260225.mbx

260225.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 25, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 40 Headlines ADVANCE AUTO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit AGILON HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 2 AGRI STATS: Ayers Antitrust Suit Removed to M.D. Ala. ALASKA REGIONAL: Screening Order Entered in Chapa Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Curtis Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit APX AUTO BROKERS: Dalton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California BASIC AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Waldrop Due Jan. 20, 2027 BAXTER INT'L INC: Faces Securities Suit over "Novum LV" Pump BLOCK INC: Clas Cert. Bid Filing in Gonsalves Suit Due March 24 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Cumalander Seeks Class Certification BMW GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Oil Filter Housings BOLLA OPERATING: Parties Seek to Resolve R&R Objections BRUCE FINK: Bid to Dismiss Taylor Class Action Tossed CANACORD GENUITY: Continues to Face Northwest Bio Suit in S.D.N.Y. CARESPRING HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Action CATALYST RCM: Faces Wible Suit Over Unsecured Private Information CHEX SYSTEMS: Riddick Seeks to Certify Class Claims CHEX SYSTEMS: Riddick Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Class Suit Over Baby Detergents' False Ads CRIMINALRECORDCHECK.COM INC: Morris Alleges Unfair Background Check CRUNCHBASE INC: Lockwood and Buchanon Sue Over Private Data Breach CVS PHARMACY: Court Lifts Stay of Securities Suit DETMAR LOGISTICS: Stears Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines ELMER W. DAVIS INC: Schwarzott Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. EMERSON EQUITY: Armen Securities Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. EQT TGHL: Appeals Court Order in Taylor Fraud Suit to 4th Circuit EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Kickback Scheme FCA US: Settles Chrysler Emission Warranty Class Action Lawsuit FLOATME CORP: Loses Arbitration Bid in Military Lending Act Suit FRANKLIN BSP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims GEICO: Parties Must Confer on Amended Scheduling Order GOOGLE LLC: New Privacy Feature Settlement Gets Court's Final OK GREEN 70: Ruiz Wins Bid for Conditional Status of FLSA Collective GROUND PENETRATING: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Buyers Ask Appeals Court to Reinstate Suit HERSHEY COMPANY: Lane et al. Sue Over Mislabeled Reese Products HF SINCLAIR: Aitwal Consumer Suit Removed to D. Colo. HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Parties Must File Bid for Settlement Approval IGLOO PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Lieber Suit J.H. BAXTER: Bid to Decertify Class in Hart Suit Granted JEFFERY LEVY: Scheduling Conference in Theo Set for March 19 KAPPA4TEAM USA: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind KONICA MINOLTA: Bid for Seal Class Cert Exhibits Terminated KRISTI NOEM: Jacobo Wins Bid to Certify Noncitizens Class KROGER CO: McVay Must File Class Certification Bid by May 15 LAND O'LAKES: Parties Must File Amended Joint Scheduling Report LAUNDRESS LLC: Ostenfeld Class Action Dismissed LAUNDRESS LLC: Safran Class Action Dismissed LENS.COM INC: Martin Case Referred to Magistrate Judge LIBERTY MUTUAL: Must File Class Cert. Response by March 9 LOS ANGELES, CA: Lee's Bid to Certify Class Action Granted LULULEMON USA: Appeals Arbitration Order in Brown Suit to 9th Cir. MAREX GROUP: Katz Appointed as Lead Plaintiff MAREX GROUP: Shahsavanpour, Patel Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs MARYLAND: Bid for Interim Seal of Class Exhibits OK'd MEMBERCLOSE LLC: Drouchie Sues Over Inadequate Data Security MIT45 INC: Moorhead Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes NANO NUCLEAR: Xie Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NATIVAS LLC: Fails to Disclose Salmonella Contamination, Suit Says NCH HEALTHCARE: Bid to Decertify McFalls Collective Action Granted NORTON HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $11MM NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Class Settlement in Lytle Gets Initial Nod ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit over SiC Business OPW FUELING: Canales Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit OTTNO INC: Faces Haycook Suit Over Data Security Failures PAMELA BONDI: Must Release Lecky from Custody PASSES INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Granted in Part PAYBYPHONE US: Alicea Sues Over Deceptive Street Parking Charges PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit PENNYMAC LOAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Suit Due 9 PEPSICO INC: Jewat Sues Over Anti-Competitive Business Practices PETRO-LUD INC: Hunter Class Action Closed PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due June 29 PROGRESSIVE AUTO: Faces Class Action Illegal Personal Info Access PROVIDENCE HEALTH: 401K Mismanagement Class Settlement Reaches $43M QUINSTREET PL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 28 RICOH USA: Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought S. MARTINELLI & CO: Bid to Dismiss with Leave to Amend Partly OK'd SAFEMOON LLC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Prelim Approval of Settlements SHELL CHEMICAL: Flynn Allowed to File Amended Complaint ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Court Reserves Ruling on "Miller" FLSA Settlement TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Defective Vehicle Door Handle Design TFW-VA LLC: Cowan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TOTES ISOTONER: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Schubert Jonckheer Investigates Data Breach UNILEVER UNITED: Court Denies Prelim Class