plaintiff Frank-Klein signed an employment contract with NeuroSolutions on March 6, 2023. The contract provided, in relevant part, that her job title would be "Chief Operations Officer." Neuro Solutions 100, LLC is a foreign corporation doing business throughout the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Greben, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN 316 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 304-5357 NEW ESTRELLA: Encarnacion Seeks Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ENCARNACION, Plaintiff v. NEW ESTRELLA MINIMARKET CORP. (DBA NEW ESTRELLA MINIMARKET) and ANGEL ELION PUJOL HERNANDEZ AND ANGEL PUJOL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00974 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the minimum and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deli worker from October 2023 until September 2025. New Estrella Minimarket Corp. is a duly organized New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Mt. Vernon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 NEW JERSEY: Estate Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESTATE OF RENE CORREA BORQUEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Estate of Rene Correa Borquez, Jaime Vial, as Representative of the heirs of Rene Correa Borquez and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elizabeth Muoio, in her official capacity as Treasurer of the State of New Jersey, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-11301, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On May 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Aug. 15, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction or for abstention, which Judge Robert Kirsch granted on Jan. 12, 2026. The case is dismissed without prejudice. On Feb. 10, 2026, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Estate of Rene Correa Borquez v. Elizabeth Maher Muoio, et al., Case No. 26-1301, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ESTATE OF RENE CORREA BORQUEZ, Jaime Vial, as Representative of the heirs of Rene Correa Borquez and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, is represented by: Jonathan S. Massey, Esq. Bret R. Vallacher, Esq. MASSEY & GAIL 1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 450 Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 652-4511 - and - William W. Palmer, Esq. PALMER LAW GROUP 2443 Fair Oaks Boulevard, No. 545 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 972-0761 - and - Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Defendants-Appellees ELIZABETH MUOIO, in her official capacity as Treasurer of the State of New Jersey, et al. are represented by: Valerie A. Hamilton, Esq. SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS 600 College Road E. Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 227-4600 NORDSTROM INC: Truelove Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yusha Truelove, individually, and on behalf of members of the general public similarly situated v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington State corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CV0008478 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01136. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains ten causes of action for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages at termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: (858) 677-1400 Fax: (858) 677-1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover St., Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1123 Phone: (650) 833-2000 Fax: (650) 833-2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com - and - Mandy Chan-Lucero, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Phone: (415) 836-2500 Fax: (415) 836-2501 Email: mandy.chan@us.dlapiper.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Objectors Appeal Over $600MM Derailment Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patty Coller, writing for WKBN 27, reports that a group of people who are objecting to the $600 million class action payout from the East Palestine train derailment is asking the United State Supreme Court to consider their case dismissal from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition for U.S. Supreme Court consideration was filed earlier this month, and the documents were requested from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Tuesday, February 10, where the class action case is being litigated. The non-class members in the group say the payout is too small and doesn't take into consideration future harms. Their case was dismissed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because it said that the group did not pay an $850,000 appeal bond, and an extension for time was filed too late. The Circuit judges wrote: "A set of objectors to a class-action settlement are over eight months late in paying an $850,000 appeal bond. Instead of paying up, they moved to extend the time to appeal the bond order, one day late. Because they're a day late, we can't hear their reasons for being $850,000 short. We dismiss their appeal of the motion to extend for lack of jurisdiction, and we dismiss their appeals of the settlement for failure to pay the bond." In their 59-page petition, the group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider several issues, including the appeal bond -- which was the crux of the Sixth Circuit's dismissal -- how it's determined and how much; also "whether a district court's imposition of an appeal bond for the expressed purpose of inhibiting appellants' pursuit of their statutory right of appeal, by factoring speculative or legally prohibited costs into determining the bond amount," the petition said. A conference is set to discuss the petition on February 27. This does not mean that the U.S. SUPCO has agreed to hear the appeal, only that it is gathering information to determine if it will. Feb. 3 marked the third anniversary of the derailment. As it stands now, most involved in a $600 million class action lawsuit against Norfolk Southern have yet to receive their payout. The lawsuit was settled, but payouts to class members have been delayed by appeals. Just recently, some personal injury payments were sent. Epiq, the administrator for the lawsuit, announced on the settlement website that on December 29 and 30, it will mail an initial partial payment award check to class members who submitted a "valid and timely" personal injury claim and who had not previously received a payment. [GN] OASIS LANDSCAPE: Caverly Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Tylor Caverly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OASIS LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00036-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs of reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). In the course of his employment with Defendant during the material time, Plaintiff, and other Technician employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week and were not paid all their overtime compensation at the lawful overtime rate for all of the overtime hours worked, based on Defendant's unlawful pay practices and scheme to evade its pay obligations under the FLSA. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and the Putative Class that they are entitled to be paid for all overtime hours worked for which they did not receive overtime compensation, as required by the FLSA. The Defendant had a common pay practice and policy of denying its "Technicians" overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work week. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and the Class of "Technicians" that Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation was knowing and willful. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover all overtime pay due from overtime hours worked for which compensation was not paid, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the FLSA's three-year statute of limitations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 3, 2023 until the present as a "Technician." Oasis Landscape Services, Inc. is a Florida for profit Corporation with its principal place of business located in Gainesville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road Suite 225 Tampa, FL 33626 Phone: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com mail@feldmanlegal.us OCUGEN INC: Files Petition to Validate Corporate Acts in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- OCUGEN, INC. filed a petition in the lawsuit styled as In Re Ocugen, Inc., Case No. 2026-0210, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Petitioner brings this petition pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 205, seeking to have this Court validate corporate acts and declare valid purported putative stock. Ocugen, Inc. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Brock E. Czeschin, Esq. Brendan W. Clark, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Email: czeschin@rlf.com clark@rlf.com OX SECURITIES: Wartenburg Sues Over Illegal CFD Trading Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- YAKOV WARTENBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OX SECURITIES LTD., an Australian corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00795 (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for rescission, restitution, and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful facilitation and conduct of contracts-for-difference ("CFD") trading for Plaintiff and all United States citizens who engaged in CFD trading through Defendant during the period from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification, in violation of federal commodities laws. Defendant Ox Securities Ltd. is a broker offering traders execution services across Forex CFDs, Indices CFDs, Commodities CFDs, and Cryptocurrency CFDs. The complaint relates that the placement and sale of CFDs in the United States are generally illegal. Despite this prohibition, Defendant illegally facilitated thousands of CFD trades for Plaintiff and Class members, all United States citizens, and received commissions, fees and other revenue from such trading. Defendant Ox Securities has not registered as an Introducing Broker or Futures Commodities Merchant under the Commodities Exchange Act, nor has it claimed any exemption from such registration requirements, adds the complaint. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount believed to be at least $131,187, exclusive of interest, and the Class has suffered damages in amounts to be determined at trial, says the suit. Plaintiff Yakov Wartenburg is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Cornish Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. CORNISH, JR., PC 32 Mercer Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Office: (307) 264-0535 E-mail: rcornish@rcornishlaw.com PANDA RESTAURANT: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $2.45MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Panda Restaurant Group agreed to pay $2.45 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding a 2023 data breach. The Panda Express settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notice from Panda Restaurant Group informing them that their information may have been compromised in a March 2023 data breach. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Panda Restaurant Group failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information, such as Social Security numbers. The breach was allegedly the result of Panda's failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures. Panda Restaurant Group is the parent company of Panda Express, a fast-casual restaurant chain with locations across the country. Panda Restaurant Group has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.45 million class action settlement to resolve the data breach allegations. Under the terms of the Panda Express data breach settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented data breach losses. These losses may include bank fees, fraudulent charges and credit monitoring costs. Class members can also receive a pro rata cash payment of $100 from the settlement. California class members can receive an additional statutory payment of up to $125. All class members can receive three years of free credit monitoring from the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 23, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Panda Express data breach settlement is scheduled for April 20, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 10, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification letter regarding a March 7, 2024, data breach at Panda Restaurant Group that may have compromised their personal information. Potential Award Up to $5,000 for documented losses, an alternative $100 cash payment and a statutory payment of up to $150 for California residents. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as credit monitoring service invoices and bank statements. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/10/2026 Case Name Halliday, et al. v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc., Case No. 24STCV12667, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Final Hearing 04/20/2026 Settlement Website PRGBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator PRG Breach Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 173073 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@PRGBreachSettlement.com (866) 302-7373 Class Counsel Daniel Srourian SROURIAN LAW FIRM P.C. Kenneth Grunfeld KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.C. John Nelson MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Jason Wucetich WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP Defense Counsel Marcus McCutcheon BAKER & HOSTLETLER LLP [GN] PENDLETON COMMUNITY: Settles Overdraft Fees' Suit for $750,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Pendleton Community Bank has agreed to a $750,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed its customers, including those with accounts at the Bank of Mount Hope, were unlawfully issued certain authorization, overdraft, and insufficient funds fees on debit card transactions. The Pendleton Community Bank class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 15, 2025 and covers all consumers who received an email or postcard notice informing them that they are members of the settlement class. Per court documents, the class consists of consumers who, between the period of August 5, 2012 and December 31, 2025, were charged one or more "Challenged Fees," which consist of: -- Overdraft fees charged on debit card transactions that were authorized on sufficient funds but ultimately settled on negative funds in the same amount for which the transaction was authorized ("APSN Fees"); and -- Overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees charged by the bank on the second or third transaction attempt for items that had previously been returned for insufficient funds ("Retry Fees") The court-approved website for the Pendleton Community Bank overdraft fees settlement can be found at LewisChallengedFeeSettlement.com. According to the website, Pendleton settlement class members do not need to do anything to automatically receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement fund. Each class member, the agreement explains, will receive an equal share of what remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration expenses and lead plaintiff service awards. The agreement reports that Pendleton settlement class members who currently have an open bank account will receive their payment as a direct account credit, and former customers who do not have an open bank account will receive their payout via check to their last saved address on file. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement and retain the right to litigate similar claims must send a written exclusion request to the settlement administrator stating their desire to be excluded, along with their name, contact information, and signature. Per the settlement site, class members must mail any objections, exclusion requests, or requests to update their address for payment purposes (if necessary) to the settlement administrator by March 21, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Pendleton settlement at a hearing on April 27, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Pendleton Community Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the financial institution, which owns the Bank of Mount Hope and operates in Virginia and West Virginia, issued wrongful overdraft and insufficient funds fees on customer accounts after certain debit card transactions between August 5, 2012 and December 31, 2025. [GN] PHIA GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Sinatra Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN SINATRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC and PINNACLE BANK, d/b/a SYNOVUS BANK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10762-AK (D. Mass., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Phia's network systems following a data breach between approximately July 8, 2024, and July 9, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Phia Group, LLC is a healthcare cost containment and compliance services, with its principal place of business located in Canton, Massachusetts. Pinnacle Bank, doing business as Synovus Bank, is a financial services firm, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, PC 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com PIATT COUNTY, IL: Conyers Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Blake H. Conyers, and a Class of Inmates Similarly Situated at Piatt County Jail, and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF PIATT, PIATT COUNTY SHERIFF VOGELZANG, ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, and ADMINISTRATOR COOPER,, Case No. 2025-MR-12 was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois, Piatt County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on Feb. 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02042-CSB-EIL. The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Defendants violated Plaintiff's federal constitutional civil rights. Plaintiff's Complaint therefore presents a question of federal law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Smith, Esq. HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN 301 N. Neil Street, Suite 505 Champaign, IL 61820 Phone 217.344.0060 Email: bsmith@heylroyster.com PINEHURST RADIOLOGY: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Pinehurst Radiology Associates has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a January 2025 data breach, and Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare has agreed to settle class action litigation over its use of pixels on its website. Pinehurst Radiology Associates Settlement Pinehurst Radiology Associates, a medical diagnostic imaging center in Pinehurst, North Carolina, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a January 2025 security incident that affected 8,682 individuals. Pinehurst Radiology Associates identified a cybersecurity incident on January 20, 2025, and determined that patients' protected health information had been exposed. Data exposed in the incident included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, diagnoses, treatment information, medical record numbers, health insurance information, and Medicare/Medicaid numbers. The affected patients were notified on or around May 22, 2025. Two class action lawsuits were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated in the Superior Court of Moore County, North Carolina -- McNeill, et al. v. Pinehurst Radiology Associates, PLLC. The plaintiffs alleged that the data breach resulted from negligence because reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures had not been implemented. Pinehurst Radiology Associates denies all claims of wrongdoing, fault, and liability. All parties explored the possibility of an early settlement, and an agreement on the material terms was reached on September 30, 2025. The final terms of the settlement have been negotiated, and it has received preliminary approval from the court. Pinehurst Radiology Associates has agreed to pay for CyEx Medical Shield Complete medical data monitoring services for 12 months for all class members, which include a $1 million identity theft insurance policy. Claims may also be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach, up to a maximum of $500 per class member. Losses must have been incurred between January 20, 2025, and April 9, 2026. The deadline for opting out and objection is March 7, 2026. Claims must be submitted by April 9, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for April 6, 2026. Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare Settlement Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare has agreed to pay benefits to current and former patients whose personal and protected health information may have been disclosed to third parties, such as Meta Platforms and Google Inc., due to pixels and other tracking and analytics tools on the Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare website. According to the lawsuit, these tools collected data relating to website use, which may have included personal and protected health information depending on the user's interactions with the website. The lawsuit claims that these disclosures occurred for marketing and advertising purposes, without the knowledge or consent of website users. The lawsuit claims that the disclosures violated the Florida Security of Communications Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The lawsuit also asserted claims of invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of confidence. Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare denies all claims of wrongdoing and liability, and all material allegations in the lawsuit, but chose to settle the litigation to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial and related appeals. The plaintiffs believe all claims have merit but agreed that the settlement is fair and in the best interests of all class members. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can claim a 24-month membership to CyEx Financial Shield Complete, as well as a cash payment of $17. The final fairness hearing has been scheduled for March 2, 2026. [GN] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Soliman Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Soliman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive,, Case No. 25CV156508 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01101. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to timely pay final wages; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Monica N. Ratajczak, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com monica.ratajczak@morganlewis.com REBOUND ORTHOPEDICS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Rebound Orthopedics and Neurosurgery has agreed to a $2,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the medical provider failed to protect current and former patients' confidential information from a targeted cyberattack. The Rebound Orthopedics and Neurosurgery class action settlement received preliminary court approval on December 19, 2025 and covers all United States residents whose personal information may have been accessed during the February 2024 data breach, including those who received a notice that their information may have been impacted. The court-approved website for the Rebound Orthopedics data breach settlement can be found at ReboundDataSettlement.com. Court documents explain that Rebound Orthopedics settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive multiple benefits. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses incurred because of the data breach may receive a cash payment of up to $5,000, also called "Cash Payment A" in all court documents. Per the agreement, reimbursable expenses include those related to identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports and credit monitoring, costs to replace IDs, and postage. The agreement adds that all claims for documented-loss payments must be accompanied by proof prepared by a third party, such as invoices, receipts, or bank statements, and that class members may not submit claims for expenses already reimbursed by a third party. In lieu of a documented loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim to receive an alternative one-time cash payment of approximately $75, also called "Cash Payment B" on all court documents. Per the agreement, the final amount of the alternative cash payment is subject to a pro rata (equal share) increase or decrease depending on how many valid claims are received. Moreover, settlement documents share that all class members are eligible to receive an activation code for two free years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes medical and identity theft insurance, victim assistance, one-bureau credit monitoring and real-time alerts. To submit a Rebound Orthopedics claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in with the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Rebound Orthopedics claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than May 28, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the Rebound Orthopedics settlement at a hearing on June 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Rebound Orthopedics and Neurosurgery class action lawsuit claimed that the healthcare provider serving Washington and Oregon failed to protect the private information of its current and former patients from a targeted cyberattack on February 1, 2024. Per court documents, the personal information that may have been accessed during the data breach includes full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical information, health insurance information and financial account information. [GN] ROADELO LLC: Barco Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM BARCO individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROADELO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026-CA-000084 A (Cir. Ct., Citrus Cty., Fl., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making unsolicited text messages to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The complaint relates that between January 1, 2026, and January 2, 2026, Defendant made telephonic solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Overall, Defendant caused more than one marketing text message to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The purpose of Defendant's telephonic sales text messages was to advertise, promote, and/or market Defendant's property, goods, and/or services. The Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them text message solicitations. The Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the DNC Class members, asserts the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff William Barco is a citizen and resident of Citrus County, Florida. He is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above solicitations. Defendant Roadelo LLC, headquartered in Delaware, provides personalized auto insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rena A. Lerner, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: rena@jibraellaw.com E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in "Brown" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the putative class action captioned as Crystal Brown, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-CV-00665-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff's motion to lift the stay pending arbitration. Plaintiff brought this putative class action on behalf of herself and others who financed the purchase of a car that was encumbered by a preexisting lien. Defendant acquired the financing contracts from the dealerships, thereby making it Plaintiff's creditor. The Court had previously stayed the case pending arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act on August 8, 2025, and the parties agreed to proceed before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The arbitration process encountered difficulty when Defendant's counsel attempted to pay the $375 filing fee but the payment did not go through. The AAA, upon not receiving the fee, closed the case and invited the parties to return to court. Defendant's counsel stated that he immediately entered the necessary payment information and believed the fee had been paid. The AAA did not respond to a subsequent communication from counsel indicating that payment had not been received. On December 4, 2025, the AAA informed the parties it was declining to administer the case pursuant to Rule R-10(b) of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules due to the failure to pay the fee. The following day, the AAA expressed willingness to reopen the proceedings if Plaintiff consented, but Plaintiff declined and filed the motion to lift the stay within 24 hours. The Court examined two grounds under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act: whether arbitration had been had, and whether Defendant was in default. On the first ground, the Court found the case distinguishable from Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 106 F.4th 609 (7th Cir. 2024), where Samsung outright refused to pay over $4,000,000 in fees. Here, the AAA expressed willingness to reopen proceedings upon Plaintiff's consent, indicating that the arbitration had not reached a comparable endpoint. The Court therefore found that arbitration had not yet been had. On the second ground, the Court found that Defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate. Defendant moved to stay the case promptly, sought to pay the filing fee within minutes of receiving the payment link, and had insisted on arbitration at every turn. The Court held that a good faith payment error was insufficient to support Plaintiff's waiver argument. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to lift the stay, leaving the parties in the same position as when the stay was entered in August 2025. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nEABRy from PacerMonitor.com SHANI DARDEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shani Darden Skincare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01285 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.shanidarden.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hussein and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 9, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for facial products that are gentle on the skin. During her search among popular products, she discovered the Defendant's website and attempted to make a purchase. However, while navigating the Website, Plaintiff Hussein encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, she encountered link texts on the home page that were ambiguous and did not clearly describe the content or purpose of their destination pages, making it difficult for her to understand where the links would lead before selecting them. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the Plaintiff. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Shani Darden Skincare, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of skincare products including cleansers, serums, moisturizers, face serums, masks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law SHIPINSURE INC: Carlos Sues Over Deceptive Addition of Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Carlos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SHIPINSURE, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-01071-LB (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. When consumers browse products on e-commerce websites, the e-commerce website will advertise the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because e-commerce retailers such as Tanga, Inc., working with Ship Insure, surreptitiously add junk fees to consumer purchases, including ShipInsure's so-called "Checkout +" fee. The assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since: Ship Insure sneaks these fees into consumers' shopping carts; the fees are nothing more than an additional cost for shipping, rendering retailer promises for "free" or flat-rate shipping false; the fees themselves are deceptively named and described; and the fees provide no added value to consumers and reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, who would not knowingly choose to pay them, absent Defendant's deception. Thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to Defendant's deceptive tactics. By unfairly obscuring its true shipping costs, Defendant deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. To wit, other major e-commerce sites do not assess such a fee. The Plaintiff seeks damages and, among other remedies, public injunctive relief that fairly allows consumers to decide whether they will pay shipping costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased clothing from Tanga's website. The Defendant is an app on the platform Shopify that offers various widgets for e-commerce websites such as Tanga.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $8.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Signature Performance has agreed to an $8,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the healthcare administrative service provider failed to protect sensitive patient and employee information stored on its systems from a January 2024 cyberattack. The Signature Performance class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 6, 2026 and covers all living individuals who received notice from Signature that their private information may have been impacted by the January 2024 data breach. Court documents estimate that approximately 232,315 individuals are covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Signature Performance data breach settlement can be found at SignatureDataBreachSettlement.com. According to the website, Signature Performance settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. The deal states that class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented losses related to the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000, also called "Cash Payment A" on all court documents. According to the settlement agreement, reimbursable expenses must have been incurred on or after January 17, 2024 and include those related to credit monitoring, credit reports, credit freezes, bank fees and unauthorized card transactions. Class members seeking a documented-loss payment may not receive reimbursement for losses that have already been reimbursed by another source, including the medical data and credit monitoring services provided by Signature Performance detailed in the data breach notification letter. In addition to, or in lieu of a documented-loss payment, Signature Performance settlement class members may also file a claim to receive a cash payment of approximately $200 called "Cash Payment B" in court documents. According to the settlement agreement, no proof is required from class members to claim this payout, which may be subject to a pro-rated increase or decrease in value depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Settlement class members who were California residents at the time of the breach may file a claim to receive, in addition to Cash Payment A and/or Cash Payment B, a one-time cash payment of approximately $200 due to state-specific statutory requirements. Similarly, the settlement site reports that the final amount of the statutory cash payment will depend on the total number of valid claims filed. Signature Performance class