260224.mbx

260224.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 24, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 39 Headlines 46 & 7 INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ADVANCED AMERICAN: Burns Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Class Cert Opposition Extended to March 6 ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Morris Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ALTMAN MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in De Guzman Due April 7 ALTRIA GROUP: Reece Wins Bid for Class Certification AMBI ENTERPRISES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMERICAN EXPRESS: Must File Class Cert Response in Duke Suit ANDERSON HEALTHCARE: Miller-Krausz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages APPLE INC: Hughes Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 13 ASSET REALTY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Kovanen Suit by May 1 ATLANTIC UNION: Ray Bid to Seal Certain Exhibit Tossed AZAZIE INC: Kramer Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BATESVILLE, IN: King Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana BC MEDICAL GROUP: Jones Sues Over General Corporation Law Breach BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BEIS LLC: Mott Suit Removed to E.D. Washington BEN DEN MANAGEMENT: McKinney Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages BIL-JAX INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BLOCKRATIZE INC: Yoon Sues Over Unlawful Sports Gambling Platform BLOOMWORKS WELLNESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Matthews" FLSA Suit BOOT BARN HOLDINGS: Donahue Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BPS SUPPLY GROUP: Miller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Neely Files Suit in S.D. California CALIFORNIA FINE: Nguyen Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Summary Judgment Bid Extended to June 12 CFD INVESTMENTS: James Sues Over Unprotected Private Information CHARLES STARK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Steer" ERISA Suit CHELSEA SENIOR LIVING: Davila Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CHROME DEPOSIT: Horton Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations CI SQUARED: Spikes Sues Over Failure to Provide Proper OT Pay CRESCENT HOTELS: Mata Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. DEMANDBASE INC: Strull Files Personal Injury Suit in Cal. Super. DREAM GAMES TEKNOLOGI: Vollmuth Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington EDEN BRANDS: Esparza Balks at Automatic Subscription Renewal ELIJAH SCHAFFER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilkins Suit Due April 2 ENTREPRENEUR ENTERPRISES: Standing Order in Patagonia Entered ESTEE LAUDER: Bid to Extend Time To Complete Discovery Granted FORD MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority GENTRY MOUNTAIN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Thomas" FLSA Suit GHOST MANAGEMENT: Standing Order Entered in Sanchez Class Suit GILT GROUPE LP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY: Figueroa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Parties Seek to Modify Case Schedule GRAND ASTORIA: Faces Lastor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. GREAT INTERNATIONAL: Combel Bid to Toss Class Action Claims Nixed GREEN 70: Scheduling Order Entered in Ruiz Class Action GRIP6 INC: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users GROUP SOLAR: $415K Settlement in "Lojewski" Has Final OK GRUBBS INFINITI AUTOMOTIVE: Smith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas GUARDIAN IMPACT: Rodriguez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Gifford Files Suit in S.D. Texas HANNA ANDERSSON LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HARPER WILDE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Murray Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HEATHER HILL: MCPA Claims Dismissed in Hall Class Action HUNTER WARFIELD: Wins Summary Judgment v. Blizzard ICONIX BRAND GROUP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INTEGRATED TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Alleges INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Class Scheduling Order J.H. BAXTER: Agrees to Settle Eugene Pollution Suit for $200,000 JOCKO FUEL: Fails to Disclose Lead Content in Products, Suit Says KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION: Smith FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Wyoming KRAUS USA PLUMBING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KS LARGE BORE: Lesjack Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation L J ROSS: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Fla. LACOSTE USA INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LOPER'S EQUIPMENT: Johnson and Johnson Sue Over Labor Law Breaches LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 13 LPC SURVIVAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 9 LUDIVINE MADISON: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Barron Seeks More Time to File Reply MID AMERICA: Class Settlement in Fillardi Suit Gets Final Nod MR. COOPER: Cabezas Seeks to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order MTL FOODS: Elliott Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages NARDINI INTERNATIONAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property NEW ERA CAP: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEWREST HOLDING: Court OKs $2.1MM Settlement in Migrant Worker Suit NIKE INC: Cahill Seeka Leave to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid NIRVANA ENTERPRISES: Faces Mason Suit Over FLSA Breach NOVO NORDISK: Levi & Korsinsky Named Lead Counsel in "Barta" OLAY INC: Dasilvio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio OMAHASTEAKS.COM LLC: Faces Nelson Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 30 PAMELA BONDI: Almeida Files Suit in D. Utah PAYCOR INC: Court Partly Alters Class Definition in "Barrow" R&R EXPRESS: Eastman Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice RELIAS LLC: "Kieliszewski" Suit Junked for Lack of Jurisdiction SAMUEL OLSON: Salmeron Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus OK'd SARAYA USA: Kinman Suit Removed to D. Utah SEMTECH CORPORATION: Kleovoulos Seeks to Rule 23 Certify Class SHELL CHEMICAL: Parties Seeks to Extend Scheduling Order SHELL TRADING: LHB Ventures Balks at Unpaid Oil, Gas Royalties SIG SAUER: Carter Suit Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duties SOLAREDGE TECH: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply SOUTH CENTRAL: Avila-Soto Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ST. LOUIS, MO: $4MM Class Settlement Gets Court Preliminary Nod STENY'S INC: Witman Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: More Time to File Reply Brief Sought TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification TC HEARTLAND: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Docs TOMMY BAHAMA: Bid for Class Certification in Haley Due Oct. 22 TRACFONE WIRELESS: Class Settlement in Barcomb Gets Final Nod TRI COUNTIES: Agrees to Settle 2023 Cyberattack Suit for $1.185MM TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert. Deadline Suspended in Gerena Suit UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES: Martucci Sues Over Defective Fire Alarms UNILEVER UNITED: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to July 15 UNITED PARKS: Eastman Seeks Leave to File Unredacted Class Cert. UNITED PARKS: Eastman Suit Seeks Class Certification VALENTINA NIKITYUK: Jimenez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon Sues Over False Ads, Illegal Drip Pricing VIKING ENTERPRISES: Cisneros Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hendrickson Seeks to Certify Class Action WASHINGTON FINE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Branson Due May 4 WEALTHPLAN TRADING: Buriek Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls WILLIAMS TANK LINES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks Leave to File Clas Cert Under Seal WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Suit Seeks Class Certification WORLD BOXING: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Habazin Suit WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Parties in Uribe Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines YI STAR LLC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Mou Says [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ********* 46 & 7 INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. 46 & 7 INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-20960-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 32 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial plaza to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial plaza. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial plaza has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. 46 & 7 INC., owned and operated a commercial Plaza located in Miami, Florida 33126 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com ADVANCED AMERICAN: Burns Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Advanced American Management Inc. The case is captioned Kaitlin Burns, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Advanced American Management Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000558 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., January 22, 2026). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violation. Judge Barbara Kronlund presides over the case. A case management conference is scheduled for July 21, 2026 before Judge Kronlund. Advanced American Management Inc. is a California-based healthcare organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue Of the Stars, Ste 920 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6011 Telephone: (818) 456-6168 E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Class Cert Opposition Extended to March 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucas Rougeau, et al., v. Ahlstrom Rhinelander, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00546 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Aug. 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines to disclose experts on class certification: The Defendants' disclosure of experts in opposition to class certification due March 6,2026. Rebuttal experts on class certification due April 13. All other deadlines remain in place. The nature of suit states Diversity-Torts to Land. Ahlstrom is a major manufacturer of fiber-based specialty materials.[CC] ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Morris Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------- JASHAR MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00147 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 10, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Allied Universal Compliance and Investigations, Inc. is a specialized division of Allied Universal, a global security and facility services company. The division focuses on insurance claim investigation, risk mitigation, and regulatory compliance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1600 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 533-4616 Email: dsmith@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com ALTMAN MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in De Guzman Due April 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHRYSTA DE GUZMAN, v. ALTMAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07280-KMW-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Pascal entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Pretrial factual discovery will expire on June 29, 2026. -- All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the Plaintiff shall be served upon counsel for the Defendants no later than June 29, 2026. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of Defendants shall be served upon counsel for the Plaintiff no later than Aug. 31, 2026. -- Class certification motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than April 7, 2026. -- Dispositive motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than Sept. 29, 2026. -- The status conference scheduled for February 19, 2026, is adjourned. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on March 26, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Altman is in the real estate industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=66xAvC at no extra charge.[CC] ALTRIA GROUP: Reece Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order on motions for class certification: The following class is certified: "All natural persons and entities in the United States that purchased e cigarette products directly from the Defendant Juul Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, from Oct. 5, 2018 to the present (the "Class Period")." The DPP named plaintiffs' claims are typical of all class members, they are adequate to represent any wholesalers or retailers who do not opt out, and DPP Black has no conflicts that would preclude him for challenging JLI's assertion of forum-selection clauses or arbitration agreements on behalf of absent class members. The defendants' motions to exclude DPP experts Leger, Perry, and Singh are denied. The motion to strike as to Hoelle is denied. Hoelle's testimony may only be provided as 28 rebuttal to Murphy, absent agreement by the parties. Hoelle should also be produced for a supplemental two hour deposition and Murphy may prepare a supplemental report, responding to Hoelle's supplemental opinions. The DPPs’ motion to exclude Murphy is denied. The motion as to Dobbins is granted in limited part. Dobbins may not testify as to the "reasonableness" of Altria's exit, but the boundaries of his testimony can be revisited on a motion in limine. The motion as to Henningfield is granted in limited part. Henningfield may not opine on issues of economics or market share for which he is not qualified. The boundaries of his testimony can be revisited on a motion in limine. The motion as to Garza is granted subject to reconsideration at trial. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: granted in part. The following Indirect Purchase Plaintiffs (IPP) classes are certified with identified class representatives: Cartwright Act Class (All Plaintiffs): All persons or entities in the Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin who purchased JUUL pods, excluding devices or JUUL kits containing devices (JUUL Pods), indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale, from October 25, 2018 through March 29, 2024 (the "Class Period"). California Class (Daraka Larimore and Adam Matschullat): All persons or entities in the State of California that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period. Florida Class (Allison Harrod): All persons or entities in the State of Florida that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period. Hawaii Class (Michael Imai): All persons or entities in the State of Hawaii that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period. Massachusetts Class (Kerry Walsh): All persons or entities in the State of Massachusetts that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period. New York Class (Dylan Pang): All persons or entities in the State of New York that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period. Rhode Island Class (Kurt Doughty): All persons or entities in the State of Rhode Island that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period. The following Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs (IRPs) classes are certified with identified class representatives: Multistate Cartwright Act Class (Napht, Rose and Fifth, and Sofijon): A class, pursuing claims under the Cartwright Act, Sections 16700-16770 of the California Business and Professions Code ("The Cartwright Act("), defined as: All businesses and entities in the States of Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from December 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025 (the "Class Period"). California State Class (Napht, Rose and Fifth, and Sofijon). A class, pursuing claims under the Cartwright Act, Section 16700-16770 of the California Business and Professions Code, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et. seq. defined as: All businesses and entities in the State of California that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from December 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025. Florida State Class (Noor Baig). A class, pursuing claims under the Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade practices Act, Florida Stat. Sections 501.201 et seq. (the FDUTPA), defined as: All businesses and entities in the State of Florida that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from December 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025. Michigan State Class (Somerset Party Store). A class, pursuing claims under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 445.771 et seq., defined as: All businesses and entities in the State of Michigan that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from Dec. 1, 2018, through March 31, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CyUFG9 at no extra charge.[CC] AMBI ENTERPRISES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMBI ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01110 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and service. Moreover, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Headquartered in Rockville, MD, Ambi Enterprises LLC owns and operates the commercial website www.ambi.com, which sells skincare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Must File Class Cert Response in Duke Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duke v. American Express Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125 (D. Ariz., Filed March 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order allowing the Defendant for an additional ten pages to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). American Express is a global financial services corporation.[CC] ANDERSON HEALTHCARE: Miller-Krausz Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Miller-Krausz and Kathryn Hodges, individually and for others similarly situated v. ANDERSON HEALTHCARE, Case No. 3:26-cv-00153 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, The Defendant deducts 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiffs' and its other Hourly Employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break (The Defendant's "auto-deduct policy"). Thus, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees for that time. But the Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant requires them to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and regularly subjects them to work interruptions during unpaid "meal breaks." The Defendant's auto-deduct policy, rounding policy, and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA and IMWL by depriving the Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for overtime hours worked. The Defendant's auto-deduct policy and rounding policy violate the IWPCA by depriving the Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages, at their agreed hourly rates, for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a part-time registered nurse (PRN) from April 2018 until July 2022 in Staunton and Maryville, Illinois. Anderson touts itself as "a regional healthcare network that provides more coordinated care with broader geographic coverage for our patients."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com APPLE INC: Hughes Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HUGHES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting considering whether material quoting, referring to, or describing material designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" by the Defendant Apple, Inc. should be filed under seal. Specifically, the Defendant has designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" certain materials that the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 to the Declaration of David Slade in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion quote, refer to, or describe as follows: Document Name Portion to Consider Sealing Slade Decl. Ex. 9 Entire Document Slade Decl. Ex. 10 Entire Document Slade Decl. Ex. 11 Entire Document Slade Decl. Ex. 12 Entire Document Slade Decl. Ex. 13 Entire Document Reply in Support of Motion for Highlighted Sections on Class Certification pages 1, 6, 7, 9, and 18 The Plaintiffs have challenged the designation of three pages of Exhibits 11 and 14, and Defendant's Motion to Retain Confidentiality of Certain Produced Documents is pending. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oM9o1t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. David Slade, Esq. Lucy L. Holifield, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 2450 Colorado Ave., Suite 100E, Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (310) 667-7273 Facsimile: (424) 276-0473 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com slade@waykayslay.com lholifield@waykayslay.com - and - Mark A. Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 2450 Colorado Ave., Ste. 100E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: mmilstein@mjfwlaw.com - and - Brandon Haubert, Esq. Jessica Hall, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 Facsimile: (501) 222-3027 E-mail: brandon@wh.law jessica@wh.law ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 13 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED ASHOUR, JOY BROWN, and CRYSTAL TOWNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., BEVERAGE MARKETING USA, INC., ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS LLC, and ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS 2 LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-07081-AT-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered an order granting the Defendants' request, on consent, for an additional 10-day extension of deadline for opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants request that the Court consider extending briefing dates an additional 10 days given that the Assistant General Counsel for the Defendants will be observing the Passover Holiday during days between April 1 and April 9, will be away on a preplanned trip out of the country until April 12 and the April 13 deadline falls on Good Friday. IN the event the Court grants this application, the schedule would be as follows: Event Deadline The Defendants' deadline to oppose class Apr. 13, 2026 certification, depose class certification experts and file Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' deadline to submit a June 15, 2026 reply to the opposition to their motion for class certification, submit reply expert reports, depose the Defendants' experts, respond to Daubert motions and file any affirmative Daubert motions: The Defendants' deadline to reply to July 24, 2026 opposition to Daubert motions and to oppose Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' deadline to reply to Aug. 24, 2026 opposition to Daubert motions: Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NYg7N8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Robert P. Donovan, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: (201) 857-6760 Facsimile: (610) 371-7938 E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com ASSET REALTY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Kovanen Suit by May 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID J. KOVANEN, v. ASSET REALTY, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05078-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order setting jury trial date and related dates: JURY TRIAL SET FOR 9:00 a.m. on: July 6, 2027 Deadline for joining additional parties: March 5, 2026 Deadline for the Defendants to file May 1, 2026 response/opposition to pending motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 15, 2026 reply in support of motion for class certification: Noting date for the Plaintiff's class May 15, 2026 certification motion: Discovery completed by: Feb. 6, 2027 All motions in limine must be filed by: May 31, 2027 Asset is a real estate and property management firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jihb7g at no extra charge.