Deal OK in "Little" WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Consumer Privacy Suit for $2.75MM WATER SONG: Faces Bao Suit Over Failure to Provide Proper Wages WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Settle CARES Act Class Suit for $56.85MM ********* ADVANCE AUTO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 3, 2026 field with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On October 9, 2023, and October 27, 2023, two putative class actions on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November 16, 2022, and May 30, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were commenced against the Company and certain of the Company's former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made certain false and materially misleading statements during the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases were consolidated on February 9, 2024, and the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint on April 22, 2024. The consolidated and amended complaint proposes a Class Period of November 16, 2022 to November 15, 2023, and alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with (a) the Company's 2023 guidance and (b) certain accounting issues previously disclosed by the Company. On June 21, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint. On January 23, 2025, the motion to dismiss was granted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On February 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company strongly disputes the allegations and intends to defend the case vigorously. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. engages in the supply and distribution of aftermarket automotive products for both professional installers and do-it-yourself. [BN] AGILON HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in agilon health, inc. ("agilon health, inc." or the "Company") (NYSE: AGL) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of agilon health, inc. investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 26, 2025 and August 4, 2025. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/agilon-health-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=183558&wire=4 AGL investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) defendants recklessly issued guidance for 2025 that they knew or should have known was not going to be achieved, given material industry headwinds of which they were aware; (2) defendants materially overstated the immediate positive financial impact from "strategic actions" taken by agilon to reduce risk; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about agilon's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in agilon health, inc. during the relevant time frame, you have until March 2, 2026 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] AGRI STATS: Ayers Antitrust Suit Removed to M.D. Ala. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled JAMES HERBERT AYERS, et al., Plaintiffs v. AGRI STATS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-CV-26-900001.00, was removed from the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on February 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00092 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' complaint purports to state eight Alabama claims that share this underlying theme: the Defendant chicken processors colluded unlawfully to fix the wages paid to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs support their theory by claiming Defendants engaged in a data and information-sharing scheme to suppress wages and restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. Agri Stats, Inc. was founded in 1985. The company's line of business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related auditing services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John G. Smith, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 445 Dexter Avenue, Suite 8000 Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 830-1504 E-mail: jgsmith@balch.com - and - R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 1400 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 965-8158 Facsimile: (601) 961-4466 E-mail: pcrutcher@balch.com - and - Chuck Burkhart, Esq. Jack Surber, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 226-8799 E-mail: cburkhart@balch.com jsurber@balch.com ALASKA REGIONAL: Screening Order Entered in Chapa Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID CHAPA, JR., v. ALASKA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00230-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Gleason entered a screening order. 1. The Plaintiff must ensure that service of process of the First Amended Complaint, the Court-issued summons, and a copy of this order is completed on each Defendant in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 no later than 90 days from the date of this order. 2. The Plaintiff's application to waive prepayment of the filing fee at Docket 3 is granted in part. The Plaintiff must pay a partial filing fee of $202.50 within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to timely make this payment may result in this dismissal of this action. 3. The Plaintiff's claims under Title 18 of the United States Code, apart from the civil RICO claim in Count IV, are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim—Claims V, VI, and XVII. 4. The Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim—Claims XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI. 5. The Clerk of Court shall send three summons forms (AO 440) to Plaintiff with this order. 6. The Plaintiff must complete and return each summons form to the Court within 30 days of the date of this order. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he lacks the ability to pay any of the filing fee. The Plaintiff's application indicates that Plaintiff currently earns $5,400 per month gross, $3,600 net. He has no dependents. He has considerable retirement funds but indicates they are not readily accessible to him. Based on this information, the Court finds that a reduced filing fee is warranted. On Oct. 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC brings federal and state claims against Alaska Regional Hospital, Denali Emergency Medicine Associates, PC, and Cornerstone Credit Services, LLC, related to emergency medical billing, debt collection, and credit reporting stemming from medical services Plaintiff alleges that he received at the Alaska Regional Hospital emergency room on April 20, 2024. The Defendant is a full-service hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DZb2SM at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Curtis Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CORY CURTIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Cory Curtis, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02164-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs Cory Curtis and Jonathan Torres, individually, as representatives of a class, and on behalf of the Amazon 401(k) Plan, bring this action against Defendants Amazon.com Services, LLC, the 401k Committee, and the unnamed members of the Committee, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On June 5, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted on Jan. 16, 2026. The Court finds that the Defendants did not breach any fiduciary duty in this case because they followed the terms of the Plan. Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege an unlawful transaction under ERISA. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without leave to amend. This case is closed. The appellate case is styled as Curtis, et al. v. John and Jane Does, et al., Case No. 26-965, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 18, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on February 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 30, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on April 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CORY CURTIS, et al., individually and on behalf of the Amazon 401(k) Savings Plan and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, are represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Defendants-Appellees AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al. are represented by: Kenneth E. Payson, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 - and - Robert S. Newman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP One CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Suite 482n Washington, DC 20001 - and - William O'Neil, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 APX AUTO BROKERS: Dalton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against APX Auto Brokers LLC. The case is styled as Oliver Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APX Auto Brokers LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00376-DC-DMC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. APX Auto Brokers -- https://www.apxauto.com/ -- is a car dealership located in Edmonds, Washington specializing in a wide range of vehicles including cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, and RVs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com BASIC AMERICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Waldrop Due Jan. 20, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTON WALDROP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BASIC AMERICAN INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00382-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Dimke entered a jury trial scheduling order: Any motion to amend the pleadings, add parties, or for class certification shall be filed no later than the date indicated in the Summary of Deadlines below. All discovery, including depositions and perpetuation depositions, shall be completed by the date indicated in the Summary of Deadlines below ("Discovery Cutoff"). The jury trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m., in Spokane Courtroom 755 on a date to be set. Counsel shall appear at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial to address any pending pretrial matters. Jury selection will begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. Summary of Deadlines Motion for Class Certification Deadline: Jan. 20, 2027 Response: Feb. 17, 2027 Reply: March 3, 2027 Class certification hearing: April 28, 2027 The Defendant provides food services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JAwTin at no extra charge.[CC] BAXTER INT'L INC: Faces Securities Suit over "Novum LV" Pump ------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2026, that on December 3, 2025, a class action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned "City of Hallansdale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Baxter International Inc., et al." Complaint alleges that the company and certain former and current officers and employees violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts relating to "Novum LVP" infusion pump. Class period is from February 23, 2022, through October 29, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their respective motions to be appointed lead plaintiff on December 15, 2025. Those motions are pending before the court. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides sterile intravenous solutions, infusion systems and devices, parenteral nutrition therapies, inhaled anesthetics, generic injectable pharmaceuticals, surgical hemostat and sealant products, advanced surgical equipment, smart bed systems, patient monitoring and diagnostic technologies and respiratory health devices. BLOCK INC: Clas Cert. Bid Filing in Gonsalves Suit Due March 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORINNE GONSALVES, et al., v. BLOCK, INC., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00642-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered a case-management and pretrial order as follows: Event Date Deadline to File Class Certification Motion: March 24, 2026 Responses: May 8, 2026 Reply: June 9, 2026 Hearing on Certification of Class: June 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Deadline to File Dispositive Motions Motions: Jan. 29, 2027 and Daubert Motions Responses: Feb. 12, 2027 Replies: Feb. 19, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference: May 19, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. Block is an American technology company and a financial services provider for consumers and merchants. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PQJIV0 at no extra charge.[CC] BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Cumalander Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARK CUMALANDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion, certifying the proposed class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Colson Hicks Eidson, PA, Essex Richards, PA, and Green Health Law, APC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class under Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3), for all claims against BCBST (wrongful denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty), with Plaintiff serving as class representative: "All persons covered under ERISA-governed plans administered or insured by the Defendant BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. ("BCBST") whose pre-service or post-service requests to BCBST for benefits for proton beam radiation therapy ("PBRT") for the treatment of prostate cancer were denied within the applicable limitations period, based upon a determination by BCBST that PBRT is investigational, not medically appropriate, or not medically necessary." Excluded from the proposed class are: BCBST and its parents, subsidiaries, members, affiliates, officers and directors, employees, and any entity in which BCBST has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and any Judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members and staff. The Plaintiff alleges that BCBST violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and the terms of class members' plans by wrongfully denying coverage for PBRT for the treatment of prostate cancer based on the PBRT Medical Policy. The Plaintiff alleges that the PBRT Medical Policy is inconsistent with binding plan terms and incorrectly deems PBRT "investigational" for the treatment of prostate cancer. The Defendant is a health benefit plan company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dfDsWW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie A. Casey, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 E-mail: scasey@colson.com - and - Norris A. Adams, II, Esq. ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A. 1701 South Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone: (704) 377-4300 E-mail: nadams@essexrichards.com - and - Elizabeth K. Green, Esq. GREEN HEALTH LAW, APC 201 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 200 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 722-1164 E-mail: egreen@greenhealthlaw.com - and - Timothy James Rozelle, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 9301 Corbin Avenue, Suite 1400 Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 E-mail: trozelle@kantorlaw.net - and - Kaci Garrabrant, Esq. ERIC BUCHANAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 414 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: (423) 634-2506 E-mail: kgarrabrant@buchanandisability.com BMW GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Oil Filter Housings -------------------------------------------------------------- Karl Furlong of Autoblog reports that class action lawsuit alleges BMW oil filter housings fail prematurely. -- Some owners have been hit with bills of up to $4,000 outside the warranty period. -- Affected engines include B46, B48, and B58 in BMWs and some Minis. BMW is facing a class action lawsuit for faulty oil filter housings that leak coolant, resulting in owners having to spend thousands of dollars in repairs and replacements. The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey, involves three BMW engines: B46, B48, and B58. The first two are turbocharged four-cylinder engines, while the B58 is BMW's highly regarded turbo six-cylinder mill. At a time when BMW has improved significantly in reliability ratings, this lawsuit is a reminder that some older models still require careful care and often expensive maintenance. According to the plaintiffs, the oil filter housing should last at least 150,000 miles, but the part has needed replacement after 60,000 miles in some cases. Depending on the model, owners have had to pay up to $4,000 for a replacement. "The oil filter housing internal wall structures separating the oil and coolant passages fail and/or warp and/or gaskets sealing the various oil and water passages fail," said the lawsuit. "This occurrence causes the loss of engine coolant that either leaks into the oil sump or drains externally that can result in engine overheating and/or failure." The plaintiffs claim BMW changed from cast aluminum engine oil filter housings to cheaper polycarbonate housings in 2011. The automaker is aware of the issue, as communication was sent to dealers late last year informing them of the nature of the issue. Besides select BMW models, some Minis are also named in the lawsuit. Here's the complete list: -- 2014-2021 BMW 1 Series -- 2014-2021 BMW 2 Series -- 2014-2021 BMW 3 Series -- 2014-2021 BMW 4 Series -- 2014-2021 BMW 5 Series -- 2014-2021 BMW X1, X2, X3, X4 -- 2014-2021 Mini