members may elect to receive their cash payouts by check or electronic payment upon submission of their claim form, and the agreement stipulates that all checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, the agreement states that all class members may also file a claim to receive an enrollment code for three free years of Medical Data Monitoring, which provides services such as medical identity monitoring, credit monitoring, real-time alerts and identity theft insurance. Finally, Signature Performance has agreed to implement additional data security measures to ensure private information stored on its systems is protected from future data incidents. To submit a Signature Performance settlement claim form, class members can head to this page and select if they would prefer to use their personal claim ID and PIN listed on their copy of the settlement notice to file a claim online or to download a personalized claim form to print and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Signature Performance data breach claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 7, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Signature Performance settlement at a hearing on April 21, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Signature Performance class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare administration company did not implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information of healthcare clients' patients and employees, which led to a data breach sometime between January 17 and 18, 2024. Per court documents, the information that may have been impacted by the breach included names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, medical history, driver's license and state ID numbers, health insurance information and treatment costs. [GN] SOUNDCLOUD INC: Murphy Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- RYAN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUNDCLOUD, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01169-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se on behalf of himself and all others whose sensitive information was stolen during the Data Breach. The complaint relates that in December 2025, audio streaming and creator platform SoundCloud suffered a significant data breach that impacted approximately 29.8 million user accounts--roughly 20% of its global user base. The incident stemmed from unauthorized access to an internal service dashboard or system within SoundCloud's infrastructure. Attackers exploited this access to correlate previously hidden email addresses with publicly available profile information, effectively creating a large dataset that associated personal contact details with user identities. Specifically, cybercriminals exported email addresses, names, usernames, profile data, and geographic location for SoundCloud users. As a direct and proximate result of SoundCloud's negligent conduct, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals suffered concrete injuries, including loss of privacy, exposure of sensitive personal information, increased risk of identity theft and fraud, out-of-pocket expenses, and time and effort spent mitigating the ongoing consequences of the breach, says the suit. Plaintiff Ryan Murphy is a citizen of Weehawken Township, New Jersey and is a former SoundCloud user. Defendant SoundCloud, Inc. is a global audio streaming and distribution platform that operates a digital service allowing users--including music creators, podcasters, and listeners--to upload, share, and stream audio content. SoundCloud claims tens of millions of users worldwide and is one of the largest independent music and audio publishing platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Andrew Stanko, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Hemsley Building 230 Park Avenue 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com astanko@scott-scott.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Amato Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Amato, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Subaru of America Inc, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16118, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed the class action against the Defendants alleging class wide claims for breach of express warranty of merchantability (Count I), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count II), violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count III), negligent misrepresentation (Count VIII), and injunctive and declaratory relief (Count IX) and state law claims for certain subclasses under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count IV), the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (Count V), New York General Business Law Section 349 Deceptive Acts and Practices (Count VI), and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (Count VII). On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Karen M. Williams granted in part and denied in part on Nov. 24, 2025. The Court certifies four statewide subclasses (New York, Arizona, Indiana, Michigan) as to the statutory consumer protection claims and it certifies the negligent misrepresentation claims for the New York, Arizona, and Indiana subclasses only; and denies certification of the negligent misrepresentation claim for the Michigan subclass. Additionally, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate ascertainability. The appellate case is styled as Joseph Amato, et al. v. Subaru of America Inc, et al., Case No. 26-1277, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSEPH AMATO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Defendants-Appellants SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. is represented by: Neal D. Walters, Esq. Casey Watkins, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR 700 E. Gate Drive, Suite 330 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 761-3438 (208) 818-2415 SWINERTON BUILDERS: Zamora Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ismael Zamora, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SWINERTON BUILDERS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. C25-03447 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01107. The Complaint contains seven causes of action for Failure to Wages For All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; Failure to Authorize and Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: estaggs-wilson@littler.com - and - Jyoti Mittal, Esq. Russell Blakey, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: jmittal@littler.com rblakey@littler.com T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Action Suit Failed Gift Cards Promotion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that T-Mobile has failed to honor its promises to issue $200 gift cards to consumers who purchase new phone lines or devices as part of a promotional offer. According to the 10-page false advertising lawsuit, the plaintiff, a California resident, purchased multiple new phone lines based on a T-Mobile promotion that offered a $200 gift card for each line of service opened. The suit claims that even though the consumer met the offer's requirements, the company did not provide him with the promised gift cards and denied the existence of the promotion. The plaintiff says that when he purchased two new phone lines at a T-Mobile store in June 2024, a representative confirmed that he would receive a total of $400 in gift cards in approximately 10 weeks. The case explains that on September 10 of that year, the plaintiff received a call from a T-Mobile supervisor who told him that "no such promotion existed" and no gift cards would be issued. According to the suit, the consumer would not have purchased new phone lines but for the company's representations about the offer, including statements made in-store by T-Mobile employees. The plaintiff states that through his own online research, he discovered similar consumer complaints describing T-Mobile's alleged failure to honor promotional offers. The plaintiff claims that the company's misrepresentations are part of a "broader, uniform policy" of advertising gift card promotions to increase sales while "systematically" failing to deliver on these promises. "[T-Mobile] created the false impression -- through its employees and marketing practices -- that such promotions were active, valid, and would be honored upon purchase, despite having no intention or ability to fulfill them," the case reads. The T-Mobile class action lawsuit looks to cover all California residents who purchased one or more new phone lines or devices from the company during the applicable statute of limitations period based on a promotional offer promising a gift card or other financial incentive that they did not receive. [GN] TARGET CORP: Settles Wage Transparency Class Suit for $2.225-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Target Corp. agreed to pay $2.225 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it failed to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in Washington job postings. The Target settlement benefits individuals who applied for a job opening with Target in Washington between Jan. 1, 2023, and July 26, 2025, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits or other compensation. According to the wage transparency class action lawsuit, Target failed to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in Washington job postings as required by state law. Plaintiffs in the case say they would not have applied for jobs at Target if they had known the true wage scales and salary ranges. Target, a nationwide retailer, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.225 million settlement to resolve the wage disclosure class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Target settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement, though claimants are guaranteed a minimum payment of $1,711.93. Class members who received a mailed settlement notice have an estimated payment amount listed on their claim form. Settlement payments will be considered non-wage damages for tax purposes, meaning class members may receive a 1099 form. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 31, 2026. The final approval hearing for the wage transparency settlement is scheduled for May 5, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 31, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023, through July 26, 2025, applied for a job opening in the state of Washington with Target Corp. where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits or other compensation Potential Award $1,711.93 or more Proof of Purchase Unique ID and PIN Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/31/2026 Case Name Brinkman v. Target Corporation, Case No. 24-2- 25091-3-SEA, in the Washington Superior Court in and for King County Final Hearing 05/05/2026 Settlement Website EPOASettlement-Jan-02-2026.com Claims Administrator Brinkman v. Target Corporation c/o Simpluris P.O. Box 26170 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Info@EPOASettlement-Jan-02-2026.com (833) 647-9003 Class Counsel Timothy W. Emery Patrick B. Reddy Paul Cipriani EMERY REDDY P.C. Defense Counsel Heather L. Shook Emily A. Bushaw PERKINS COIE LLP [GN] THRASIO LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Stain Removers -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Thrasio, LLC faces a proposed class action lawsuit following the January 2026 recall of its Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover, which was found to be contaminated with harmful bacteria. The 15-page product recall lawsuit says that on or around January 22, 2026, Thrasio announced a recall of roughly 1.5 million bottles of its Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover due to its contamination with the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Although Thrasio touts its products as chemical-free and "safe to use around your home," the lawsuit claims that the presence of dangerous bacteria makes the cleaners completely unfit for household use. According to the filing, contaminated bottles of Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover are "adulterated, unsafe, and worthless products that should be discarded." The lawsuit stresses that exposure to Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be extremely dangerous for individuals who are immunocompromised, use external medical devices, or have preexisting lung conditions. The products at issue in the lawsuit are the Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Removers in Fresh Clean or Orange Twist scent, which are sold in 24-oz, 32-oz, and 1-gallon bottles. Tainted bottles of Angry Orange, the case says, were produced anywhere between March 2019 and December 2025. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says consumers who have bought the Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover should immediately stop using the product and contact the defendant for a refund. The CPSC has not received any reports of injuries or incidents related to the cleaner, the agency said. "[Thrasio] failed to adequately design, manufacture, test, inspect, and monitor the production process of the recalled products, allowing contaminated products to enter the stream of commerce on a massive scale," the class action lawsuit says. The plaintiff contends that Thrasio's allegedly negligent conduct meant she was "forced" to buy and potentially be exposed to an unsafe product. The plaintiff, her husband, and their pets were all exposed to the contaminated cleaning products, the lawsuit states, but the plaintiff was "fearful" of a potentially dangerous chemical reaction if she attempted to re-clean areas previously treated with the enzyme cleaner. Thrasio, the case says, failed consumers by "allowing adulterated products to remain on shelves and in consumer homes for months" before announcing the January recall. While the case says that Thrasio is offering consumers a full refund for qualifying purchases of Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Remover, it contends that a mere refund is not enough to address the inconvenience and risk the contaminated products posed to consumers. The Thrasio class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals within the United States who purchased bottles of contaminated Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Cleaner that were subject to the January 22, 2026 recall. [GN] TRUE FINANCE LLC: Ware Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Finance LLC. The case is styled as Ruth Ware, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. True Finance LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05106 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. True Finance -- https://jointrue.com/ -- provides a money app for borrowing, earning, and saving, with free credit score checks and secure neobanking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TRUE RELIGION: Website Lists Fake Regular Prices, Samuel Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ARIELLE SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC. and TRUE RELIGION SALES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00274 (D. Or., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for advertising fake sales and discounts on its website. The complaint relates that on its website, True Religion lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices. After reviewing True Religion's website, www.truereligion.com and seeing and relying on advertised sales, Oregon consumer Ms. Samuel bought Products from True Religion's website. When Plaintiff made her purchase, True Religion advertised that a purported sale was going on, and Plaintiff believed that she was being offered steep discounts from the purported regular prices that True Religion advertised. And based on True Religion's representations, Plaintiff believed she was purchasing Products whose regular prices and market values were the purported list prices that True Religion advertised, that she was receiving substantial discounts, and that the opportunity to get those discounts was time-limited. These reasonable beliefs caused Plaintiff to buy from Defendants. The representations that Plaintiff relied on, however, were not true, the complaint asserts. The purported regular prices Defendants advertised were not the true regular prices at which Defendants usually sell the Products. The purported discounts were not true discounts, and the sales were ongoing--not time-limited. Had Defendants been truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the subclass: (1) the greater of statutory damages of $200 or actual damages; (2) punitive damages; (3) appropriate equitable relief and/or restitution; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs; and (5) an injunction. Plaintiff Arielle Samuel is domiciled in Bend, Oregon. Defendant True Religion Apparel, Inc. and Defendant True Religion Sales, LLC manufactures, markets, and sells clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Dovel & Luner, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: +1 (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com TTCU FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees' Class Suit for $3MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that TTCU Federal Credit Union, formerly known as TTCU the Credit Union and Tulsa Teachers Credit Union, has agreed to a $3 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged unfair overdraft and insufficient funds fees. The TTCU Federal Credit Union settlement benefits individuals who have or had a checking account with TTCU Federal Credit Union and were charged an overdraft fee or insufficient funds fee between Aug. 31, 2015, and May 1, 2024. According to claims made in the class action lawsuit resolved by this settlement, TTCU Federal Credit Union charged unfair overdraft fees, overdraft transfer fees and insufficient funds fees. Plaintiffs in the case say the fees violated the terms of their account agreements. TTCU Federal Credit Union is an Oklahoma-based credit union with locations in Oklahoma and Arkansas. TTCU has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3 million class action settlement to resolve the overdraft fees allegations. Under the terms of this settlement, class members can receive a cash payment, account credit or forgiveness of uncollected overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of fees each class member was charged and the number of fees charged to all class members. Current TTCU members will receive account credits for the amount they are entitled to under the settlement. Former members will receive a cash payment in the form of a check. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 8, 2026. The final approval hearing for the TTCU Federal Credit Union settlement is scheduled for April 28, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible All current and former TTCU Federal Credit Union customers who had a checking account with the credit union and were charged an overdraft fee or insufficient funds fee between Aug. 31, 2015, and May 1, 2024. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 03/08/2026 Case Name Lee, et al. v. TTCU Federal Credit Union f/k/a TTCU the Credit Union f/k/a Tulsa Teachers Credit Union, Case No. CJ-2020-283, in the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma Final Hearing 04/28/2026 Settlement Website LeeBankFeesSettlement.com Claims Administrator Lee v. TTCU Federal Credit Union Attn: Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 admin@LeeBankFeesSettlement.com (833) 604-2024 Class Counsel Jason B. Aamodt Matthew D. Alison INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PLLC Lynn A. Toops COHEN & MALAD LLP Gerard Stranch IV Martin F. Schubert STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Defense Counsel Randall E. Long Emma C. Kincade RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE Mark J. R. Merkle KRIEG DEVAULT LLP [GN] UDR INC: Jackson Suit Removed to D. Columbia -------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Jackson, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. UDR, INC. Case No. 2026-CAB-000121 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00351. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges that UDR charged illegal rental application fees and engaged in illegal leasing practices by including an illegal term in its residential leases in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Peter Silva, II, Esq. Troy E. Brown, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Email: psilva@tzlegal.com tbrown@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOLD LLP 412 H. Street, N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Email: rchen@classlawdc.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Johnston, Esq. Darcy C. Osta, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 659-6600 Fax: (202) 659-6699 Email: dosta@eckertseamans.com mjohnston@eckertseamans.com ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Bailey Sues Over Securities Laws Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL INC., EMIL D. KAKKIS, and ERIC CROMBEZ, Case No. 3:26-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ultragenyx common stock between August 3, 2023, to December 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Ultragenyx's expected results for its Phase III Orbit and Cosmic Studies, which tested setrusumab (UX 143) in patients with Osteogenesis Imperfecta ("OI"). Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in setrusumab's ability to ultimately trigger a decrease in the OI patients' annualized fracture rate, alongside confidence in the study designs to demonstrate such ability and reduce testing variability that could interfere with such a result. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of setrusumab's potential and the true risk inherent in the study protocols put forth; notably, that, while setrusumab does increase material bone density, this increase does not correlate to a decrease in annualized fracture rates or otherwise the Phase III Orbit and Cosmic studies were much less likely to be able to demonstrate such a link than management claimed. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Ultragenyx's securities at artificially inflated prices. On December 29, 2025, the full truth emerged. Ultragenyx announced that both its Phase III Orbit and Cosmic Studies had not "achieved statistical significance against the primary endpoints of reduction in annualized clinical fracture rate compared to placebo or bisphosphonates, respectively." The Company attributed the study failure to a "low fracture rate in the placebo group" of Orbit and a trend that fell shy of statistical significance in Cosmic. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Ultragenyx's revelation. The price of Ultragenyx's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $34.19 per share on December 26, 2025, Ultragenyx's stock price fell to $19.72 per share on December 29, 2025, a decline of about 42.32% in the span of just a single day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Ultragenyx common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Ultragenyx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on rare and ultrarare genetic disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 373-1671 Email: aapton@zlk.com ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Seeking Alpha reports that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. (RARE) on behalf of purchasers or acquirers of Ultragenyx common stock between August 3, 2023 and December 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Bailey v. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 26-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal.), the Ultragenyx class action lawsuit charges Ultragenyx as well as certain of Ultragenyx' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors who purchased Ultragenyx common stock during the Class Period have until April 6, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the action. To learn more, visit the page: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ultragenyx-pharmaceutical-inc-class-action-lawsuit-rare.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Ultragenyx is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the identification, acquisition, development, and commercialization of novel products for the treatment of rare and ultra-rare genetic diseases. The Ultragenyx class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the effects of setrusumab on patients with variable types of Osteogenesis Imperfecta ("OI"), while also minimizing risk that patients in Ultragenyx' Phase III Orbit study would fail to achieve a statistically significant reduction in annualized fracture rate ("AFR"), such that the second interim analysis could be performed and presented to the investing public; and (ii) in truth, Ultragenyx' optimism in the Phase III Orbit study's results and interim analysis benchmark were misplaced because Ultragenyx failed to convey the risk associated with basing such threshold figures on Phase II results that had no placebo control group for appropriate comparison and thus had not ruled out that the reduction in AFR from that study could merely be triggered by an increased standard of care and the placebo effect of being provided a novel treatment. The Ultragenyx class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 9, 2025, Ultragenyx revealed that the Phase III Orbit study failed to achieve statistical significance for the second interim analysis and that Phase III Orbit and Cosmic studies would now be "progressing toward final analysis." On this news, the price of Ultragenyx stock fell more than 25%, according to the complaint. Then, on December 29, 2025, Ultragenyx announced that both its Phase III Orbit and Cosmic Studies had not "achieved statistical significance against the primary endpoints of reduction in annualized clinical fracture rate compared to placebo or bisphosphonates, respectively." Ultragenyx allegedly attributed the study failure to a "low fracture rate in the placebo group" of Orbit and a trend that fell shy of statistical significance in Cosmic. On this news, the price of Ultragenyx stock fell more than 42%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Ultragenyx common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ultragenyx class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Ultragenyx investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ultragenyx shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Ultragenyx class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Illinois the BIPA class suit. In December 2019, the Company received a putative class action complaint under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, alleging violation due to the use of a finger scan system developed and managed by third parties. While it believes that it has strong defenses to the claims made in the complaint and will vigorously defend itself, there is no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome. The outcome of this litigation is inherently uncertain, and it cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter. Union Pacific is a freight-hauling railroad that operates 8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west of Chicago and New Orleans. UNIQURE NV: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against uniQure N.V. (NASDAQ: QURE) ("uniQure" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired uniQure ordinary shares between September 24, 2025, and October 31, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Scocco v. uniQure N.V., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01124, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired uniQure ordinary shares during the Class Period may, no later than April 13, 2026, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class. CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): If you experienced losses in connection with uniQure, contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP at: https://www.ktmc.com/qure-uniqure-nv-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR_Newswire&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_campaign=qure&mktm=PR You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. UNIQURE N.V. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT COMPLAINT ALLEGEGATIONS uniQure is a biotechnology company developing gene therapies for rare diseases, including Huntington's disease ("HD"). uniQure is incorporated in The Netherlands with its principal executive offices in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The Company's leading drug candidate is AMT-130, a novel gene therapy being developed to slow the progression of HD, a usually fatal, inherited genetic disorder that causes nerve cells in the brain to break down, leading to problems with movement and thinking, as well as psychiatric issues. There is no existing cure or approved means for slowing the progression of the disease. Some drugs can address certain HD symptoms, but do not halt its progression to a usually fatal outcome. AMT-130 is one of a very few drugs in testing intended to slow the progression of HD. In March 2022, uniQure completed patient enrollment for two, ongoing multi-center, dose-escalating Phase I/II clinical trials for AMT-130 called the Pivotal Phase I/II Study of AMT-130 in patients with HD (the "Pivotal Study"). According to the Defendants, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") previously agreed that uniQure's Pivotal Study would not include any placebo comparator, but instead, the Pivotal Study results could be compared to an external historical data set, known as Enroll-HD or ENROLL-HD, and the analysis derived from such comparison potentially could serve as the basis for uniQure's Biologics License Application ("BLA") submission to the FDA for approval to use AMT-130 to treat patients with HD. Indeed, Defendant Matthew Kapusta, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, assured investors of the Company's alignment with the FDA during calls with investors on June 2, 2025, and July 29, 2025. The Class Period begins on September 24, 2025, when the Company announced topline results of the Pivotal Study. Notably, the Company emphasized that AMT-130 saw a "mean reduction from baseline in cerebrospinal neurofilament light protein" ("CSF NfL")—which uniQure asserted was "a well-characterized, supportive biomarker of neurodegeneration." Accordingly, uniQure explained that "[e]levation in CSF NfL has been shown to be strongly associated with greater clinical severity of [HD]." Thus, based on the totality of the results and as compared to data from ENROLL-HD, investors were led to believe that AMT-130 was effective in slowing the neurodegeneration in patients with HD and that uniQure would file for accelerated approval of a BLA for AMT-130 in the near-term. During the related investor conference held that same day, Defendant Kapusta touted the study results and asserted that "we believe these findings provide compelling and clinically meaningful evidence of AMT-130 disease modifying potential." Additionally, Defendant Walid Abi-Saab, the Company's Chief Medical Officer, reminded investors that uniQure previously discussed the trial design with the FDA and that the FDA agreed that "cUHDRS could serve as an acceptable registrational, intermediate clinical endpoint for accelerated approval." Moreover, he stated that "[t]he FDA also agreed that ENROLL-HD . . . may be acceptable as the external control dataset for the primary analysis, with each dose matched the corresponding controls based on their baseline characteristics." Thus, investors were led to believe that there was a high likelihood that AMT-130 would receive accelerated approval from the FDA after the Company's planned BLA submission in the first quarter of 2026. The market acted accordingly and, in response to Defendants' statements, the price of the Company's ordinary shares jumped from a close of $13.66 per share on September 23, 2025, to close at $47.50 per share on September 24, 2025, a nearly 250% increase. By October 29, 2025, uniQure ordinary shares were trading above $70.00 per share. Capitalizing on the substantial increase in the value of uniQure ordinary shares, the Company publicly offered more than 5.7 million uniQure ordinary shares, and more than 500,000 pre-funded warrants to purchase ordinary shares, over the next several days after the release of the Pivotal Study results (the "September 2025 Offering"). Despite the fact that AMT-130's future remained uncertain pending uniQure's discussion of the Pivotal Study results with the FDA, in the prospectus supplement to the September 2025 Offering, uniQure explained that it was engaging in the September 2025 Offering in order to "fund our commercialization readiness activities" and "the potential commercial launch of AMT-130 and related commercialization activities." Through the September 2025 Offering, uniQure generated approximately $345 million in proceeds (before expenses). Investors learned the truth about the Company's prospects and the BLA timeline for AMT-130 on November 3, 2025, when uniQure revealed that "the FDA currently no longer agrees that the data from the Phase I/II studies of AMT-130 in comparison to an external control, as per the prespecified protocols and statistical analysis plans shared with the FDA in advance of the analyses, may be adequate to provide the primary evidence in support of a BLA submission." Although the Company "plan[ned] to urgently interact with the FDA to find a path forward for the timely accelerated approval of AMT-130," uniQure admitted that "the timing of the BLA submission for AMT-130 is now unclear." On this news, the price of uniQure ordinary shares plummeted $33.40 per share, or more than 49%, from a close of $67.69 per share on October 31, 2025, to close at $34.29 per share on November 3, 2025. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the design of uniQure's Pivotal Study—including comparison of the Pivotal Study results to the ENROLL-HD external historical data set—was not fully approved by the FDA; (2) Defendants downplayed the likelihood that, despite purportedly highly successful results from the Pivotal Study, uniQure would have to delay its BLA timeline to perform additional studies to supplement its BLA submission; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR UNIQURE INVESTORS: uniQure investors may, no later than April 13, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages uniQure investors to contact the firm directly for more information about the lawsuit. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 info@ktmc.com [GN] UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Over Immigration Raid in Wilder, Id. ------------------------------------------------------------- CBS2 reports that The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a class action lawsuit against the Federal, State, and local police who were involved in an immigration raid in Wilder. On October 19, 2025, the FBI led a raid on a privately owned horse racing track in Wilder as part of what they say was an investigation into illegal gambling. More than 200 officers from at least 14 agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, participated in the raid, detaining around 400 people for hours, including many U.S. citizens. Witnesses described aggressive tactics, including zip-tying children or separating young kids from their parents for an hour or more. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency oversees Border Patrol and ICE, denied that children were zip-tied. FBI spokesperson Sandra Barker initially said no restraints or rubber bullets were used on children, but later amended that statement, replacing "children" with "young children." The raid resulted in only a handful of gambling-related arrests, while 105 people were arrested on suspicion of immigration violations. Many of them signed voluntary agreements to leave the country before they were able to talk to immigration lawyers, said Nikki Ramirez-Smith, an immigration attorney. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled back in late November that keeping the migrants jailed without bond violated their due process rights, and he ordered that they be released while they wait for their immigration cases to be resolved. The ACLU and ACLU of Idaho filed the class action lawsuit Tuesday, February 10, challenging the raid for what they say is the Trump administration and ICE's willingness to "disregard fundamental rights if it gets them immigration arrests." The ACLU says in a press release about the lawsuit that this is the first "major challenge in the second Trump administration to ICE tactics that discriminate based on ethnicity." [GN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Petition for Relief Order in Morales Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA BONDI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Petitioner's Section 2241 petition for relief in the lawsuit entitled Evangelina Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Pamela Bondi, et al., Respondents, Case No. 1:25-cv-01472, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Petitioner initiated this action on November 17, 2025, by filing a counseled combined petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Petitioner is a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee currently detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan. She challenges the lawfulness of her current detention and asks the Court for relief. On Dec. 9, 2025, Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an Order conditionally granting the Petitioner's Section 2241 petition for relief. The appellate case is entitled Evangelina Morales v. Pamela Bondi, et al., Case No. 26-1149, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on February 12, 2026. [BN] Petitioner-Appellee EVANGELINA MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Sr., Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP 600 28th Street, S.W. Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 Respondents-Appellants PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al. are represented by: Carolyn A. Almassian, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 456-2404 VANGUARD MARKETING: Judge OKs Motion to Dismiss $100 Exit Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dinah Wisenberg Brin, writing for ThinkAdvisor, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit challenging Vanguard's $100 fee for transferring brokerage accounts to other investment firms but left the door open for a follow-up complaint. Sean Errol Quinn filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, alleging breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment under Vanguard's brokerage agreement, as well as business law and consumer protection violations under New York and Washington state laws, respectively. Quinn alleged in his original complaint that Vanguard's fee, implemented in 2024 after the firm notified clients of the change, is an "unlawful, fraudulent and unfair assessment." He contended in an amended version that Vanguard over the years "promised consumers who entered into a brokerage contract with it the promise of rock bottom fees, causing consumers to choose Vanguard over a myriad of other financial investment companies. If consumers no longer wished to use Vanguard, they could always transfer their investment funds to another provider, free of penalty." Then the company unilaterally imposed the exit fee for accounts under $5 million in assets, his complaint notes. U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott, in a memorandum last week, granted Vanguard's motion to dismiss the case but did so without prejudice, giving Quinn a chance to amend the complaint and resubmit it. The judge found that Quinn, who paid the $100 fee when he closed his Vanguard account, didn't state claims for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing violations, for deception or for unjust enrichment. The judge's order gives Quinn until March 3 to file a second amended complaint that cures the defects cited in the memorandum. A Vanguard spokesperson and an attorney for Quinn didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment Tuesday, February 10. [GN] VERY GREAT BRANDS: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Very Great Brands LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01287 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://wildone.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase harnesses, leashes, collars, carriers, toys, and treats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law VIDAXL LLC: Echols Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIDAXL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01559 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.vidaxl.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: changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Vidaxl LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law WALGREEN CO: Toney-Joseph Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case MARSHON TONEY-JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01492312-CU-OECXC, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Orange County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00331 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to permit compliant meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages due, failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure to timely pay employees, failure to reimburse for required business expenses, failure to pay overtime wages due, unfair business practices, and civil penalties. Walgreen Co. is an American pharmacy store chain, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Austin J. Freeman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com austin.freeman@ogletree.com WES-T-GO FUELS: Faces Romero Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER SILVA ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WES-T-GO FUELS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00853-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life, says the suit. Wes-T-Go Fuels, Inc. is a logistics company, with its headquarters in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WYANDOTTE, KS: Sues Fire Truck Makers Over Alleged Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Boring, writing for KCTV5, reports that The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas (UG), has filed a federal class action lawsuit alleging the nation's largest fire truck manufacturers conspired to fix prices and restrict production in a scheme that has driven fire apparatus costs from $500,000 to more than $1 million while creating dangerous delays for fire departments nationwide. The case was filed on Thursday, Jan. 29, in the United States District of Kansas. The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and KCK is suing: -- REV Group, Inc. -- Oshkosh Corporation -- Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. -- Rosenbauer America, LLC -- Rosenbauer Minnesota, LLC -- Rosenbauer South Dakota, LLC In the 100-page suit, the UG accuses REV Group, Inc. of purchasing independent makers of Fire Apparatus over the past decade and states the group is doing it to reduce competition. The lawsuit alleges REV Group's acquisition of Spartan forced independent manufacturers to rely on REV Group for critical components needed to build fire trucks. Backlogs believed to be a strategy Court documents state that delivery times for the fire trucks have changed from seven to 12 months before the consolidation to more than four years in some cases. The lawsuit claims defendants implemented "floating price" clauses allowing them to increase costs after orders are placed, with some departments facing surcharges of nearly $150,000. Aging fleets The lawsuit documents how the alleged conspiracy has forced fire departments to operate trucks well beyond their recommended retirement age. The Kansas City, Kansas, Fire Department was without five of its 15 pumper trucks in summer 2023 that needed significant repairs and faced delays in getting parts. During the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, documents state that dozens of fire trucks sat idle due to age and lack of repair parts. Fire Chief Dennis Rubin of Kansas City, Kansas, testified before Congress in September 2025 about an "epic fire apparatus crisis" having a "serious negative impact on the health, safety, welfare, and security of our firefighters, on our community, and on most communities in America." Seeking damages The class action suit is seeking damages under federal antitrust laws and violations of antitrust and consumer protection statutes across multiple states. The UG estimates fire truck purchasers have spent around $19.8 billion more than expected based on inflation alone since 2018. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief to restore competition in the fire apparatus market and prevent further anticompetitive conduct. The manufacturers have not filed a response in court. KCTV5 Investigates reached out to all parties regarding this case and is waiting to hear back from several of them. The Unified Government's legal counsel shared this statement: "As the UG's complaint alleges, the defendant fire apparatus manufacturers (REV Group, Pierce, and Rosenbauer) used serial acquisitions and collusive arrangements to eliminate competition and consolidate power over this critical industry—and then deployed that power to cash in: greatly increasing the price of fire apparatus, delaying order deliveries for years on end, and fueling a crisis of preparedness at fire departments around the country. The UG's fire department has been sounding the alarm about this crisis since August of last year, when Chief Rubin testified at a bipartisan Congressional hearing about the enormous cost increases and serious equipment shortages his Department has suffered as a result of the Defendants' consolidation and abuse of economic power. Through this antitrust class action, the UG aims to force the defendants to return their ill-gotten profits to the communities they harmed, require Defendants to stop throttling fire apparatus production and cure the severe production backlogs they have created, and restore free enterprise and fair competition to this critical industry." -- Basel J. Musharbash [GN] Z5X GLOBAL: Intentionally Discloses Personal Info, Shahbaz Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RABIA SHAHBAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Z5X GLOBAL FZ-LLC and ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00372-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendants' violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The complaint relates that the Defendants develop, own, and operate a mobile application, Zee5 and a website, Zee5.com (the App and Website collectively, the "Zee5 Video Service"). As Defendants describe it, the Zee5 Video Service is "the world's largest streaming platform for South Asian stories" with "over 4000+ movies, 316+ originals, 2300+ TV shows, & more," as well as a "vast content library of Hindi movies, Tamil movies, Telugu movies, and more". Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, however, Zee knowingly and intentionally discloses Zee5 Video Service users' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video viewed by the user--to unrelated third parties. In November, 2024, Plaintiff Rabia Shahbaz downloaded the Zee5 App on her Apple iOS cellphone. When Plaintiff downloaded the Zee5 App, she initially created a premium (paid) App account. In or around 2025, Plaintiff changed her subscription to a free account. Plaintiff took full advantage of the paid benefits that came with her premium account subscription during the time she had her premium account. By signing up and paying for a premium Zee5 account, Plaintiff obtained access to exclusive pre-recorded video content that non-subscribers could not access. Each time Plaintiff viewed a video using the Zee5 iOS App, Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's PII to CleverTap via the CleverTap API. Specifically, Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's full name, e-mail address, gender, age, User ID, Appsflyer ID, IDFA, and video-viewing information, including the full names of videos watched by Plaintiff and the unique video IDs for those videos. Using this information, CleverTap was able to identify Plaintiff and attribute her video-viewing records to an individualized profile of Plaintiff in its database. Indeed, even an ordinary person could identify Plaintiff using the data Defendants disclosed to CleverTap. Plaintiff's PII was also used to create a user profile that included Plaintiff's activity on the App, which Defendants used for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes, says the suit. On behalf of herself and the Website Class, Plaintiff seeks: (i) declaratory relief; (ii) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Website Class by requiring Defendants to comply with VPPA's requirements for protecting a consumer's PII; (iii) statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation of the VPPA; and (iv) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other litigation expenses. Plaintiff Rabia Shahbaz is a resident of Sacramento, California. Defendants Z5X Global-FZ LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Zee Entertainment. Z5X owns the Zee5 app, Zee5.com. Defendant Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited owns Defendant Z5X and is responsible for uploading the Zee5 App onto the Google Play and Apple App stores to make the app accessible to users in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Joshua R. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jglatt@bursor.com Z5X GLOBAL: Shahbaz Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------ RABIA SHAHBAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Z5X GLOBAL FZ-LLC and ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-at-00237 (E.D. Cal., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendants' violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The complaint relates that the Defendants develop, own, and operate a mobile application, Zee5 and a website, Zee5.com (the App and Website collectively, the "Zee5 Video Service"). As Defendants describe it, the Zee5 Video Service is "the world's largest streaming platform for South Asian stories" with "over 4000+ movies, 316+ originals, 2300+ TV shows, & more," as well as a "vast content library of Hindi movies, Tamil movies, Telugu movies, and more". Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, however, Zee knowingly and intentionally discloses Zee5 Video Service users' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video viewed by the user--to unrelated third parties. Further research by Plaintiff's counsel uncovered evidence that when a user signs up for a premium Zee5 account and watches a video on the Website, Defendants disclose personally identifying information to Mixpanel and Meta (collectively with AppsFlyer, CleverTap, and Conviva, the "Third Parties"), via the Mixpanel API and the Meta Tracking Pixel. The information that Defendants disclose to Mixpanel and Meta allow even an ordinary person to identify which specific Class members watched which specific videos, such as a user's e-mail address, Meta ID, last name, phone number, a watched video's title, and a watched video's unique video ID, title, and Universal Resource Locator. On behalf of herself and the Website Class, Plaintiff seeks: (i) declaratory relief; (ii) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Website Class by requiring Defendants to comply with VPPA's requirements for protecting a consumer's PII; (iii) statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation of the VPPA; and (iv) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other litigation expenses. Plaintiff Rabia Shahbaz is a resident of Sacramento, California. Defendants Z5X Global-FZ LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Zee Entertainment. Z5X owns the Zee5 app, Zee5.com. Defendant Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited owns Defendant Z5X and is responsible for uploading the Zee5 App onto the Google Play and Apple App stores to make the app accessible to users in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Joshua R. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jglatt@bursor.com [] Beasley Allen Experts Discuss Class Action, Mass Tort Trends --------------------------------------------------------------- Part 1 of Exclusive: Firm's top experts share insights on industry's continued growth and evolution Christopher Patalinghug The class action and mass tort industry stands poised for continued expansion and evolution in 2026 and beyond, litigation experts at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles tell Class Action Updates. The proliferation of artificial intelligence tools and biometric technologies in everyday consumer life is expected to fuel a surge in class actions, particularly under state statutes such as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), according to Paul Evans, a Principal at Beasley Allen. Mr. Evans, who specializes in class actions, commercial litigation, and bad-faith insurance cases, expects more investor class actions concerning crypto platforms and other securities given the increased number of cryptocurrencies and SEC enforcement actions. A full-text copy of the article is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/beasley-allen-experts-discuss-class from Class Action Updates. Also check out "Outlook for 2026 and Beyond, Insights from Duane Morris Partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley," a full-text copy of which is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/class-action-and-mass-tort-litigation [] IBA Committee Names Wongsawangsiri as Publications Head ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline So, writing for Canadian Lawyer Mag, reports that the International Bar Association's class actions committee has named Warathorn Wongsawangsiri, Bangkok managing partner at global firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, as its publications officer for the 2026-2027 term. Wongsawangsiri is the sole Thailand-based representative on the committee. In a statement, he described the appointment as a "privilege" that would enable him to help strengthen "global understanding of class action laws and procedures." Moreover, he has handled matters involving administrative law, bankruptcy and rehabilitation, corporate and commercial, corporate governance, director liability, corporate investigations, compliance, concessions, and product liability. He has operated across the aviation, banks and financial institutions, construction and engineering, concessions, consumer, energy, government and public sector, healthcare, hospitality and real estate, insurance, transportation and logistics, and TMT industries. Wongsawangsiri is a facilitator at the Thai Institute of Directors. He has also been appointed as sole and co-arbitrator by the SIAC, THAC, TAI, and YSIAC. The IBA class actions committee is co-chaired by Machado Meyer Advogados' Glaucia Coelho (Brazil) and Legance's Daria Pastore (Italy). Innsworth Advisors Limited's Amel Fenghour (London) is vice chair. The other officers are as follows: -- Porfírio Moreira - secretary, Sousa Ferro & Associados (Portugal) -- Rodrigo Zamora - treasurer, Galicia Abogados (Mexico) -- Joy Tan - diversity and inclusion officer, WongPartnership (Singapore) -- Kent Jeffrey Schmidt - newsletter editor, Dorsey & Whitney LLP (US) -- Albert Knigge - website officer, HOUTHOFF (Netherlands) -- Alexander Spoor - membership officer, Richard Spoor Incorporated (South Africa) -- James Williams - membership officer, Henderson Chambers (London) -- Maria Jose Azar-Baud - conference officer, Maria José Azar-Baud (Paris) -- Patricia Brum - jurisdiction coordinator, Snell & Wilmer LLP (US) -- Ira Nishisato - LPD council liaison officer, Borden Ladner Gervais (Toronto) -- Amir Singh Pasrich - LPD council liaison officer, International Law Affiliates (New Delhi) The IBA class actions committee is a platform through which lawyers can discuss class action and collective redress regimes, track global developments, and examine significant policy and rule of law concerns. He leads HSF Kramer's Bangkok disputes practice and has been a litigator for over 20 years. He has tackled complex commercial, administrative, construction and class action disputes. Wongsawangsiri's clients include major corporations and conglomerates. He has advised on Thai court litigation, domestic and international arbitration, and mediation.[GN] [] Proximity Ties Up With FRT for Class Action Services ------------------------------------------------------- Zarah Choudhary, writing for Asset Servicing Times, reports that Proxymity, a digital investor communications platform, has collaborated with Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT), a global provider of class action monitoring and recovery services. The firm aims to offer institutional and individual investors broader access and the ability to participate in class action opportunities. According to the firm, through this collaboration, Proxymity's platform will support the delivery of timely, transparent information regarding class action opportunities, while FRT will contribute its expertise in monitoring opportunities, filing claims, and managing the full recovery lifecycle. Together, the firms aim to simplify processes, increase awareness, and enable investors to participate in class actions, ensuring they do not miss potential recoveries. Dean Little, CEO and co-founder at Proxymity, says: "This collaboration strengthens our mission to modernise investor communications and make critical information more accessible. "FRT is a renowned global leader in class action services, and by working together, we can help investors receive clearer insights and more efficient access to these services." Rob Adler, CEO at FRT, adds: "Collaborating with Proxymity allows us to deliver class action insights through a trusted, digital-first channel that is quickly being adopted across the global investor ecosystem. "Together, we are focused on simplifying complex processes, enhancing transparency, and supporting investors' decision-making when it comes to class action recovery opportunities." [GN] [^] Emerging Firms in Class Action & Mass Tort Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Updates highlights select law firms specializing in class actions, mass tort litigation, multidistrict litigation (MDL), or complex litigation that were founded, established, or first licensed since late 2020: Johnson van Kwawegen LLP (New York, NY; Wilmington, DE; Los Angeles, CA) Lee Segui PLLC (Raleigh, NC; Charleston, SC) LHP Law Group, PLLC (Phoenix, AZ) The Meadow Law Firm LLC (Phoenix, AZ) Procel Levine LLP (Santa Monica, CA) Saddle Rock Legal Group, LLC (Scottsdale, AZ) Shine Lawyers US, LLC (Tempe, AZ) Full report available here: https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/emerging-firms-in-class-action-and (subscription required). ********* 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 ***