[CC] ATLANTIC UNION: Ray Bid to Seal Certain Exhibit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John Gibney, Jr. entered an order on motion to seal a class certification motion exhibit and redacted portions of memorandum. Ray seeks to seal Exhibit 10 of his class certification motion, which contains financial information belonging to the defendant, Atlantic Union Bank. He also wishes to redact the portions of his memorandum referring to Exhibit 10. Courts disfavor sealing litigation materials. Upon due consideration and in light of the parties' agreement as to the non-sensitive nature of the materials, the Court denies the motion. Ray so moves because the Bank designated Exhibit 10 as confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. Nevertheless, Ray notes that he "disagrees with the designation." In its response to the motion, the Bank states that it "no longer considers the information" in Exhibit 10 "to be commercially sensitive." The Court directs the Clerk to unseal the unredacted memorandum, and the accompanying exhibit. The Defendant offers personal and business banking, loans, mortgages, and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LIJ3Lb at no extra charge.[CC] AZAZIE INC: Kramer Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- BETH KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZAZIE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01115 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.azazie.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Azazie, Inc. offers formalwear, prom and homecoming dresses, women’s suits, accessories, and related apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BATESVILLE, IN: King Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacob Michael King, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown v. CITY OF BATESVILLE, INDIANA, acting by and through its Fire Department (Batesville Fire & EMS), Case No. 1:26-cv-00093-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind., Jan. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Batesville -- https://batesvilleindiana.us/ -- is a city in Ripley and Franklin counties in the U.S. state of Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Bushing, Esq. AMATORE & BUSHING 1157 W Newport Ave., Suite K Chicago, IL 60657 Phone: (888) 598-8861 Email: shaun@amatorebushing.com BC MEDICAL GROUP: Jones Sues Over General Corporation Law Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Jones, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders v. SBC MEDICAL GROUP HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, YOSHIYUKI AIKAWA, YUYA YOSHIDA, KEN EDAHIRO, FUMITOSHI FUJIWARA, and MIKE SAYAMA, Case No. 2026-0193- (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board") for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") Section 141(k) and Delaware common law. A certain provision of the Company's certificate of incorporation, adopted and maintained by Defendants, provides that the Company's directors may be removed from office only for cause, contrary to Delaware law. In Delaware, any director or the entire board of directors of a corporation may be removed with or without cause unless an exception applies. Plaintiff therefore brings this action on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company against the Company and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Removal Provision violates Section 141(k) of the DGCL and Delaware common law and is voidable and thus invalid. The Plaintiff currently owns shares of the Company's common stock. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office located in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 984-3889 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 246-2368 Email: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Phone: +44-20-3174-0365 Email: werner@kranenburgesq.com BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS USA INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01149 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.beekeepersnaturals.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS USA INC., operates the Beekeeper's Naturals online retail store, as well as the Beekeeper's Naturals interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal BEIS LLC: Mott Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melinda Mott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIS, LLC, Case No. 26-2-00036-32 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Spokane County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Feb. 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00072. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending emails to Washington consumer with false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks the greater of actual damages or statutory damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler S. Weaver, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO, LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 1625 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-703-4810 Email: tylerw@angelicalfo.com BEN DEN MANAGEMENT: McKinney Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron McKinney, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BEN DEN MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A THE DEN, AND BEN PANNELL, Case No. 4:26-cv-01133 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard whether its payroll practices violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Defendants pay their Tipped Employees at an hourly rate below minimum wage plus tips. By paying Plaintiff and Tipped Employees less than the minimum wage per hour, Defendants are taking advantage of a tip credit which allows Defendants to include in their calculation of wages a portion of the amounts that Plaintiff received as tips. The Defendants violated the FLSA when they failed to notify each Tipped Employee about the tip credit allowance (including the amount to be credited) before the credit was utilized. That is, Defendants' Tipped Employees were never made properly aware of how the tip credit allowance worked or what the amounts to be credited were. The Defendants required and permitted Plaintiff to work in excess of forty hours in a workweek. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek during his employment. The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff to work as a Tipped Employee at its restaurant in excess of 40 hours per week but refused to compensate him at the applicable overtime rates. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender and then as a bar lead at Defendants' restaurant from January 24, 2024, until November 15, 2025. The Defendants operate The Den, a restaurant located near the campus of the University of Houston in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town & Country Blvd., Suite 500, Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 223–8855 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com BIL-JAX INC: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Candace Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BIL-JAX, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00332 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 10, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of Defendant's willful violations, Jackson and the Putative Collective Members are entitled to an award of their unpaid overtime wages, as well as "an additional equal amount as liquidated damages," attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over forty. The Defendant failed to maintain accurate records of the actual hours worked by the Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to maintain accurate records of the actual hours worked by the Putative Collective Members. The Defendant discouraged or failed to provide a mechanism for salaried employees to report overtime hours. Despite this knowledge, Defendant refused to convert the Plaintiff to non-exempt status or pay statutory overtime rates. The Defendant's decision to pay flat sums rather than the mandated overtime rate constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA. The Defendant willfully misclassified The Plaintiff the Putative Collective Members as exempt despite having actual knowledge that they did not customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more full-time employees, nor did they possess the authority to hire or fire personnel, thereby precluding any good faith reliance on the 'Executive Exemption' under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff held the position of Customer Service and Operations Representative. Bil-Jax, Inc. is an Ohio corporation whose principal place of business is located in Fulton County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Ste 200 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com BLOCKRATIZE INC: Yoon Sues Over Unlawful Sports Gambling Platform ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER YOON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCKRATIZE, INC. d/b/a POLYMARKET, QCX LLC d/b/a POLYMARKET US, ADVENTURE ONE QSS, INC. d/b/a POLYMARKET, QC CLEARING, LLC. d/b/a POLYMARKET CLEARING, QC TECH LLC d/b/a PM US Tech, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01160 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2026) alleges that the Defendants operate an unlawful sports gambling platform throughout the United States. Throughout the class period, Defendant Blockratize has routinely marketed its Polymarket platform as safe, legal, and authorized to provide sports gambling in the United States. Based on Blockratize's false representations, the Plaintiff and the Classes bargained for entry into legal derivatives exchange and prediction markets. But instead they received entry into illegal sports gambling contests. The Plaintiff and the Classes did not receive the benefit of their bargain, as the illegal entries had substantially less value than entry into legal contests. Moreover, Blockratize had accurately disclosed the unlawful nature of the gambling services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Polymarket seeking to recover the millions of dollars that Defendants have unlawfully taken from him and members of the Classes. The Plaintiff also assert claims for unjust enrichment, violations of the New York General Obligations Law and the New York General Business Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in New York City, NY, Blockratize, Inc. owns QCX LLC, QC Clearing, LLC, and QC Tech LLC, and operates Polymarket, a sports gambling platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com - and - Michael Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 3011 W. Grand Blvd., Fl. 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (231) 366-3108 E-mail: mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Margot P. Cutter, Esq. Charles B. Stevens, Esq. CUTTER LAW, P.C. 401 Watt Ave. Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com cstevens@cutterlaw.com - and - Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David A. McGee, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3133 Connecticut Ave Nw. Washington, DC 20008 Telephone: (202) 913-5681 E-mail: dmcgee@almeidalawgroup.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 333 H Street, Suite 5000 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Telephone: 510-588-5299 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Robert M. Devling, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rdevling@tzlegal.com - and - Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: chris@almeidalawgroup.com BLOOMWORKS WELLNESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Matthews" FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Bryan Matthews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bloomworks Wellness, LLC and Jennifer Miller, Defendants, Civil No. 25-1305-BAH (D. Md.), Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice in an FLSA collective action arising from alleged tip pool violations at a Maryland cannabis dispensary. Background Plaintiff Bryan Matthews alleged that he has been employed by the Defendant in the position of budtender at Defendants' SweetBuds Dispensary in Frederick, Maryland since June 2023. Bloomworks Wellness, LLC does business under the registered trade name "SweetBuds Dispensary," and Jennifer Miller is the owner and operator of Bloomworks. SweetBuds Dispensary sells a variety of cannabis products for recreational and medical purposes, which Maryland legalized in 2023. Matthews alleged that Defendants used a mandatory tip pool system to distribute tips, paid out to employees on a biweekly basis. Tips were distributed to both budtenders and managers in cash and did not appear on the employees' pay stubs. Matthews contended that on at least two occasions, Defendants took between $50 and $100 in tips from the mandatory tip pool to pay for products that had been damaged or broken. The Defendant's Policy Book also authorized the revocation of tips from employees who excessively called out, or who failed to give two weeks' notice prior to terminating employment. On April 22, 2025, Matthews filed the complaint in this Court. Count One asserted a violation of Section 203(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA, which provides that an employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit. Count Two asserted a claim for unjust enrichment under Maryland common law, alleging that Defendants were unjustly enriched by their unlawful refusal to pay Plaintiffs all tips owed. Ten individuals subsequently filed consent to join forms with the Court, bringing the total number of Plaintiffs to eleve Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had no remedy in federal court because the parties were engaging in cannabis distribution violative of federal law, and that acknowledging jurisdiction would hold that the FLSA applies to businesses engaging in federally criminal conduct. The Court found that this argument challenged the sufficiency of the FLSA claims rather than subject matter jurisdiction and analyzed it under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court held that case law is clear that employers are not excused from complying with federal laws such as the FLSA just because their business practices may violate federal law. Citing the Tenth Circuit's decision in Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc., the Court concluded that the FLSA is focused on regulating the activity of businesses on behalf of individual workers' wellbeing, rather than regulating the legality of individual workers' activities. The Court therefore held that individuals employed in the marijuana industry are not categorically excluded from FLSA protections, and the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim was not barred because of the industry in which they work. Regarding Defendants' invocation of the unclean hands doctrine as a separate basis for dismissal, the Court found that Defendants had not identified a single case suggesting that work in the marijuana industry would constitute a defense to a violation of the FLSA on that basis. As to the unjust enrichment claim, the Court noted that Maryland has legalized the marijuana industry, and therefore found no basis for concluding that permitting Plaintiffs to seek tips and compensation arising from an employment relationship that Maryland law expressly endorsed would assist or condone inequitable conduct. The motion to dismiss was denied. Matthews requested that the Court authorize notice to all current and former employees of SweetBuds Dispensary who were employed as budtenders, front door greeters, or receptionists and who participated in a mandatory tip pool within three years of the date the Court approved notice. The Court applied the two-step process for certifying an FLSA collective action. At the first stage, the Court conducts a modest inquiry to make a threshold determination whether the class is similarly situated. The Court found that three declarations attached to the motion, in addition to the allegations in the complaint, offered substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan related to Defendants' tipping practices. The motion for conditional certification was therefore granted. On the scope of notice, the Court approved distribution via U.S. Mail, email, and text message, with a 90-day opt-in period and a reminder notice at the 45-day mark. The Court approved a three-year notice period, reasoning that because no determination had yet been made on the willfulness of the alleged FLSA violation, there was no basis to exclude the third year at that time. The Court also ordered Defendants to produce the names and contact information of all putative collective members within 14 days, including names, last known mailing addresses, cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of employment, and locations of employment. The Court declined to order production of employee identification numbers, finding no authority supporting that requirement. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied and Matthews' motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice was granted in part. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9pzHdw from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Jennifer Miller, Bloomworks Wellness, LLC, Represented By: Laura L. Rubenstein Henry Mark Stichel RKW Law Group 443-379-4013 lrubenstein@rkwlawgroup.com hmstichel@rkwlawgroup.com Donald J. Walsh RKW, LLC 443-379-4011 dwalsh@rkwlawgroup.com Plaintiffs Bryan Matthews, Jacob Abuhamada, Melissa Cutts, Sara Fitzgerald, Alexander Peyton Ford, Danilo Jongezoon, Sarah Schellhardt, Matthew Sharpe, Cody Smith, Michael Stewart, and Meghan Tierney Represented By: Sarah M. Block Patrick J. Miller-Bartley Sean J. Brennan Molly Ann Elkin McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP smb@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com sb@mselaborlaw.com mae@mselaborlaw.com BOOT BARN HOLDINGS: Donahue Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaitlyn Donahue, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BOOT BARN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00156-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). Therefore, Defendants failed to pay The Plaintiff and others similarly situated for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. As a result of Defendants' companywide policy and/or practice, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not compensating The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all wages that they actually earned, including overtime pay. The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime compensation, Defendants failed to pay to The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are unknown at this time, as many of the records necessary to make such precise calculations are in the possession of Defendants or were not kept by Defendants. The Defendants failed to accurately record and compensate The Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all time worked, including overtime pay. As a result, Defendants failed to pay The Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from June 2025 until November 2025, as an hourly, non-exempt employee. The Defendants own and operate retail stores for western and work apparel, footwear and accessories across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Lubow, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com BPS SUPPLY GROUP: Miller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BPS Supply Group. The case is styled as Chad Miller, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. BPS Supply Group, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001056 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." BPS Supply Group -- https://www.bpssg.com/ -- provides wholesale distribution of pipe, valves, fittings, and industrial supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Neely Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. The case is styled as Leanna Neely, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00901-H-BLM (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Fraud. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. -- https://www.buildabear.com/ -- is an American retailer headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri that sells teddy bears, stuffed animals, and characters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: (424) 478-2076 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com CALIFORNIA FINE: Nguyen Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KHANG NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV00388, was removed from the the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 11, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01445 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code. California Fine Wine & Spirits LLC operates as a retailer of fine wine. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. Sean M. Bothamley, Esq. Andres Antuna, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com Sean.Bothamley@jacksonlewis.com Andres.Antuna@jacksonlewis.com CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Summary Judgment Bid Extended to June 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE CANTEY, JAMES BATTLE, and TERRENCE BOSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04843-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered an order extending deadlines as follows: The discovery deadlines Ordered by the Court are extended as follows: 1. Deposition deadline is extended from Feb. 6, 2026 to March 27, 2026; 2. Completion of all fact discovery is extended from Feb. 27, 2026 to April 17, 2026; 3. Completion of expert discovery is extended from Feb. 27, 2026 to April 17, 2026; 4. Post-discovery status conference is extended from March 5, 2026 to April 23, 2026; 5. Motion for summary judgment is extended from April 24, 2026 to June 12, 2026; 6. Motions for Rule 23 class certification and for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act from May 1, 2026 to June 19, 2026, and 7. Proposed joint pretrial order is extended from June 12, 2026 to July 31, 2026. The Defendant provides life skills education, short-term paid transitional employment, job placement, and post-placement services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eO00Tw at no extra charge.[CC] CFD INVESTMENTS: James Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON JAMES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CFD INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00284-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 10, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former clients. From March 15, 2025, through May 9, 2025, the Defendant was hacked in the data breach. In total, Defendant injured at least 31,731 persons -- via the exposure of their personally identifiable information -- in the data breach. However, the Defendant waited over until January 28, 2026, before it began notifying the class -- a full 319 days after the data breach began. Moreover, the Defendant caused widespread injury and monetary damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory judgment. CFD Investments, Inc. is a financial services firm based in Kokomo, IN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 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 CHARLES STARK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Steer" ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Barry Steer, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Retirement Plan for Draper Employees and the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Annuity Plan, Plaintiff, v. The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.; The Retirement Plan Oversight Group; and John and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-13105-AK (D. Mass.), Judge Angel Kelley of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Plaintiff Barry Steer brought this class action on behalf of himself, a class of similarly situated persons, and two retirement plans - the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Retirement Plan for Draper Employees (the Retirement Plan) and the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Annuity Plan (the SRAP) (collectively, the Plans). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (Draper), The Retirement Plan Oversight Group (RPOG), and John and Jane Does 1-10, breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Draper, a government contractor and research firm, served as the Plans' sponsor and held ultimate authority to control and manage their operation and administration. The RPOG, whose members were appointed by Draper's Chief Executive Officer, was tasked with the responsibility for overseeing the investment of the assets of the Plans as a fiduciary under ERISA. TIAA served as the recordkeeper for the Plans, performing administrative services such as tracking participants' account balances and sending participant communications. The Plans are defined contribution or individual account plans offering approximately thirty-five investment options. Plaintiff alleged that the Plans' investment options underperformed and charged unreasonably high fees, that TIAA charged unreasonable recordkeeping fees, and that TIAA's recordkeeping and provision of investments constituted prohibited transactions under ERISA. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants failed to appropriately monitor the Plans' fiduciaries. Plaintiff participated in the Retirement Plan during and after his employment with Draper but did not participate in the SRAP. Plaintiff brought three counts: Count I alleged that Defendants breached the duty of prudence; Count II alleged that Defendants caused the Plans to engage in prohibited transactions; and Count III alleged that Defendants failed to monitor the Plans' other fiduciaries. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), challenging Plaintiff's constitutional and statutory standing on the ground that Plaintiff was not a participant in the SRAP. Defendants also filed a Motion for More Definite Statement under Rule 12(e), arguing that Plaintiff had not sufficiently identified the prohibited transactions at issue. Upon careful examination, the court found that Plaintiff had sufficient personal stake in the adjudication of the class members' claims. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants treated Plaintiff and other class members consistently and managed the Plans jointly and uniformly as to all participants, and that Plaintiff's claims arose out of the same conduct and misconduct by Defendants that formed the basis of class members' claims. Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiff had standing to challenge these uniform practices even though he was not a participant in the SRAP, and therefore denied Defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(1). Defendants further argued that Plaintiff lacked statutory standing to sue because he was not a participant in the SRAP. The court analyzed Plaintiff's standing under Sections 1132(a)(2) and (3) of ERISA, which permit participants to bring civil actions. The court found that Plaintiff clearly alleged facts to support that he is a participant in the Retirement Plan, and that the class members are participants of both Plans. The court held that Congress accorded Plaintiff the right to sue under ERISA to redress his injury, even though he was not a SRAP participant. Therefore, Defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(6) was denied. Defendants argued that Plaintiff had not sufficiently identified the prohibited transactions that Defendants allegedly permitted. The court noted that Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored in light of the availability of pretrial discovery procedures and should only be granted where the pleadings are unintelligible, not merely where they lack detail. The court found that Plaintiff identified contracts for services, such as recordkeeping and the provisions of investments from service providers like TIAA, as the prohibited transactions at issue. The court further noted that under ERISA, plaintiffs need only plausibly allege each element of a prohibited-transaction claim. Therefore, Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement was denied. A Copy of the Court's decision dated February 17 is available at https://tinyurl.com/99rn67jy from PacerMonitor.com Defendants The Retirement Plan Oversight Group and The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Represented By: Charles F. Seemann, III Jackson Lewis P.C. 504-208-1755 charles.seemann@jacksonlewis.com Douglas J. Hoffman Jackson Lewis PC 617-367-0025 douglas.hoffman@jacksonlewis.com Ryan Michael Tucker Jackson Lewis P.C. 504-208-1755 ryan.tucker@jacksonlewis.com Howard Shapiro Jackson Lewis P.C. 504-208-5835 howard.shapiro@jacksonlewis.com Steven Sheesley Jackson Lewis P.C. 504-380-3928 steven.sheesley@jacksonlewis.com Plaintiff Barry Steer Represented By: Osvaldo Vazquez Fair Work, PC 202-460-9206 oz@fairworklaw.com CHELSEA SENIOR LIVING: Davila Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Senior Living, LLC. The case is styled as Julio Davila, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. Chelsea Senior Living, LLC, Case No. Index not Assigned (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Feb. 12, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Torts - Other (New York Labor Law Claim). Chelsea Senior Living -- https://chelseaseniorliving.com/ -- provides senior housing and care solutions in Assisted Living, Independent Living, and Memory Care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Donald Barnhorn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Hwy Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: +1 631 257 5588 Fax: +1 631 239 5796 CHROME DEPOSIT: Horton Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHROME DEPOSIT CORPORATION, Case No. 5:26-cv-00336 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 10, 2026), is brought challenging certain policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay compensations. The Defendant kept records of some hours worked or otherwise had the ability to accurately track hours worked and accurate overtime earned and owed through Defendant's hardware, software, and/or systems, by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. However, because of Defendant's policy of not including weekly Attendance Bonuses when calculating employees' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, Defendant failed to accurately calculate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. The Defendant willfully and intentionally transmitted inaccurate and/or incomplete records to payroll for compensation purposes, which wrongly calculated regular rates of pay. Defendant's failure to properly calculate regular rates of pay had the direct effect of reducing Defendant's labor costs to the detriment of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Defendant willfully and intentionally did not correctly record and pay all hours worked at the appropriate rate in violation of the FLSA and violated the FLSA's recordkeeping requirements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 18, 2024, until June 16, 2025, as an hourly, non-exempt manufacturing employee. The Defendant owns and operates manufacturing facilities in Ohio, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com CI SQUARED: Spikes Sues Over Failure to Provide Proper OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS SPIKES, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CI SQUARED AVIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00396-SEG (N.D. Ga., January 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking a declaratory judgment, compensation, damages, equitable and other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek but are denied proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 because Defendant fails to include premium payments in the regular rate of pay upon which the Plaintiff's and those similarly situated overtime rate is based. Plaintiff Spikes worked for CI2 as an air traffic controller at Fulton County Airport - Brown Field (FTY). CI Squared Aviation, Inc. is an aerospace and information technology company based in Marietta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 400-3600 E-mail: jscott@radtordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com - and - Gregory K. McGuillivary, Esq. Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: skm@mselaborlaw.com mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com CRESCENT HOTELS: Mata Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC. The case is captioned as Genaro Cazares Mata, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRESCENT HOTEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, and CRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 26CV166052 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., January 22, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged employment law violation. The case is assigned to Hon. S. Raj Chatterjee. A complex determination hearing and an initial case management conference will be held on February 26, 2026 and June 8, 2026, respectively. Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN] DEMANDBASE INC: Strull Files Personal Injury Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit has been filed against Demandbase, Inc. The case is styled as COOPER STRULL, ANDREA ESPINDOLA, and ERIN WEILER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DEMANDBASE, INC., Case No. CGC26633203 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., January 22, 2026). The suit is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant over personal injury claims. A case management conference is scheduled for July 8, 2026. Demandbase, Inc. provides account-based marketing platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com DREAM GAMES TEKNOLOGI: Vollmuth Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lorna Vollmuth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dream Games Teknologi Anonim Sirketi, Case No. 2:24-cv-07763-MWC-AGR was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00513-RSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Dream Games -- https://www.dreamgames.com/ -- is a leading mobile gaming company focused on creating high-quality games with engaging characters and immersive gameplay.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda Jasmine Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 280-4783 Email: arosenberg@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (786) 200-4316 Email: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com - and - Omer Salik, Esq. CARTER ARNETT BENNETT & PEREZ PLLC 111 Pier Ave., Suite 101 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (214) 295-3688 Email: osalik@carterarnett.com EDEN BRANDS: Esparza Balks at Automatic Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDEN BRANDS INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.EVER-EDEN.COM Defendant, Case No. 26CU003622C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., January 22, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff after purchasing a paid subscription at Defendant's website which caused him to incur unlawful charges related to an automatic renewal or continuous service in violation of the California's Automatic Renewal Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by (1) failing to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers, including Plaintiff, that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from continuing its ongoing violations of California law. He also seeks damages, punitive damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Eden Brands Inc. operates as a specialty retailer. The Company offers mom, baby, and kids skin care products. Eden Brands serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com ELIJAH SCHAFFER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilkins Suit Due April 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS WILKINS, v. ELIJAH D. SCHAFFER, Case No. 9:25-cv-81334-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered a pretrial scheduling order and order referring case to mediation: The case is set for trial before U.S. District Judge Middlebrooks at the United States District Court, 701 Clematis Street, Second Floor, Courtroom 7, West Palm Beach, Florida, during the two-week trial period commencing Sept. 21, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., with a calendar call set for Sept. 16, 2026, at 1:15 p.m. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule, which shall not be modified absent compelling circumstances. Any motions to modify this schedule shall be directed to the attention of U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. Feb.20, 2026 Discovery Plan shall be filed. March 19, 2026 Joinder of additional Parties and amend pleadings. April 2, 2026 Any motions for class certification shall be filed. April 16, 2026 The Plaintiff(s) shall provide opposing counsel with a written list with the names and addresses of all expert witnesses intended to be called at trial and only those expert witnesses listed shall be permitted to testify. July 9, 2026 All discovery shall be completed. July 23, 2026 All Pretrial Motions, including summary judgment motions and Daubert motions, and motions in limine shall be filed. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cLtjOr at no extra charge.[CC] ENTREPRENEUR ENTERPRISES: Standing Order in Patagonia Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATAGONIA, INC., v. ENTREPRENEUR ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00586-RGK-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered a standing order regarding newly assigned cases: The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the petition Petitioner(s) shall file and serve within 3 days of the date of this order an ex parte application requesting a hearing on the Petition to ensure prompt resolution of the Petition in compliance with section 983(f)'s deadlines. The attorney attending any proceeding before this Court, including all status and settlement conferences, must be the lead trial counsel. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to hear all discovery disputes. The Defendant provides special trade contracting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CWNord at no extra charge.[CC] ESTEE LAUDER: Bid to Extend Time To Complete Discovery Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order granting the joint letter motion to extend time to complete discovery. The Court adopts in full the parties' proposal below. Because the motion for class certification will have been pending for nearly seven months before it will be fully briefed on April 25, 2026, counsel for lead plaintiffs should re-file the document in as a new motion for class certification, by Feb. 12, 2026. Lead plaintiffs need only file the notice of motion, and the Court will take it from there. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 82 and 109. Event Date Deadline for the Plaintiffs' opposition to April 24, 2026 the Defendants' motion to exclude opinions in the expert report of Matthew D. Cain, Ph.D. and related testimony: Deadline to file motion seeking leave to April 28, 2026 amend the pleadings without leave of court: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file reply April 24, 2026 in support of motion for class certification: Deadline for completing fact discovery: June 30, 2026 Deadline for filing summary judgment, other Oct. 13, 2026 dispositive, and/or Daubert motions: Estee is an American multinational cosmetics company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=htT15f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jchristie@labaton.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry H. Berke, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 FORD MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WILLIAM DROESSER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-12365-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority to apprise the Court of authority released after the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was fully briefed. On Jan. 29, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and granted en banc review of the panel decision in Clippinger v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 156 F.4th 724 (6th Cir. 2025). The Sixth Circuit's en banc order undermines Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs rely on the now-vacated panel opinion in their class certification reply brief. Ford is an American multinational automaker. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WLkMDi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq. Derek J. Linkous, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 822-7800 E-mail: douglas@bsplaw.com linkous@bsplaw.com - and - Perry W. Miles, IV, Esq. Brian D. Schmalzbach, Esq. W. Cole Geddy, Esq. Morgan V. Maloney, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: pmiles@mcguirewoods.com bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com cgeddy@mcguirewoods.com mmaloney@mcguirewoods.com GENTRY MOUNTAIN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Thomas" FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Duncan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gentry Mountain Mining, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-CV-00622-DAK-JCB (D. Utah), Judge Dale A. Kimball of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's collective action complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Portal-to-Portal Act. Plaintiff Duncan Thomas, employed as a roof bolter/operator by Defendant, alleged that Defendant failed to compensate him and putative collective action members for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE), showering, and traveling to and from the work site -- activities totaling approximately two hours or more per shift. Defendant argued that these activities were non-compensable preliminary and postliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act, Section 254(a), that the contested time was de minimis, and that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a willful violation of the FLSA to extend the statute of limitations from two years to three. The court found that Plaintiff adequately pleaded that donning and doffing PPE and showering were integral and indispensable to his principal activity as a roof bolter, distinguishing the case from Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. The court further found the de minimis defense unavailing, noting that two hours per shift is not an insignificant period, and that the de minimis doctrine is an affirmative defense the employer must raise. As to willfulness, the court held that Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant was aware of its failure to pay required overtime wages were sufficient at the pleading stage. Accordingly, the court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 4, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=amG1xh from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff was represented by Melinda Arbuckle and Kathryn Harstad. Defendant was represented by Paul Cannon. GHOST MANAGEMENT: Standing Order Entered in Sanchez Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCTAVIO SANCHEZ, v. GHOST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-00442-PA-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 28 5-3.1 within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears motions on Mondays, commencing at 1:30 p.m. No supplemental brief shall be filed without prior leave of Court. Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and lodge a Proposed Order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IbXbX2 at no extra charge.[CC] GILT GROUPE LP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gilt Groupe, LP, Case No. 0:26-cv-01356-LMP-DJF (D. Minn., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.gilt.