Cooper -- 2014-2021 Mini Cooper Clubman -- 2014-2021 Mini Cooper Countryman One BMW owner not involved in this lawsuit started a petition for BMW to recall vehicles affected by the oil filter housings, which has received almost 600 signatures so far. According to the owner, Eric Coleman, he has spent over $6,000 on the issue for two different BMWs from the 2020 model year. Coleman also pointed out that the problem occurs at around 60,000 miles, not long after BMW's warranty would have expired. BMW faced many engine reliability issues in the 2000s when it began switching to turbocharged models. Cooling system failures, VANOS variable valve timing actuator issues, and chronic oil leaks were common. The number of horror stories surrounding engines like the N63 V8 are well documented, too. But over the last few years, the brand has worked through many of these issues and gradually moved up the reliability rankings. The six-cylinder B58 has a particularly strong reputation, which makes the latest lawsuit all the more disappointing. It's a reminder of the fragility of previous-generation BMWs, where the cars are often only good for 50,000 or so miles before expensive repairs become common. [GN] BOLLA OPERATING: Parties Seek to Resolve R&R Objections ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Vasquez v. Bolla Operating L.I. Corp., et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-07014-NCM-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting proposed Stipulation Resolving Objections to Report and Recommendation Granting Motion for Class Certification. On Dec. 5, 2025, Hon. Steven Tiscione issued a report and recommendation (the "R&R") recommending that Plaintiff Vasquez's motion for certification of a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 be granted. On Dec. 19, 2025, the Defendants filed their objection to the R&R. Since then, the parties have conferred and agreed to enter into a stipulation that resolves the issues raised in Defendants' objections by agreement, including certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 pursuant to the terms of the stipulation. Defendants do reserve the right to decertify the class. If adopted, this stipulation would moot Defendants' objections and those objections would be withdrawn. The parties have also agreed explore a resolution of the class members' claims though a private mediation. To facilitate their mediation process, the parties have agreed to stay all pretrial and discovery deadlines pending the parties' mediation. This will permit the parties to focus their resources on exchanging targeted discovery relating to the class members’ claims, preparing for the mediation, and engaging in a private mediation. Lastly, the proposed stipulation will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Bolla Operating Corp. and Harvinder Singh without prejudice. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Bolla is associated with the operation of gas stations, convenience stores, and delis. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rS6Tes at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 BRUCE FINK: Bid to Dismiss Taylor Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA TAYLOR, v. BRUCE FINK, D.D.S., P.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-03099-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. As an initial matter, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that it cannot consider the Defendant's affidavit and questionnaire evidence in this procedural posture. On the pleadings, the Defendant has not carried its burden of demonstrating that dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6). The Defendant's entire argument for dismissal is predicated on its insistence that the Plaintiff consented to being contacted. However, the Plaintiff has alleged that she did not consent to any contact and, as the Defendant offers nothing more than its assertions to the contrary, the Court must accept the Plaintiff's version of the facts. Moreover, as the Plaintiff correctly notes, express consent (or lack thereof) is not an element of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claim, so her assertion that she did not give consent is sufficient at this stage. The Plaintiff Sara Taylor brought this action under the TCPA based on a voicemail message and text messages she alleges the Defendant sent her soliciting dental services, despite the fact that her phone number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Defendant specializes in dental implants, sleep apnea treatment, and comprehensive dental solutions. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fs3MeT at no extra charge.[CC] CANACORD GENUITY: Continues to Face Northwest Bio Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtu Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2026, that the Company's subsidiary Canaccord Genuity LLC, continues to defend itself from Northwest Biotherapeutics class suit in the United Sates District Court in the Southern District of New York. On December 1, 2022, the Company's subsidiary, along with several other parties, was named as a defendant in Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. v. Canaccord Genuity LLC, et al No. 1:22-cv-10185, filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of New York. The initial complaint alleged that defendants engaged in market manipulation in the plaintiff's stock during a period from 2018 to 2022. A first amended complaint was filed on April 10, 2023, bringing substantially the same allegations as the initial complaint. The first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on February 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 18, 2024. Neither the operative complaint nor prior iterations specify the amount of alleged damages. On March 27, 2025, the district