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, sweaters, jackets, swimwear, handbags, home goods, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY: Figueroa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Gate University, et al. The case is styled as Jacquelinne Maldonado Figueroa, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Golden Gate University, Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26633218 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Golden Gate University -- https://ggu.edu/ -- is a private university in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025-7140 Phone: 310-526-9998 Email: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Parties Seek to Modify Case Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to modify case schedule in order to account for the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude testimony of Branko Jovanovic, both filed on Jan. 30, 2026. The Parties jointly request that the Court modify the current case schedule and enter an order with case deadlines as follows: Requirement Date The Plaintiffs' reply in support of April 30, 2026 motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) April 30, 2026 disclosures: The Plaintiffs' opposition to motion April 30, 2026 for summary judgment: The Defendants' reply in support of July 30, 2026 motion for summary judgment: The Defendants' reply in support of July 30, 2026 motion to exclude: Hearing on motion for class Sept. 29, 2026, or at certification: the Court's earliest convenience thereafter The Defendant is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UylTek at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. John Tangren, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Justin Donoho, Esq. Tiffany E. Alberty, Esq. Zev Grumet-Morris, Esq. Tristan Alexander Dietrick, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com jrdonoho@duanemorris.com tealberty@duanemorris.com zgrumetmorris@duanemorris.com tdietrick@duanemorris.com GRAND ASTORIA: Faces Lastor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- MARCELINO CHUMIL LASTOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND ASTORIA INC. (d/b/a THE GRAND), GEORGIOS BALLIS, JOHNNY SOLO, and ANNA KALONAROS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00718 (E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and "overtime wage order" respectively codified at N.Y.C.R.R. Tit. 12, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay as required by federal and state laws. The Defendants' pay practices resulted in Plaintiff Lastor not receiving payment for all his hours worked, and resulted in Plaintiff's effective rate of pay falling below the required minimum wage rate, says the suit. Plaintiff Lastor is a former employee of Defendants who was employed as a cook and food preparer from approximately June 1, 2022 until February 4, 2026. Grand Astoria Inc. is a restaurant based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com GREAT INTERNATIONAL: Combel Bid to Toss Class Action Claims Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA COMBEL, V. GREAT INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO., LTD, ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-01252-SSV-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Vance entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice all class action claims. The rationale for the proposed amendment is a persuasive one: permitting dismissal of one or more claims in a multi-claim case is consistent with the general policy favoring narrowing issues through pretrial proceedings, simplifying proceedings, and facilitating settlements. Regardless, this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent. As the class action had not yet been certified or proposed to be certified for the purposes of settlement, Court approval of the dismissal of the class action claims and allegations is not required by rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) Combel's motion instead falls under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Rule 41(a) allows plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss "an action." Here, Combel purports to dismiss her class action claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) while leaving her individual claims intact. This is impermissible under the Fifth Circuit's Rule 41(a) precedent. The Judiciary has proposed an amendment to Rule 41(a) to allow voluntary dismissal of one or more of a plaintiff's claims, but that proposal is not ripe for adoption. The Defendant is a China-based exporter and logistics service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjViY9 at no extra charge.[CC] GREEN 70: Scheduling Order Entered in Ruiz Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDILBERTO RUIZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. GREEN 70 LLC, d/b/a Green Kitchen, et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-05777-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Furman entered a scheduling order as follows: –- The Defendants shall produce initial disclosures and respond to the outstanding discovery requests raised in points I and IV of the Plaintiff's discovery dispute letter no later than Feb. 13, 2026. -- The parties shall confer on the class discovery and deposition issues addressed in points II and IV of Plaintiff's letter, and promptly raise any disputes with the Court if they are unable to reach agreement. -- To the extent the Plaintiff seeks class contact information that exceeds the scope of the collective action, that request is denied without prejudice to renewal. -- Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification no later than March 23, 2026. The Defendants shall file any opposition no later than April 13, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than April 20, 2026. -- No later than the close of the opt-in period, that is, ninety days after the Notice is sent out, the parties shall file a joint status letter on the results of the opt-in and settlement. Green is a casual American restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lHJwN0 at no extra charge.[CC] GRIP6 INC: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON BENAVIDES MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRIP6, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01147 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://grip6.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. GRIP6, Inc. is a US based apparel company that manufactures belts, wallets, socks & beanies. [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 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal GROUP SOLAR: $415K Settlement in "Lojewski" Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rafal Lojewski, on behalf of himself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Group Solar USA LLC et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-10816 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of a $415,000 class action settlement, bringing the case to a close and putting money in the pockets of affected class members. The settlement fund is non-reversionary, meaning no money goes back to the defendant. Class members who cash their first-round settlement checks may even see a second distribution, provided the average payout would amount to at least $20 after costs. Any leftover residual funds are earmarked for the Empire Justice Center's Foreclosure Prevention Program, a cy pres charity selected to benefit the broader public interest. Named plaintiff Rafal Lojewski, whose efforts made the case possible, will receive a $6,000 service award in recognition of his work on behalf of the class. Class counsel will take home $138,333.33 in attorneys' fees plus $4,636.92 in reimbursed costs — amounts the court found reasonable after reviewing detailed billing and disbursement records. Notably, the defendant raised no opposition to the fee request, and the settlement terms were negotiated with the help of an experienced outside mediator. The final order was signed on February 12, 2026. A copy of the Court's case is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8SDxzD from PacerMonitor.com. Defendant Salal Credit Union Represented by: Peter George Siachos Gordon & Rees LLP 843-714-2505 psiachos@grsm.com Defendant Solar Mosaic, Inc. Represented by: Massie P. Cooper Rachelle Pointdujour Kalama Mark Lui-Kwan Ryan A. Lewis Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP massie.cooper@troutman.com rachelle.pointdujour@troutman.com kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com ryan.lewis@troutman.com Plaintiffs Manuel Acevedo, Isamar Delacruz, Danielle Garcia, Smith Garcia and Rafal Lojewski represented by: Henry Cooper Ellenberg, II Daniel Adam Schlanger Schlanger Law Group LLP hellenberg@consumerprotection.net dschlanger@consumerprotection.net GRUBBS INFINITI AUTOMOTIVE: Smith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grubbs Infiniti Automotive, LLC. The case is styled as Shaquita Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grubbs Infiniti Automotive, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00154-O (N.D. Tex., Feb. 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. GRUBBS INFINITI of Grapevine -- https://www.grubbsinfiniti.com/ -- is one of the finest Grapevine INFINITI dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GUARDIAN IMPACT: Rodriguez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guardian Impact Windows & Roofing LLC. The case is styled as Emmanuel Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guardian Impact Windows & Roofing LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20911-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Guardian Impact Windows & Roofing -- https://guardwhatmatters.com/ -- provides expert installation of Miami-Dade approved hurricane impact windows, impact doors, and roofing systems throughout South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Gifford Files Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulshan Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Annette Gifford, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Gulshan Management Services, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00563 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Gulshan Management Services is a long-standing operator in the fuel and convenience retail industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com HANNA ANDERSSON LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-01400 (D. Minn., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.hannaandersson.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers children's apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms, dresses, pajamas, sweaters, hoodies, jackets, swimwear, baby clothes, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HARPER WILDE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harper Wilde, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-01301-KMM-EMB (D. Minn., Feb. 10, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.harperwilde.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers women's undergarments and pajamas for sale including, but not limited to, underwear, bras, shapewear, pajamas, sleep sets, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Murray Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jon Murray, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV001603 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." HD Supply -- https://hdsupply.com/ -- supplies maintenance, repair & operations products to multifamily, hospitality, healthcare, commercial & government facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ash Bhargava, Esq. WORKRIGHT LAW, APC 3925 Tipperary Ct. Yorba Linda, CA 92886-6127 Phone: 562-760-8803 Email: ash@workrightlaw.com HEATHER HILL: MCPA Claims Dismissed in Hall Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEATHER HILL PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam Abelson entered a memorandum dismissing with prejudice Ms. Hall's MCPA and section 14-202(8) MCDCA claims that Defendants misrepresented that they were authorized to collect rent during a time when they were not due to lack of licensure, without alleging any actual injury. But her MCPA and section 14-202(8) MCDCA claims that the same actions caused her actual injury (such as medical expenses arising from habitability issues) will survive dismissal. The Court will dismiss without prejudice any MCDCA claims in Count Three that are based on an alleged violations of the MCALA under section 14-202(10), but not Ms. Hall's FDCPA-based claim under section 14-202(11). The Court will deny the motion to dismiss as to Count Two alleging breach of implied warranty of habitability and violation of section 8-211. The Court will deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Four for negligence. It will dismiss her claims for relocation assistance and punitive damages. A separate order will issue. The Plaintiff has sued HHPC, HHOC, and One Wall, which jointly operate Heather Hill Apartments, where Ms. Hall has lived since 2017. She alleges that the Defendants failed to obtain the necessary licensing to operate Heather Hill, and failed to adequately maintain her apartment. She alleges this conduct violated Maryland statutes and common law, and has sued on behalf of a putative class. The Defendants jointly operate Heather Hill Apartments. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2FAoI at no extra charge.[CC] HUNTER WARFIELD: Wins Summary Judgment v. Blizzard -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BLIZZARD, et al., v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam Abelson entered a memorandum granting the Landlord Defendants' motion and enter judgment in their favor. Because Plaintiffs have failed to show an actionable injury under these facts, they cannot maintain their MCDCA and MCPA claims against the Landlord Defendants. The Plaintiffs have sued Defendants Thornhill Properties and Mt. Vernon Mill, LLC for violations of the Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), alleging that the Landlord Defendants improperly collected rent during a period when they lacked the requisite license to do so. The Landlord Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show an actionable injury, the Court will grant the motion and enter judgment in favor of the Landlord Defendants. It is true that, under Assanah-Carroll and the cases preceding it, a lease is unenforceable in court during periods of time where the landlord is unlicensed, but it is equally true that to maintain a private cause of action under the MCDCA or MPCA, a tenant who paid rent while the property was unlicensed must show an actionable injury, which does include (per Assanah-Carroll) legally compelled rent payments. Plaintiffs have not shown such an injury and therefore cannot maintain their MCDCA or MCPA claims. Because the Plaintiffs cannot maintain their other claims against the Landlord Defendants for the conduct alleged, there are no grounds to enter a declaratory judgment under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. section 3-409. Hunter is a third-party debt collection agency specializing in recovering delinquent accounts for property management, education, and financial services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nuKAgt at no extra charge.[CC] ICONIX BRAND GROUP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. d/b/a Salt Life, Case No. 0:26-cv-01333 (D. Minn., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.saltlife.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, tees, tanks, polos, hoodies, bottoms, shorts, hats, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com INTEGRATED TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- CYRIL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00748 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lewis was employed by the Defendant as a technician. Integrated Tech Group LLC was founded in 2013. The Company's line of business includes the warehousing and storage of a general line of goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Class Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSE EPPERSON, V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to amend scheduling order for class certification hearing and enter the proposed fourth amended scheduling order for class certification hearing. The Defendant BNSF has no objection to the attached proposed fourth amended scheduling order for class certification hearing. The amended scheduling order is sought in good faith and not intended to cause improper delay. This amended scheduling order will also not materially impede the progress of this case or prejudice the parties. The Defendant is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KLecc6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry R. Sanders, Jr., Esq. THE SANDERS LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (719) 630-1556 E-mail: perry@perrysanders.com - and - David L. Wallace, Esq. 518 North Pine Street DeRidder, LA 70634 Telephone: (337) 462-0473 E-mail: wnblawoffice@bellsouth.net - and - Andrew K. Glenn, Esq. Trevor J. Welch, Esq. Jason Rotstein, Esq. Nathan J. Ades, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 970-1600 E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com twelch@glennagre.com jrotstein@glennagre.com nades@glennagre.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. T. Joel Fyke, Esq. Taylor D. Waxley, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 E-mail: LAEService@formanwatkins.com - and - Kyle L. Gideon, Esq. Kevin M. Dills, Esq. DAVIDSON, MEAUX, SONNIER, McELLIGOTT, FONTENOT, GIDEON & EDWARDS, LLP 900 South College Road – Suite 100 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 237-1600 Facsimile: (337) 237-3676 J.H. BAXTER: Agrees to Settle Eugene Pollution Suit for $200,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Torres, writing for the Register-Guard, reports that one of two civil lawsuits against the J.H. Baxter wood treatment company has settled for $200,000. -- Both lawsuits were initially class-action but were "decertified" because the company is no longer commercially viable. -- The former J.H. Baxter plant in Eugene, Oregon, is now an EPA Superfund site due to hazardous substance contamination. One of the two civil lawsuits filed against J.H. Baxter for polluting a Eugene neighborhood has settled, and the other appears to moving in that direction, according to recent court filings. Federal Judge Ann Aiken closed the case Bell-Alanis et al v. J.H. Baxter & Co. et al, on Feb. 13 after Baxter agreed to pay $200,000. Bell-Alanis was previously a class-action lawsuit covering everyone who lived near the J.H. Baxter plant from June 11, 2019, to the present. But on Jan. 29, Aiken ruled that given the two companies that make up the J.H. Baxter brand "are no longer viable as commercial entities" they would not be able to compensate all the people impacted by the plant's pollution. Aiken "decertified" the class, limiting liability to just the four named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They and their lawyers will share Baxter's $200,000 payout. The other civil lawsuit against Baxter, Hart et al v. J.H. Baxter & Co., Inc. et al appears to moving in the same direction. On Feb. 6, Federal Judge Mustafa Kasubhai decertified that class as well, following the same logic as Aiken and leaving just two named plaintiffs. In that case Kasubhai gave both sides until March 8 to either negotiate a settlement or update him on how settlement negotiations are going. From 1943 until 2022, J.H. Baxter operated a wood treatment facility in West Eugene's Bethel neighborhood. According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, decades of wood treatment operations resulted in releases of hazardous substances into the groundwater and soil and contaminated adjacent residential areas with dioxins. Dioxins are persistent organic pollutants that are linked to cancer and reproductive harm. The location of the former J.H. Baxter plant is an EPA Superfund site, which designates it as a place where "historic releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants pose significant threats to human health and the environment." Georgia Baxter-Krause, president of J.H. Baxter, was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined $500,000 after pleading guilty to federal environmental crimes. Last year, Baxter-Krause pleaded guilty to illegally disposing of hazardous wastewater by evaporating it on the J.H. Baxter site 136 times in a 278-day period in 2019. The two companies that make up J.H. Baxter were also fined $1 million. The government's lawyers described the financial penalty as low, considering the crimes the company committed and the maximum fine of $7 million available. Prosecutors said they pursued a lower fine so there would be money left over to be awarded in the two civil cases. [GN] JOCKO FUEL: Fails to Disclose Lead Content in Products, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN MCNATT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. JOCKO FUEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00791-JO-JLB (S.D. Cal., February 9, 2026) arises from the Defendant's misrepresentation of its Jocko Protein Powder Molk Protein Blend in Chocolate Milkshake flavor in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violates California consumer protection law in the labeling of its products by representing that the products are a premium "CLEAN" protein powder but failing to disclose that it contains a substantial amount of lead. The front label contains additional statements that reinforce the "CLEAN Representation" and the notion that the products are a premium source of protein, including that such: (i) are naturally sweetened; (ii) contain minimal premium ingredients, consisting of "1 WHEY, 2 CASEIN and 3 EGG"; and (iii) provide 22G PROTEIN, only 1G SUGAR and 120 CALORIES. The Representations are misleading based on the lead contained in the products, which is not disclosed anywhere on the product labels, says the suit. Plaintiff McNatt is a citizen of California who purchased the products during the Class period. Jocko Fuel, LLC is a Maine limited liability company that produces nutritional supplement products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste.192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION: Smith FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Wyoming ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Michael Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Knife River Corporation, JTL Group Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00237 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming on Feb. 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00054-ABJ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Knife River Corporation -- https://www.kniferiver.com/ -- operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides construction materials and contracting services.[BN] KRAUS USA PLUMBING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraus USA Plumbing LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-01347-ECT-JFD (D. Minn., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.kraususa.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers sinks, faucets and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, kitchen and bathroom sinks, kitchen and bathroom faucets, garbage disposals, water filtration systems, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com KS LARGE BORE: Lesjack Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Bobi Lesjack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KS LARGE BORE PISTONS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00234-BBC (E.D. Wis., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of Machine Operator. The Defendant is a manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com L J ROSS: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against L J Ross Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Staci Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. L J Ross Associates, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00181-TPB-LSG (M.D. Fla., January 22, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Thomas P. Barber and is referred to Magistrate Judge Lindsay S. Griffin. L J Ross Associates, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers debt collection and account receiveable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com LACOSTE USA INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lacoste USA, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-01351-JWB-EMB (D. Minn., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.lacoste.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers designer sports apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, polos, sweaters, sweatshirts, pants, swimwear, shoes, handbags, leather goods, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LOPER'S EQUIPMENT: Johnson and Johnson Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS JOHNSON and WENDY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIAN LOPER, KEITH LOPER, AND LOPER'S EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00765 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2026), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs Thomas Johnson and Wendy Johnson were employed by Defendants as store associates. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated store associates have not received compensation owed to them when working more than 40 hours in a work week. In addition, the Defendants failed to issue any wage statements to Plaintiffs and all other store associates from 2019 until 2024, says the suit. Loper's Equipment Corporation is an equipment rental agency headquartered in Patchogue, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Marlborough, Esq. THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C 375 Sunrise Highway, Suite 3 Lynbrook, NY 11563 Telephone: (212) 991-8960 E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com - and - P. Bruce McBrien, Esq. MCBRIEN LAW PC 140 Fell Ct. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 406-9799 E-mail: bmcbrien@mcbrienlaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 13 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD MORALES, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06010-FLA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving the stipulation to continue the class certification deadline and related deadlines. The following dates and deadlines are continued as follows: 1. Last date to hear motion for class certification: July 13, 2026; 2. Fact discovery cut-off: Jan. 27, 2027; 3. Expert disclosure deadline (initial): Feb. 4, 2027; 4. Expert disclosure deadline (rebuttal): Feb. 18, 2027; and 5. Expert discovery cut-off: March 1, 2027. Los Angeles is the commercial, financial, and cultural center of Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb.2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HQbc2U at no extra charge.[CC] LPC SURVIVAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN GAINES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. LPC SURVIVAL, LTD D/B/A US BERKEY FILTERS, Case No. 2:25-cv-09291-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order on ex parte application to continue class certification deadline: 1. The Plaintiff's ex parte application for order to continue class certification deadline is granted. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert disclosures relevant to class certification shall be filed on or before June 9, 2026. 3. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert disclosures relevant to class certification shall be filed on or before July 7, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be filed on or before July 21, 2026. 5. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be set for August 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34sqKO at no extra charge.[CC] LUDIVINE MADISON: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON BENAVIDES MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUDIVINE MADISON AVENUE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01104 (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://boutiqueludivine.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 2, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Distressed 10-Hole Kurt Sneaker from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was 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, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ludivine Madison Avenue, LLC operates the website that retails clothing, footwear, and accessories.[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 MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Barron Seeks More Time to File Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barron et al., v. micromobility.com Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to file Reply to the Micromobility Defendants' Response to Class Certification. The Plaintiffs write to request an extension of the schedule for their filing of their reply, contingent upon the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Micromobility Defendants' untimely disclosed expert opinions. The Plaintiffs request a two-week extension in the event the motion to strike is granted or a six-week extension (and a parallel extension of the cutoff for expert discovery) in the event the Motion to Strike is denied. The Plaintiffs are diligently preparing their replies to the Defendants' responses to class certification and will file their reply to the Defendant Skrill's response at the original deadline. However, until the Court decides whether the Micromobility Defendants' experts opinions will be considered at the class certification stage, the Plaintiffs are unable to prepare their reply to the Micromobility Defendants' response, which draws frequently on the untimely expert reports. The Plaintiffs cannot prepare a reply until they know what is fair game and what has been excluded. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Mike Kanovitz, is currently in the middle of an ~8 week trial in the District of South Carolina, which is expected to extend to the end of February. Accordingly, in the event that the Defendants' experts are not excluded and Plaintiffs need to depose them, a month-and-a-half long extension is fair and reasonable. Micromobility.com provides dockless intra urban transportation solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r7nHU8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Heather Lewis Donnell, Esq. Anand Swaminathan, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Julia Rickert, Esq. Heather Lewis Donnell, Esq. Anand Swaminathan, Esq. Jacob Costello, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: green@loevy.com MID AMERICA: Class Settlement in Fillardi Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FILARDI, COURTNEY ANDERSEN, LISA BURMEISTER, KENNETH LEONARD, DOROTHY PETERSEN, STEPHANIE RANEY, IRENE NUNEZ, CONRADO MOREIRA, KIARA REED, NACOLE HOUSTON, MONIKA BENNETT, JASON JARRELL, ALISON BARNHILL, KIMBERLEE FERRIS, JEFFREY GOULD, MELISSA SWARINGEN-ORTON, MICHELLE RUBIANO, and COLEMAN STEPHENS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MID AMERICA PET FOOD LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-11170-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Roman entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court determines that the following Settlement Class be certified: "All persons and entities residing in the United States who purchased one or more of the Mid America Pet Food Products. Specifically excluded are the following: (a) persons or entities whose claims are solely based upon the purchase of Mid America Pet Food Products for resale; (b) corporate officers, members of the board of directors, and senior management of Defendant; (iii) persons or entities who otherwise meet the definition of Settlement Class Members, but who previously contacted the Defendant prior to and during the pendency of this litigation, signed a release and in exchange received financial compensation from the Defendant; (d) any and all judges and justices assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this action; (v) any members of the Settlement Class that opt out prior to the opt out deadline; (f) any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; and (g) Class Counsel. The proposed Settlement creates a $5,500,000 Settlement Fund from which Settlement Class Members may submit Pet Injury Claims and/or Food Purchase Claims. Mid America markets and manufactures premium branded pet food. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tREHLY at no extra charge.[CC] MR. COOPER: Cabezas Seeks to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending all deadlines in the class certification scheduling order as previously modified by the Court by 30 days. Accordingly, the parties propose amending the Class Certification Scheduling Order as follows: Event New Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve April 1, 2026 motion for class certification on the Defendants (and any expert reports in support thereof): Class certification discovery closes: Aug. 5, 2026 Deadline for the Defendants to serve Aug. 20, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification on the Plaintiffs (and any expert reports in support thereof): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve reply Sept. 21, 2026 in support of class certification (and any rebuttal experts in support thereof): Class certification submission date: Oct. 5, 2026 Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond Defendants' control, the deposition of one of Defendants’ witnesses produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice was delayed by twenty-eight days. This witness was designated to testify on 16 topics. Good cause exists to amend the Class Certification Scheduling Order to facilitate administration of the case and conserve the Court's and the parties' resources, given the unforeseen and unavoidable delays in discovery. Amending the case schedule is in the interests of justice and efficiency. Moreover, the requested extension retains the cadence of the existing Class Certification Scheduling Order and will not prejudice any party. Mr. Cooper is a U.S. mortgage servicer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xo3xa8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (877) 744-3728 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866-252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com MTL FOODS: Elliott Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brayden Elliott, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. MTL FOODS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00367-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to themself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages – unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages). The Defendant's systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to Defendant such that the hourly wages they pay to Plaintiff and Defendant's other delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all outstanding obligations to Defendant. The Defendant fails to reasonably approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that their drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements. In sum, Defendant's reimbursement policy and methodology fail to reflect the realities of delivery drivers' automobile expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are Defendant's current and former delivery drivers. The Defendant owns and operates several Pizza Hut franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com - and - Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com NARDINI INTERNATIONAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. NIDAL INVESTMENTS INC. and DELICIAS & COFFEE EXPRESS LLC D/B/A LA SORPRESA RESTAURANTE LATIN FOOD, Case No. 1:26-cv-20921-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and restaurant business have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. NIDAL INVESTMENTS INC., owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the restaurant business operating within the commercial property and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com NEW ERA CAP: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ERA CAP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01291 (D. Minn., Feb. 10, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.neweracap.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NEW Era Cap, LLC retails apparels. The Company offers adjustable and stretch fit caps, bottoms, hoodies, jackets, tees, tops, cap carriers, cap brushes, and re-cap kits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com NEWREST HOLDING: Court OKs $2.1MM Settlement in Migrant Worker Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Wilson, writing for HCAMag, reports that the Superior Court of Quebec has approved a $2.1‑million settlement in a class action over an alleged fraudulent migrant‑worker recruitment scheme, ordering compensation for hundreds of workers and imposing ongoing compliance obligations on the companies involved. In a judgment, Justice Catherine Piche approved the settlement and class counsel's fees, ending the proceeding. She described the case as "an unusual class action brought on behalf of migrant workers who were victims of a system that allegedly induced them to work under the false promise of obtaining valid work permits in Canada." "For the following reasons, the application for approval is granted. The settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members. It, along with the fees requested by the class counsel, is approved," she wrote. The Immigrant Workers Centre (ITWC) brought the class action after it learned in the summer of 2023 of a system "set up and operated by the Defendants, through which hundreds of migrant and immigrant people were induced to work under the false promise of obtaining a valid work permit in Canada." On Oct. 3, 2023, the applicant filed an application for authorisation to institute a class action against several Newrest entities, Tresor‑related staffing and immigration companies, numbered companies and an immigration firm. The claim sought compensatory and punitive damages under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Quebec for workers allegedly induced to work without valid permits, including in Newrest's Montreal production units. The court later authorised the class action for settlement purposes only. The class covers "any person who has worked since Oct. 3, 2020, regardless of the duration, but without holding a valid work permit, including in Newrest's production units located in Montreal" after being placed or paid by one of the specified entities and, in the event of death, their heirs. Settlement structure and compensation The defendants agreed to pay a global settlement amount of $2.3 million, including a sum already committed as a remedial measure, "in consideration for a global settlement of the class action." After the parties received 11 exclusions, they applied the settlement's adjustment clause and reduced the amount to $2.1 million. The court noted that the final amount each person receives will depend on the number of eligible claims and the distribution formula. Plaintiff's counsel estimate the group includes roughly 300 to 400 people and project that members "could receive, on average, compensation ranging from $4,000 to $6,000 each," subject to the claims process and the approved Distribution Plan. Newrest had already paid $500,000 into class counsel's trust account on 24 October 2023 to fund an "Urgent Campaign to Regularize the Immigration Status of Group Members." The court recognised this as a remedial measure under article 595 of the Code of Civil Procedure and treated it as part of the overall settlement amount. "In summary, the Agreement provides direct financial compensation to the members and is fair and reasonable. This criterion, which is the most important, favours the approval of the transaction," Justice Piche wrote. The parties drafted the discharge so that it preserves wage‑recovery claims. The Agreement expressly excludes "claims of a monetary nature for the recovery of unpaid wages," so more than 80 wage claims before the Commission des normes, de l'equite, de la sante et de la securite du travail (CNESST) remain active and fall outside the settlement. Regularisation campaign and policy impact The court placed the Regularization Campaign at the centre of its analysis and treated it as a collective remedial measure that directly addressed the alleged harm. Starting in September 2023, ITWC and its lawyers negotiated with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) "to put in place an exceptional process for the accelerated and simplified processing of applications for temporary resident permits and open work permits for Group Members." During the campaign, several hundred group members met with lawyers, obtained legal information about their status and received assistance to file applications under the negotiated process. Of those who participated, 175 people applied, including 159 group members and 16 spouses or children. By the time the parties signed the Agreement, IRCC had accepted 164 applications: 150 from group members and 14 from family members. The judgment records that "most importantly, no application was rejected on its merits," and notes that remaining applications ended for technical reasons such as a pending asylum claim or voluntary departure. Justice Piche called the initiative "unprecedented." She wrote that "the Campaign led by the Applicant and his lawyers is unprecedented and has undoubtedly made a significant contribution to the advancement of the rights of migrant workers in Canada," and concluded that "the Regularisation Campaign was an extremely beneficial and salutary measure for Members, initiated and carried out for their fullest benefit." The court found that many members "were unaware of their rights in Quebec and Canada," spoke mainly Spanish and had limited financial means. It held that "the free legal assistance they received in this context would have been inaccessible to them without the involvement of the Plaintiff and his lawyers, and without the class action." According to the reasons, the campaign also influenced federal policy. The court stated that it "brought a serious problem to IRCC's attention and led to a major change in government policy," citing IRCC's August 2024 decision to abolish a temporary COVID‑era policy that had allowed visitors to apply for work permits from within Canada, after the department said it was "aware that some malicious actors were using the policy to deceive foreign nationals into working in Canada without authorization." In 2025, Amnesty International released a report detailing how the country has implemented rules that lead to harsh working conditions for migrant workers. That came after, in an August 2024 report, Tomoya Obokata, United Nations special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, noted that the TFW Program "serves as a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery, as it institutionalizes asymmetries of power that favour employers and prevent workers from exercising their rights". Compliance obligations and court oversight The Settlement Agreement also creates ongoing compliance obligations for Newrest and the other defendants. Clause 7.1 requires Newrest to ensure "that all immigrant and migrant workers employed in its Montreal production units hold a valid work permit and benefit from the same working conditions as non‑immigrant workers performing the same duties." Clause 7.2 requires the other defendants to guarantee that any immigrant worker they refer, directly or indirectly, to a workplace in Quebec possesses a valid work permit. Clauses 7.3 and 7.4 state that an independent audit firm conducted an internal investigation and that the company imposed disciplinary measures on some employees. "These provisions of the Agreement aim not only to guarantee a form of fairness in working conditions, but also to prevent a situation similar to the present one from recurring in the future," Justice Piche wrote. The court approved a Distribution Plan that it described as "simple, fast and efficient." The plan sets a 120‑day claims period, requires only basic supporting evidence and instructs the administrator to assist claimants. In its formal order, the Superior Court states that "Members have a high expectation of privacy regarding information provided to Proactio Services Inc. in the claims process and that all information provided to Proactio that could, directly or indirectly, identify Members must be kept confidential." The court approved class counsel's fees at 20% of the $2.1‑million settlement, or $420,000 plus taxes. "The fees are fair and reasonable and are approved," Justice Piche wrote, pointing to the high risk the lawyers accepted, the complexity of the file and at least one thousand hours of work. Recently, the Quebec government moved ahead with a new skilled worker selection regime that will replace the popular Quebec Experience Program (Programme de l'experience quebecoise, PEQ) and change how many international students and temporary foreign workers can settle permanently in the province. [GN] NIKE INC: Cahill Seeka Leave to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CAHILL, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-AB (D. Or.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. The new evidence addresses what the Court and the Ninth Circuit found were necessary or "crucial" parts of the evidence in support of class certification. Certification was denied for the disparate impact claim because the evidence was "insufficient" to prove that Nike "required" the use of prior pay, but Nike finally produced evidence demonstrating Nike did require its use. Because Nike withheld this evidence, the Plaintiff was prejudiced. It was not available for the initial motion for class certification, for key depositions, or for otherwise incorporating into litigation strategy. If Plaintiff is not permitted to file a renewed class certification motion, then Nike's suppression of discovery means it avoids a decision on the merits as to the class for its alleged pattern of discrimination against women and discriminatory prior pay practice. No party should be so rewarded, especially at the expense of women who have long been treated worse by Nike because they are women. Nike is an American athletic footwear and apparel corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l1tCMV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura Salerno Owens, Esq. David B. Markowitz, Esq. Harry B. Wilson, Esq. Kathryn P. Roberts, Esq. Kelsie G. Crippen, Esq. MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-3085 Facsimile: (503) 323-9105 E-mail: LauraSalerno@MarkowitzHerbold.com DavidMarkowitz@MarkowitzHerbold.com HarryWilson@MarkowitzHerbold.com KathrynRoberts@MarkowitzHerbold.com KelsieCrippen@MarkowitzHerbold.com - and - Laura L. Ho, Esq. James Kan, Esq. Katharine L. Fisher DARDARIAN HO KAN & LEE 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: lho@dhkl.law jkan@dhkl.law kfisher@dhkl.law - and - Byron Goldstein, Esq. Barry Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN BROWNE, PC 1111 Broadway 3rd Floor, Office 04-117 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 584-9020 E-mail: byron@goldsteinbrowne.com barry@goldsteinbrowne.com - and - Craig Ackerman, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Erika Smolyar, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC 315 S Beverly Drive, Suite 504 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com es@ackermanntilajef.com NIRVANA ENTERPRISES: Faces Mason Suit Over FLSA Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Vanessa Mason, Colin Eastman, Carmella York, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nirvana Enterprises, AZ, LLC, d/b/a/ Nirvana Cannabis, Nirvana Centers MI, LLC, d/b/a/ Nirvana Cannabis, Nirvana Center Illinois, LLC, d/b/a/ Nirvana Cannabis, and Sheraz Warraich, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00446-KML (D. Ariz., January 22, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona common law. As a result of the failure to pay wages in accordance with the FLSA, the Plaintiffs, as well as those similarly situated to Plaintiffs, have suffered monetary damages by failing to receive their lawfully owed tips during their tenure of employment with Defendants, says the suit. The complaint adds that the Defendants have violated the provisions of the FLSA, resulting in damages to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to Plaintiffs, in the form of wrongfully withheld tips, incurred and incurring costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as budtenders in Defendants' retail dispensaries in various states, including but not limited to Arizona, Michigan, and Illinois. Nirvana Cannabis is a medical and recreational cannabis company that owns and operates cannabis dispensaries in five states: Arizona, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com NOVO NORDISK: Levi & Korsinsky Named Lead Counsel in "Barta" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Eric Barta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Novo Nordisk A/S, Maziar Mike Doustdar, Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen, Karsten Munk Knudsen, and David S. Moore, Defendants, Civil No. 25-14045 (ZNQ)(JBD) (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Ahmed Hashim's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel in this putative securities class action. The court simultaneously denied competing motions filed by IAM Motor City Pension Fund and Roman Ivanov. On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff Eric Barta brought a putative securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Novo Nordisk A/S common stock between May 7, 2025 and July 28, 2025. The complaint alleged that defendant made materially false and misleading statements concerning Novo's expected sales and revenue growth for the 2025 fiscal year, including statements concerning Novo's ability to grow GLP-1 sales and the overall potential of the GLP-1 market. According to the complaint, defendant concealed material adverse facts that caused investors to purchase Novo stock at artificially inflated prices. As a result, investors suffered losses after Novo's stock price fell from $69.00 per share to $53.94 on July 29, 2025, once these adverse facts were publicly disclosed. Following the filing of the complaint, three members of the putative class -- IAM Motor City Pension Fund, Ahmed Hashim, and Roman Ivanov -- filed competing motions to be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their selected counsel approved as lead counsel. The court's analysis began with identifying the movant with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. During the class period, the Fund acquired 3,619 shares of Novo stock at a total cost of $248,777.25 and asserted a loss of $52,317. Ivanov purchased 10,000 shares at a total cost of $687,395.00 and asserted a realized loss of $140,786 after selling all shares at an average price of $54.43. Hashim purchased 25,000 shares at a total cost of $1,683,253.61 and asserted damages of $326,114.72, calculated as the difference between the total cost of those shares and the average trading price during the 90-day period following the alleged corrective disclosure. The court determined that Hashim had the largest financial interest in the suit. He purchased the most shares during the class period, expended the most money, and suffered the most economic harm as calculated under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court then assessed whether Hashim satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's typicality and adequacy requirements. The court found that Hashim made a prima facie showing of typicality, as his claims were based on the same legal theory and arose from the same events and course of conduct as the claims of the putative class. Like other members of the putative class, he asserted that he acquired shares of Novo stock at artificially inflated prices during the class period and suffered damages because of defendant's false and misleading statements. On adequacy, Hashim filed a certification expressing his capability to serve as lead plaintiff and his understanding of and willingness to accept the responsibilities of that role. The court found no information giving cause for concern that Hashim had interests antagonistic or uncommon to the class. Having suffered the greatest financial loss, Hashim had a strong incentive to prosecute the action vigorously. The court noted that Hashim's motion to serve as lead plaintiff was unopposed. Because no member of the putative class challenged his appointment, the presumption of his adequacy stood. The court therefore appointed Hashim as lead plaintiff. The court approved Hashim's selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel. The firm had extensive experience in securities class action litigation, and Hashim signed a retainer agreement after being satisfied that its attorneys would adequately serve as lead counsel. The court found no information suggesting that Hashim's selection of the firm was anything other than the result of a good faith selection and negotiation process arrived at via meaningful arms-length bargaining. The court noted it had previously appointed the firm to represent lead plaintiffs in similar circumstances. Accordingly, the court ordered that Hashim's motion to appoint lead plaintiff was granted, and the Fund's and Ivanov's motions were denied. The court further ordered that Hashim was appointed lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP was appointed lead class counsel to represent all putative classes and sub-classes pending and through a decision on class certification. Lead plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the order. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mo54hl from PacerMonitor.com Defendant MAZIAR MIKE DOUSTDAR Represented By: Andrew G. Gordon Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-3543 agordon@paulweiss.com Audra Jan Soloway Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 212-373-3289 asoloway@paulweiss.com Daniel S. Sinnreich Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-2540 dsinnreich@paulweiss.com Samuel Isaac Portnoy Fbt Gibbons LLP 973-596-4909 sportnoy@fbtgibbons.com Defendant Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen Represented By: Andrew G. Gordon Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-3543 agordon@paulweiss.com Audra Jan Soloway Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 212-373-3289 asoloway@paulweiss.com Daniel S. Sinnreich Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-2540 dsinnreich@paulweiss.com Defendant Karsten Munk Knudsen Represented By: Andrew G. Gordon Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-3543 agordon@paulweiss.com Audra Jan Soloway Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 212-373-3289 asoloway@paulweiss.com Daniel S. Sinnreich Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-2540 dsinnreich@paulweiss.com Defendant David S. Moore Represented By: Andrew G. Gordon Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-3543 agordon@paulweiss.com Audra Jan Soloway Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 212-373-3289 asoloway@paulweiss.com Daniel S. Sinnreich Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-2540 dsinnreich@paulweiss.com Defendant NOVO NORDISK A/S Represented By: Andrew G. Gordon Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-3543 agordon@paulweiss.com Audra Jan Soloway Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 212-373-3289 asoloway@paulweiss.com Daniel S. Sinnreich Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 212-373-2540 dsinnreich@paulweiss.com Movant Ahmed Hashim Represented By: Shannon L. Hopkins Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 203-992-4523 shopkins@zlk.com Gregory M. Potrepka Counsel Not Admitted To USDC – NJ Bar 203-992-4523 gpotrepka@zlk.com Adam M. Apton Levi & Korsinsky LLP 212-363-7500 aapton@zlk.com Movant IAM Motor City Pension Fund Represented By: Esther Eva Berezofsky Motley Rice New Jersey, LLC 856-667-0500 eberezofsky@motleyrice.com Movant Roman Ivanov Represented By: Thomas Henry Przybylowski Pomerantz LLP 212-661-1100 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com Movant Jessica Wulff Movant Virginia Wulff Represented By: Laurence M. Rosen The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 973-313-1887 lrosen@rosenlegal.com Plaintiff Eric Barta Represented By: Adam M. Apton Levi & Korsinsky LLP 212-363-7500 aapton@zlk.com OLAY INC: Dasilvio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olay Inc. The case is styled as Aysha Dasilvio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Olay Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00156-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Olay -- https://www.olay.com/ -- is an American skin care brand owned by Procter & Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com OMAHASTEAKS.COM LLC: Faces Nelson Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN NELSON on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMAHASTEAKS.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10481-MFL-KGA (E.D. Mich., February 11, 2026) arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly delivered, or caused to be delivered, the subject text messages to Plaintiff's residential or cellular telephone number 31 or more days after the number was registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Omahasteaks.com, LLC operates as an online meat delivery company. It offers steaks, meats, seafood, sides, and desserts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herrera v. Ontrac Logistics, Inc. et al (RE ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC. DELIVERY DRIVERS LITIGATION), Case No. 3:25-cv-00022-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order to extend class certification, ADR, and related deadlines: 1. June 20, 2026, to complete ADR; 2. Aug. 10, 2026, for initial expert reports relating to class certification; 3. Sept. 8, 2026, for rebuttal expert reports relating to class certification 4. Sept. 30, 2026, to file a motion for class certification; 5. Oct. 21, 2026, file an opposition to class certification; 6. Nov. 4, 2026, to file a reply in support of a motion for class certification. The hearing on class certification is to be continued to Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. OnTrac was a privately held logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pmKhoq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq. Jessica Westerman, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 665 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 813-3260 Facsimile: (415) 813-2495 E-mail: peterson-fisher@katzbanks.com westerman@katzbanks.com - and - Virginia Villegas, Esq. THE VILLEGAS LAW FIRM, APC 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 903 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 989-8000 Facsimile: (415-989-8028 E-mail: virginia@e-licenciados.com - and - Jennifer Smith, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO 1861 Bay Road East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 204-9065 Facsimile: (866) 688-5204 E-mail: jsmith@clsepa.org The Defendants are represented by: Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. Janis E. Steck, Esq. Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com jsteck@scopelitis.com candrewscavage@scopelitis.com PAMELA BONDI: Almeida Files Suit in D. Utah ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pamela J. Bondi. The case is styled as Brayan Daniel Grateron Almeida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pamela J. Bondi, in her official capacity as the United States Attorney General; The Executive Office for Immigration Review, Case No. 2:26-cv-00049-AMA-DAO (D. Utah, Jan. 20, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Immigration Actions. Pamela Jo Bondi is an American attorney and politician who has served as the 87th United States attorney general since 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Stephen Bracken, Esq. CONTIGO LAW LLC PO Box 249 Midvale, UT 84047 Phone: (435) 669-4875 Email: alec@contigo.law PAYCOR INC: Court Partly Alters Class Definition in "Barrow" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as JUAN BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAYCOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-264-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Class Definition. n March 28, 2025, the Court partially granted Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court certified the following class: All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints, hand geometry or other biometric data collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed by Defendant's Perform Time biometric timekeeping system during the applicable statutory period. The Court also appointed Plaintiff as the class representative and the law firms of Stephan Zouras, LLC, and Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway and Wise, LLP, as class counsel. Defendant moved to alter or amend the class definition, arguing it was clearly overbroad on four grounds: (a) it included people whom the Court had already excluded; (b) it encompassed people who consented to the collection and disclosure of their data; (c) it covered double the applicable time period; and (d) it included people whose claims against Defendant were released in Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act settlements with their employers. As to the first ground, at the hearing held on September 24, 2025, Defendant confirmed that none of the Perform Time timeclock models in use from 2015 to the present contained a hand geometry scanning functionality. This was subsequently confirmed in a Third Supplemental Declaration of David Goodwin, filed October 24, 2025. Accordingly, the Court found Defendant's first argument moot and agreed to alter the class definition to remove the reference to hand geometry. The Court rejected Defendant's second, third, and fourth arguments, all of which related to persons who may have signed written consents or releases. The Court declined to resolve factual variances or delve into the merits of fact-intensive claims or defenses better left for summary judgment. The Court noted that the case remained in the middle of discovery and that the Seventh Circuit had itself observed the summary judgment ruling would likely address the legal questions surrounding Defendant's responsibilities under Sections 15(b) and (d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, including whether employer-obtained consents could discharge Defendant's obligations under the Act. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Class Definition was granted in part and denied in part. The definition of the previously certified class was altered and amended as follows: All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints or other biometric data collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed by Defendant's Perform Time biometric timekeeping system during the applicable statutory period. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 16, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y4DMv7 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Paycor, Inc. Counsel for Defendant: Michael B. Galibois, Reed Smith LLP – Chicago Phone: 312-207-2810 Email: mgalibois@reedsmith.com Plaintiff Kellin Johns Counsel for Plaintiff: Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan Zouras, LLP Phone: 312-233-1550 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com Brandon M. Wise, Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, APLC Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com Megan E. Shannon, Stephan Zouras, LLP Phone: 312-233-1550 Email: mshannon@stephanzouras.com James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras, LLP Phone: 312-233-1550 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com Catherine T. Mitchell, Stephan Zouras, LLP Phone: 312-233-1550 Email: cmitchell@stephanzouras.com R&R EXPRESS: Eastman Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER EASTMAN and ERIC MCQUISTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R&R EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00240 (W.D. Pa., February 10, 2026) alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On or around January 12, 2026, less than 60 days prior to termination of their employment, approximately 500 employees of Defendant learned that they were to be terminated immediately without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoff or facility closing ordered by Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to give its employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' back pay and benefits pursuant to the WARN Act. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, R&R Express, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com RELIAS LLC: "Kieliszewski" Suit Junked for Lack of Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Angie Kieliszewski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Relias LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-CV-00043-M-RN (E.D.N.C.), Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The matter came before the court on a Memorandum and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted. The Memorandum and Recommendation, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the parties on January 30, 2026. Neither party filed a timely objection. Upon careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and Plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BZpUyR from PacerMonitor.com SAMUEL OLSON: Salmeron Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESMERALDA DE LA CRUZ SALMERON, v. SAMUEL OLSON, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00198-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Salmeron's petition for writ of habeas corpus as follows: The Defendants are directed to release Petitioner Salmeron immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of her due process rights. The Defendants must provide her with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by February 9, 2026. The Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Salmeron. The current detention of Salmeron is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. On October 15, 2025, Salmeron was arrested by Department of Homeland Security officers outside of a Home Depot in Chicago, Illinois. On the same day, Salmeron was issued a Warrant for Arrest pursuant to Form I-200. Salmeron was also issued a Notice to Appear Form I-862. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=242nKp at no extra charge.[CC] SARAYA USA: Kinman Suit Removed to D. Utah ------------------------------------------ The case styled as VALERIE KINMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SARAYA USA, INC. d/b/a LAKANTO, a Utah corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07539, was removed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the District of Utah on January 22, 2026. The District Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00062-TC-DAO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Tena Campbell. This putative class action seeks to hold Defendant responsible for materially misleading statements made on the labels of its "LAKANTO MONKFRUIT SWEETENER" products. Despite numerous, prominent representations on the product labels that the products are a "MONKFRUIT SWEETENER" containing a "rare superfood prized for its sweetness and ability to raise chi, or life energy," the products contain almost no monk fruit, says the suit. Saraya USA, Inc., d/b/a LAKANTO, manufactures, markets, distributes, labels, promotes, advertises and sells the sweetener products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Juliette P. White, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 S Main St., Ste 1800 PO BOX 45898 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 E-mail: JWhite@parsonsbehle.com SEMTECH CORPORATION: Kleovoulos Seeks to Rule 23 Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colleen Kleovoulos v. Semtech Corporation et al (re SEMTECH CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:25-cv-01474-MCS-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 1, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appoint Block & Leviton LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). On Oct. 7, 2025, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The Court found the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pleads actionable claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with respect to Defendant Hou's Nov. 25, 2024, statements about the market opportunity for Semtech's active copper cables. The proposed Class that Plaintiff seeks to certify consists of: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Semtech Corporation during the period from Nov. 25, 2024, to Feb. 7, 2025 inclusive (the "Class Period")." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their families, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. This action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Semtech and its Chief Executive Officer, Hong Q. Hou. Semtech is a provider of high-performance semiconductors, Internet of Things ("IoT") systems, and cloud connectivity solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WKJ2as at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Michael D. Gaines, Esq. Zoe van Vlaanderen, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 400 Concar Drive San Mateo CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 781-0025 E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com jeff@blockleviton.com michael@blockleviton.com zoe@blockleviton.com - and - Salvador E. Perez, Esq. STRUMWASSER & WOOCHER LLP 1250 6th Street, Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 576-1233 E-mail: sperez@strumwooch.com SHELL CHEMICAL: Parties Seeks to Extend Scheduling Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLYNN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SHELL CHEMICAL APPALACHIA, LLC Case No. 2:24-cv-00193-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Horan entered an order granting the Parties' motion to extend scheduling order as follows: -- Date by which class certification fact discovery shall be completed: July 24, 2026. -- Date by which the Plaintiffs' expert reports as to class certification shall be served: Aug.7, 2026. -- Date by which the Defendant's expert reports as to class certification shall be served: Oct. 13, 2026. -- Date by which the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed: Dec. 11, 2026. -- Date by which the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed: Jan. 8, 2027. -- Date by which the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class certification, if any, shall be filed: Jan. 26, 2027. The Defendant operates a major petrochemical complex in Potter Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, known as Shell Polymers Monaca (SPM). A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GgnYOo at no extra charge.[CC] SHELL TRADING: LHB Ventures Balks at Unpaid Oil, Gas Royalties -------------------------------------------------------------- LHB VENTURES LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY, FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, and BLACK BEAR OIL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00052-SPK (D. Wy., February 10, 2026) is a class action concerning the Defendants' past and ongoing violations of the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act and their continuing breaches of their payment obligations to payees regarding oil and gas products produced from wells located in Wyoming. The complaint alleges the Defendants' (1) failure to pay the 18 percent statutory interest which the Defendants have owed on untimely, or "late," owner payments owed on the sale of oil and gas production to those interest owners legally entitled to such payments; (2) failure to comply with the applicable information reporting requirements to interest owners; and (3) breach of their royalty payment obligations to lessors and overriding royalty interest owners, based upon the Defendants' unauthorized and improper deduction of various costs from the selling price of oil produced from Wyoming wells in which lessors and overriding royalty owners have an ownership interest, in the Defendants' calculation and payment of royalties paid to the affected lessors and overriding royalty owners. Plaintiff LHB Ventures is a limited liability company which was established and organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. Shell Trading (US) Company buys and sells barrels of hydrocarbons in physical markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Winship, Esq. WINSHIP & WINSHIP, P.C. 145 South Durbin Street, Suite 201 Casper, WY 82601 Telephone: (307) 234-8991 E-mail: steve@winshipandwinship.com - and - George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com seth@bartonburrows.com SIG SAUER: Carter Suit Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CARTER, Individually and on behalf of the Sig Sauer, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. SIG SAUER, INC., THE SIG SAUER, INC. 401(k) COMMITTEE, John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries and members of the Committee, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00098 (D.N.H., February 10, 2026) seeks to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for more than eight years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, Plaintiff was subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses, says the suit. Headquartered in Newington, NH, Sig Sauer, Inc. manufactures rifles, pistols, suppressors, optics, ammunition, and airguns. [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 - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com SOLAREDGE TECH: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-09748-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension to the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their pending motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and lead counsel from Feb. 13, 2026 to Feb. 20, 2026. The Defendants filed their opposition on January 16, 2026, which included a supporting expert report from Dr. Mark Garmaise. Dr. Garmaise was not available for an in-person deposition in New York until February 10, 2026, only three days before the Plaintiffs' reply is due. Given this prohibitively short timeframe for obtaining a transcript of Dr. Garmaise's deposition and incorporating testimony into the Plaintiffs' reply, the Plaintiffs request a short one-week extension of their reply deadline. The Defendants consent to this extension, which will not affect any other dates in the Case Management Order. SolarEdge is a US company that developed a DC optimized inverter system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B3NgM4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com SOUTH CENTRAL: Avila-Soto Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE DE JESUS AVILA-SOTO, et al. v. SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR CANE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01392-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), declaring that Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives, and appointing class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 class certification of their second and third claims for relief for breach of contract and violations of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of a class defined as: "All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers who were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers hauling harvested sugarcane within the state of Louisiana during the 2022, 2023, 2024, and/or 2025 sugarcane seasons." South Central is an organization involved in agricultural support activities, specifically focusing on sugar crops and machine harvesting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKGthE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Knoepp, Esq. Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com - and - Daniel Davis, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com ST. LOUIS, MO: $4MM Class Settlement Gets Court Preliminary Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Kirn, writing for 5 On Your Side, reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a $4 million class‑action settlement for hundreds of people who say they endured inhumane conditions while held at the city's Medium Security Institution, commonly known as the Workhouse. U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig issued the 15‑page order Feb. 13, allowing the case -- first filed in 2017 -- to proceed as a settlement class action. The lawsuit, against the city of St. Louis, alleges detainees housed at MSI between 2012 and 2022 experienced extreme heat, poor ventilation, sewage overflows, rodent and insect infestations, mold and overcrowding, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling marks a significant step toward resolving litigation that stretched over eight years and wound through the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2024 reversed an earlier class‑certification order. The parties later revised the class definition and reached agreement on a settlement on Feb. 24, 2025, after multiple mediations. [GN] STENY'S INC: Witman Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Witman, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. STENY'S, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00235 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin law against Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages and its operation of an unlawful tip pool. The Defendant takes at tip credit to meet its obligations to pay front-of-house employees the minimum wage. Defendant also operates a mandatory tip pool that includes kitchen employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin law. The Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective with the requisite notice to take a tip credit in violation the FLSA and Wisconsin law. The Defendant also failed to have a tip declaration signed by Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class each pay period as required by the FLSA and Wisconsin law. As a result of these violations, Defendant is not entitled to take a tip credit for front-of-house employees and thus failed to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the Wisconsin Class the minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a front-of-house employee at Steny's Tavern & Grill. The Defendant operates the restaurant and bar Steny's Tavern & Grill located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Connor J. Clegg, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Hawks Quindel, S.C. 5150 North Port Washington Road Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Phone: (414) 271-8650 Email: cclegg@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: More Time to File Reply Brief Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FISCHER, BRIAN BLAIR and MARGARET BLAZIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02232-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order enlarging the time for the Plaintiffs to file a reply brief in support of their motion for class certification pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3 and 7-11. Specifically, the Plaintiffs requests an extension of 45 days to file their reply brief in support of their Motion. The proposed schedule is as follows: 1. The Deadline for filing Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: April 6, 2026 2. Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Motion: April 23, 2026. The Plaintiffs have diligently pursued discovery in this matter but require additional time to depose the 24 putative class members who submitted declarations in support of Defendant's Opposition. The Plaintiffs seek this limited extension to avoid prejudice for two reasons. First, the Plaintiffs need time to depose putative classes members who signed declarations in support of the Defendant's opposition to the Motion. Second, the Plaintiffs need additional time to obtain and review precertification discovery Defendant has already agreed to produce but has not produced. Swift offers logistics, convention facilities, heavy hauling, trans loading, and trucking services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cKs6dN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli III, Esq. Frank J. White Jr., Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com fwhite@schneiderwallace.com TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 30, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move for an order granting class certification, on the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied. This motion is made following the order regarding class certification briefing schedule issued on November 25, 2025. The parties met and conferred prior to this motion in accordance with local rule 7-3 on January 13, 2026. The Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes: Nationwide Class "All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software from January 2022 up to and including final judgment in this action." California Subclass "All California residents who are legally blind, including those who use screen readers, who, between Jan. 1, 2022 and July 31, 2023, visited coach.com using a screen reader and tried to interact with store‑linked website functionality that provides store‑specific information or initiates, modifies, or completes in‑person transactions or services at Coach physical stores." The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses the screen reader to access the internet. He attempted to access coach.com to locate and purchase Coach products and to use services offered through Coach's physical retail stores, including in-store pickup. Tapestry is a company which designs and markets luxury accessories and lifestyle brands. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=45izAE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com TC HEARTLAND: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Docs -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting Joint Motion to Seal pursuant to the Court's Order Regarding Sealing Requests pertaining to sealing motions filed previously regarding materials referenced in Plaintiff's motion for class certification and subsequent briefings. The Parties jointly seek to seal the documents at issue because they contain highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information, including materials designated as "Confidential" under the Stipulated Protective Order, third-party Circana, LLC's non public trade secret sales data, and Plaintiff’s and his wife's private medical records and information, the public disclosure of which would likewise result in substantial and irreparable harm. Pursuant to the Court's Sealing Requests Order, the Parties concurrently file an Appendix identifying all pending sealing requests. TC Heartland seeks to seal four exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification that contain detailed and commercially sensitive business information. Specifically, TC Heartland seeks to seal Exhibits 4, 9, 10, and 11 to the Declaration of Alan Gudino. The information contained in these materials constitutes confidential, commercially sensitive business information that TC Heartland uses to assess its marketing and product strategy and keeps secret from the public. Public disclosure would pose a significant risk of competitive harm to TC Heartland, warranting sealing under applicable authority. The identified materials disclose Plaintiff’s and his spouse’s medical information, which warrants the highest degree of privacy protection. Public disclosure would cause substantial and irreparable harm, including unwanted attention and the potential misuse of sensitive personal data -- harms that cannot be undone once placed on the public record. The sealing request is narrowly tailored, seeking to redact only the specific deposition testimony and the single sentence in Defendant’s opposition brief that reveal medical details. No broader sealing is sought, and the requested redactions represent the least restrictive means of protecting Plaintiff’s privacy while preserving public access to all other information. TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPHQoW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Cassandra L. Rasmussen, Esq. Jiaming Zheng, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com crasmussen@clarksonlawfirm.com jzheng@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kelly M. Morrison, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: asmith@jenner.com kmorrison@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com TOMMY BAHAMA: Bid for Class Certification in Haley Due Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE HALEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01969-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending scheduling order on class certification deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline to join additional parties: June 1, 2026 (unchanged) Class certification discovery deadline: Sept. 23, 2026 Motion for class certification: Oct. 22, 2026 Parties to meet and confer regarding No later than 14 days remaining discovery and case after resolution of the scheduling deadlines: motion for class certification The Parties filed a proposed case schedule within their Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan on December 17, 2025 The Defendant provides apparel for men and women. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34oket at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com TRACFONE WIRELESS: Class Settlement in Barcomb Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN BARCOMB, DAVID SETTERS, CHARISE CARSON, JAYNAE COLE, JOSHUA DA VIS, RA VEN HARDEN and MICHAEL BROADUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08710-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Buchwald entered an order and judgment granting final approval of class action settlement: The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and, for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment only, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons who were affected by the Data Security Incident." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendant's officers and directors at the time of the signing of the Settlement Agreement; (ii) any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; and (iii) the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, successors, heirs, and assigns of Defendant. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are members of the judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and members of their staff. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Plaintiffs Darren Barcomb, David Setters, Charise Carson, Jaynae Cole, Joshua Davis, Raven Harden, and Michael Broadus as Settlement Class Representatives. The Court grants final approval to the appointment Mason Barney and Tyler Bean of Siri & Glimstad LLP as Class Counsel. The Court, after careful review of the Fee Application filed by Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards required by relevant case law, grants Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $1,400,000. Payment shall be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. TracFone provides mobile phone services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m81zkt at no extra charge.[CC] TRI COUNTIES: Agrees to Settle 2023 Cyberattack Suit for $1.185MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Tri Counties Bank has agreed to a $1,185,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the financial institution failed to protect confidential consumer information stored on its systems from a February 2023 cyberattack. The Tri Counties Bank class action settlement received preliminary court approval on January 21, 2026 and covers all individuals whose private information may have been accessed during the data breach, including those who received a notice of data breach from the bank. Court documents estimate that approximately 74,385 individuals will be covered by the deal. The court-approved website for the Tri Counties Bank data breach settlement can be found at TriCountiesSettlement.com. According to the website, Tri Counties Bank settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Firstly, class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the breach are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The agreement outlines that class members must submit supporting documentation with their claim form to reimburse expenses related to identity theft and fraud services purchased after the data breach, costs of credit reports and credit freezing/unfreezing, and other expenses directly related to the breach. In lieu of a documented loss payment, class members can file a claim form to receive a one-time alternative cash payment of approximately $100. Per the settlement site, no proof is required from class members to receive an alternative cash payout, which may become pro-rated based the number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after all administrative costs, attorney's fees and lead plaintiff service awards have been paid. In addition to either cash payment, the agreement reports that settlement class members who are residents of California, or who lived in California at any point between February 7, 2023 and April 21, 2026, are also entitled to a one-time cash payment of approximately $150 due to state-specific statutory laws. Like the alternative cash payments, California statutory payments may be pro-rated should the number of valid claims exceed the settlement fund. Tri Counties Bank class members may elect to receive their cash payout by check or electronic payment upon submission of their claim form, and the agreement states that all checks must be cashed within 120 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to monetary benefits, all class members may file a claim to receive a code to enroll in one free year of expanded identity theft and fraud monitoring, including single-bureau credit monitoring, identity theft insurance and access to fraud resolution specialists, per the settlement agreement. Moreover, Tri Counties Bank has agreed to improve its data system security as part of the settlement to better protect its stored information and mitigate the risk of a future data breach. To submit a Tri Counties Bank settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the CPT ID and passcode as 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 Tri Counties Bank settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than April 21, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Tri Counties Bank settlement final approval at a hearing on April 22, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Tri Counties Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the California-based financial institution failed to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive personal information stored in its systems from a February 2023 data breach. According to the filing, information that may have been extracted during the breach includes names, Social Security numbers, driver's license and state identification numbers, passport numbers, digital or electronic signatures, tax ID numbers, access and login credentials, and mothers' maiden names. [GN] TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert. Deadline Suspended in Gerena Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARDY-GERENA v. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04345 (D.D.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Nichols entered an order granting consent motion to hold in abeyance the class certification deadline. The Plaintiff is excused from the default deadline for moving for class certification under Local Civil Rule 23.1(b). The Court further entered an order that a new deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification will be established later by court order. The nature of suit states statutory actions. Tyler is a provider of proprietary software to the United States public sector.[CC] UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES: Martucci Sues Over Defective Fire Alarms ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MARTUCCI, on behalf of himself and the Putative Class, Plaintiff v. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC., UL LLC, UL SOLUTIONS INC., UL STANDARDS AND ENGAGEMENT and UL RESEARCH INSTITUTES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01561 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2026) arises from the dangerous and serious defects, dangers and non-conformities in all combination-listed single databus burglar and fire alarm system control units that were tested and listed by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and its other entities and sold with their listed mark throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the dangers inherent in these control units renders them non-conforming to the minimum standards required by both UL and NFPA 72 Standards (UL-985 and UL-1023, and NFPA 72 Standards- National Fire Alarm Code and NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code). However, the Defendants concealed these serious defects, dangers and non-conformities from consumers and/or failed to disclose the Alarm System Defects to Plaintiff and the class, while at the same time affirmatively representing the Alarm Systems were UL and NFPA 72 compliant, representing that the Alarm Systems as Defendants listed for their intended purpose are safe and reliable when they really are not. The Defendants also failed to take appropriate remedial action, even though Defendants were aware that the single data-bus circuit of all combination listed control units was non-compliant to Defendants and NFPA regulations, says the suit. Headquartered in Northbrook, IL, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. offers product safety testing, certification, endorsement and standard development both in the United States and internationally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: lconsidine@nagelrice.com bnagel@nagelrice.com ddisabato@disabatolaw.com - and - Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq. John N. Poulos , Esq. Anthony Almeida, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO, PC 1305 South Roller Rd. Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 757-0165 E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com poulos@pllawfirm.com almeida@pllawfirm.com UNILEVER UNITED: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to July 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACEY TIMMINS, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-03017-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting the parties' stipulation regarding the Plaintiff's first amended complaint and extension of class certification deadlines. The class certification schedule is modified as follows: Event Deadline Motion for class certification and July 15, 2026 expert reports due: Opposition to class certification and Nov. 3, 2026 rebuttal expert reports due: Reply in support of class certification Dec. 18, 2026 due: Class certification hearing at Jan. 21, 2027 1:30 p.m. PT: 3. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged. Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c17gka at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Suite 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com The Defendant is represented by: Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq. Sarah Garbuzov, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Jamboree Center 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 475-1500 E-mail: nkaneko@shb.com sgarbuzov@shb.com UNITED PARKS: Eastman Seeks Leave to File Unredacted Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATIANA EASTMAN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. UNITED PARKS AND RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:24-cv-01534-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file unredacted motion for class certification and accompanying exhibits under seal. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order permitting to file an unredacted version of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and accompanying Exhibits D, E, F, G, L, M, N under seal. The documents that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal were designated as "confidential" by the Defendant as they contain its confidential business information. Exhibits D, E, L, N to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification contain documents produced by Defendant in discovery and that have been designated "confidential", under the terms of the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement executed by the Parties on April 3, 2025. Exhibits F, G, M contain deposition transcript and one exhibit to the deposition that have been designated "confidential" by the Defendant, under the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement. The Motion for Class Certification has been partially redacted inasmuch as it contains descriptions or excerpts of the content of confidential material under the terms of Confidentiality Agreement. The Defendant is an American entertainment company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ocP07v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com andree@scottdowens.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com UNITED PARKS: Eastman Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATIANA EASTMAN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. UNITED PARKS AND RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:24-cv-01534-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contends that the class easily meets all the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule 23, and thus the class should be certified. Accordingly, the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the proposed class, requests that the Court certify the class, appoint her and her counsel class representatives and class counsel, respectively, and award all other and further relief that the Court deems equitable and just to conclude this matter. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class and Subclass: Unjust Enrichment Class "All natural persons in the United States who made a purchase at one of the Defendant's parks using a credit or debit card and were charged a 5% surcharge or a service fee at the time of completing payment for goods or services." FDUTPA Subclass "All natural persons residing in Florida who made a purchase at one of the Defendant's parks using a credit or debit card and were charged a 5% surcharge or a service fee at the time of completing payment for goods or services." Excluded from the Classes are the Judge and the Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members of their immediate families; the Defendant and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in Defendant and its legal representatives, assigns and successors; and all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class. On June 4, 2024, the Plaintiff visited SeaWorld Orlando, one of the parks owned and/or operated by United Parks. The Plaintiff purchased her ticket in person at the park's entrance and paid with her card. The ticket receipt shows the ticket price of $139.99, a "Service Fees" of $7.00, which are added to a subtotal, on which taxes were calculated. United is an American entertainment company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9OWyB6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com andree@scottdowens.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com VALENTINA NIKITYUK: Jimenez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentina Nikityuk. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, Juan Jose Giron, Ana Maria Rosas Benitez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Valentina Nikityuk, Case No. E2026003630 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Monroe Cty., Feb. 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Other (Employment).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael John Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 825-8620 VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon Sues Over False Ads, Illegal Drip Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW NIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEGAS.COM, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 26CV166294 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., January 22, 2026) is a consumer class action against Defendant Vegas.com, LLC for alleged violations of the California False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff brought this suit, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated California consumers who purchased hotel accommodations, show tickets, tours, or other similar goods or services on Defendant's website -- Vegas.com -- from January 22, 2022 through May 20, 2025. According to the complaint, until May 2025, consumers purchasing accommodations, show tickets, tours, and similar goods or services on Vegas.com were lured to Defendant's online platform with deceptively low headline prices. Once consumers engaged with the site and began the checkout process, Vegas LLC imposed substantial, mandatory fees-such as "service fees," "processing fees," "convenience fees," "delivery fees," and "resort charges" -- that Vegas LLC revealed only during later stages of the checkout process, after consumers had invested time, effort and cognitive energy in the buying process. The complaint asserts that Vegas LLC used deceptive design practices to further impair consumers' ability to make informed decisions. For example, its website employs deceptive design techniques such as "urgency" and "scarcity" messaging to induce an increasing sense of pressure and motivation to make a purchase quickly, by creating the impression that there is limited inventory, limited time offers, or high demand. Vegas.com LLC sells hotel rooms, air + hotel packages, show tickets, sports tickets, tours, attractions, and access to clubs in Las Vegas and other destinations, on Vegas.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. J. Mark Moore, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 807-1666 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com mmoore@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com achemiak@hammondlawpc.com VIKING ENTERPRISES: Cisneros Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Blaine Cisneros and Demetrius Dollarhide, individually and for others similarly situated v. VIKING ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CITY AMBULANCE SERVICE, Case No. 4:26-cv-01129 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But Viking does not pay them at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours in excess of 40 each workweek. Instead, Viking requires Plaintiffs and the other Hourly employees to perform work such as attending meetings, responding to calls, completing paperwork, coordinating ambulances, and other regular job duties "off the clock" and without compensation. (Viking's "off the clock work policy"). Viking likewise deducts approximately 2 hours from Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees for "naps," during 24-hour shifts working at Viking's facilities (Viking's "sleep deduction policy"). But Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees are required to remain on call and on duty during these "naps," and they are frequently interrupted by work duties, such as calls. Viking also pays Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (Viking's "bonus pay scheme"). Viking's off the clock work policy, sleep deduction policy, and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as paramedics. Viking touts itself as "leading the way in Texas healthcare transportation since 2006 catering to the needs of Surgical Hospitals, Hospital Emergency Departments, Behavioral Health Hospitals, Free-Standing Emergency Centers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Olivia R. Beale, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com obeale@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hendrickson Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HENDRICKSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as follows: 1. For an Order determining that the Class and Subclass meet the Rule 23(a) pre-requisites. 2. For an Order certifying a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of a Recovery Period Class consisting of: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. who worked at the Defendant's El Centro store location, and who the Defendant identified as having worked outdoors during at least one shift from Dec. 14, 2018, through Dec. 31, 2025, during the summer months—March to October—when temperatures were at and exceeded 80 degrees Fahrenheit ("Recovery Period Class")." 3. For an Order certifying a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of a Subclass consisting of: "all members of the Recovery Period Class who received at least one itemized wage statement for any time worked outdoors at the Defendant's El Centro location from Dec. 14, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2025, during the summer months—March to October—when temperatures were at or exceeded 80 degrees Fahrenheit ("Wage Statement Subclass")." 4. For an Order appointing ARCH Legal, P.C., including attorney Vilmarie Cordero, attorney of record for the Plaintiff, as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Wal-Mart is a subsidiary of Walmart Inc. that serves as the employing entity for the company's workforce. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RgUUle at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vilmarie Cordero, Esq. ARCH LEGAL, P.C. 3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0800 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 E-mail: vcordero@archlegal.com WASHINGTON FINE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Branson Due May 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BRANSON and CHERIE BURKE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company doing business as TOTAL WINE & MORE; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-00589-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order hat the deadlines for briefing in connection with class certification shall be amended as follows: event date Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file May 4, 2026 their motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file its June 3, 2026 response: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file June 18, 2026 their Reply: Total is an American alcohol retailer founded and led by brothers David and Robert Trone. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pp4FYj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: rsolomon@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com The Defendants are represented by: Malaika M. Eaton, Esq. McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-mail: meaton@mcnaul.com - and - William J. Murphy, Esq. John J. Connolly, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 332-0444 E-mail: wmurphy@zuckerman.com jconnolly@zuckerman.com WEALTHPLAN TRADING: Buriek Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN BURIEK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEALTHPLAN TRADING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00821-GPC-DDL (S.D. Cal., February 10, 2026) arises from Defendant's alleged abusive telephone marketing practices that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. On or about August 18, 2025 and November 29, 2024, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The telephone solicitations were initiated at 7:15 AM and 7:01 AM in Plaintiff's time zone. However, the Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, WealthPlan Trading LLC provides retirement planning, financial planning, estate planning, and more. [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 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com WILLIAMS TANK LINES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Tank Lines, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Ruben Lara Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Williams Tank Lines, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001057 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Williams Tank Lines -- http://williamstanklines.com/-- is one of the largest for hire bulk petroleum carriers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Fazio, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Email: a.fazio@d.law WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks Leave to File Clas Cert Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC, And AK FUTURES, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02228-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting permission to file under seal the memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration in support of motion for class Certification. Specifically, the Motion relies on Vando's confidentially-designated documents and data produced to Plaintiff, which involves Vando's sensitive and internal data regarding the number of consumers that purchased Products that Vando has designated as "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." The consumer class action arises from Defendants' sale of mislabeled "Cake" brand delta-8 and delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape cartridges and disposable devices. Despite being marketed as lawful hemp derivatives, the Products are actually marijuana and a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law due to their delta-9 THC concentration exceeding 0.3%. WM is a wholesaler of commercial hemp vaping products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8qhgNC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 612-9999 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC, and AK FUTURES, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02228-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting his motion to certify the classes, appoint Mr. Hernandez as class representative, and appoint Smith Krivoshey, PC and Kazerouni Law Group APC as class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) and an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2). Both classes are defined as follows: "All persons nationwide who purchased the Defendants' Products on delta8resellers.com from Nov. 21, 2021, through Feb. 1, 2026." The damages class seeks full refund damages and certification of claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust enrichment and fraud by omission / intentional misrepresentation. The injunctive relief subclass seeks certification of the UCL and CLRA claims under Rule 23(b)(2) for purposes of injunctive relief. WM is a wholesaler of commercial hemp vaping products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fc4gER at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 612-9999 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com WORLD BOXING: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Habazin Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVANA HABAZIN, et al., v. WORLD BOXING ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-81115-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman entered a pretrial scheduling order and order referring case to mediation. This case is set for trial during the two-week trial period commencing Nov. 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., with a calendar call set for Oct. 28, 2026, at 1:15 p.m. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule, which shall not be modified absent compelling circumstances. Any motions to modify this schedule shall be directed to the attention of U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. Feb.19, 2026 Discovery plan shall be filed. Apr. 30, 2026 Joinder of additional Parties and amend pleadings. May 14, 2026 Any motions for class certification shall be filed. Aug. 20, 2026 All discovery shall be completed. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a3Cc2Y at no extra charge.[CC] WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Parties in Uribe Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Uribe v. Wound Technology Network, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-00284 (M.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 4, 2026), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. The Defendant is a provider of advanced wound care and chronic wound management services.[CC] YI STAR LLC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Mou Says ---------------------------------------------------- DAXING MOU, and ZANLIAN WANG, Plaintiffs v. YI STAR LLC d/b/a Dallas Spicy Chinese Cuisine d/b/a Dallas Panda Chinese Cuisine d/b/a Sichuan Joy d/b/a O My Baobao d/b/a Oh My Baobao d/b/a Hawaii Poke & Boba, DALLAS PANDA CHINESE CUISINE LLC d/b/a Dallas Spicy Chinese Cuisine, YI LI, and JINLUN LI a/k/a Patrick Li, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00149 (E.D. Tex., February 9, 2026) is an action, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from alleged various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices. The Defendants violated federal law by failing to pay Plaintiffs at least the federal minimum wage for each hour worked and failing to pay at one-half times the greater of the federal minimum wage and regular hourly wage for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Mou was employed by Defendants to work as a so-called "fry wok," (i.e., a stir-fry cook) at Sichuan Joy from April 28, 2025 through August 10, 2025; and at 369 BBQ from on or about August 11, 2025 through on or about September 8, 2025. YI Star LLC is a domestic limited liability company engaged in restaurant business with principal places of business in Watauga, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. Last year's confab was sponsored by: Major Sponsors: Atticus Claimscore Duane Morris Esquire Bank Labaton Keller Sucharow SMIaware Tremendous Patron Sponsors: AB Data Darrow Miller Kaplan Supporting Sponsors: EisnerAmper Verita Media Partners: Class Action Insight PacerMonitor Contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. ********* 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 ***