court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Canaccord is an independent, full-service financial services firm. CARESPRING HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Carespring Health Care Management in Ohio and LifeBridge Health in Maryland have agreed to settle class action lawsuits stemming from data breaches. Carespring Health Care Management Carespring Health Care Management has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from an October 2023 cyberattack and data breach. Hackers gained access to the protected health information of 64,609 individuals, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial information, health insurance information, and medical information. The first class action lawsuit over the data breach was filed by plaintiff Phyllis Rise on August 29, 2024. Four related actions were subsequently filed by other affected individuals. The five lawsuits were consolidated -- Rice, et al., v. Carespring Health Care Management, LLC -- in the Court of Common Pleas for Clermont County, Ohio, as the lawsuits had overlapping claims. The consolidated lawsuit asserted several claims, including negligence/negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, bailment, wantonness, and the failure to provide adequate notice about the data breach. Carespring Health Care Management denies all claims asserted in the lawsuit. To avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainties of litigation, all parties agreed to a settlement, with no admission of liability or wrongdoing. Carespring Health Care Management will pay up to $305,000 to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, service awards of $2,500 for each of the five class representatives, and benefits for the class members. Class members may submit a claim for two years of single-bureau credit monitoring services, and a claim for up to $4,500 as compensation for documented, unreimbursed losses resulting from the data breach. If a claim is not submitted for reimbursement of losses, class members may claim an alternative $50 cash payment The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is March 17, 2026. Claims must be submitted by April 16, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for April 28, 2026. LifeBridge Health LifeBridge Health Inc., a Maryland-based holding company for four Maryland hospitals and other affiliated entities, has agreed to pay $575,000 to settle class action litigation stemming from a cybersecurity incident detected in November 2024. LifeBridge Health determined that a hacker intermittently accessed its computer systems between August 27, 2024, and September 21, 2024, and potentially obtained patients' protected health information. The affected individuals were notified about the data breach on April 1, 2025. A lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, in response to the data breach, alleging it could have been prevented had LifeBridge Health implemented reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures. The lawsuit -- Ragin v. LifeBridge Health, Inc. -- asserted claims of negligence, alleged breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. LifeBridge Health denies all allegations in the lawsuit and maintains there was no wrongdoing. While believing that it would have prevailed at trial, the decision was taken to settle the litigation to avoid the cost, distraction, and uncertainty of trial and related appeals. A $575,000 settlement fund will be established to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration costs, and service awards for the class representatives. The remainder of the fund will be used to pay for benefits for the class members. LifeBridge Health has also agreed to make data security enhancements to better protect patient data. A claim may be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. A claim may also be submitted for a flat cash payment, which will be paid pro rata after all valid claims have been paid. The cash payment is estimated to be $100 per class member, but may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is February 28, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is February 28, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for March 20, 2026. [GN] CATALYST RCM: Faces Wible Suit Over Unsecured Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH WIBLE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALYST RCM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01161 (S.D. Tex., February 12, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard patients' personally identifiable information and personal health information. On or about November 13, 2025, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized access to its network resulting from a cyberattack that occurred between November 8, 2025, and November 9, 2025. However, the Defendant sent notice letters to affected individuals such as Plaintiff on or around February 6, 2026, nearly three months after discovery. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered injury and faces an imminent and substantial risk of further injury due to the data breach. The Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff also alleges violations of Section 5 of Federal Trade Commission Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the state data breach statutes. Headquartered in Fulshear, TX, Catalyst RCM LLC provides revenue cycle management, billing, and coding services for healthcare entities, including diagnostic laboratory clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. MANDEL LAW GROUP 3416 Pelham Rd Fort Worth, TX 76116 Telephone: (214) 762-1036 E-mail: rogerlmandel@gmail.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 E-mail: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com CHEX SYSTEMS: Riddick Seeks to Certify Class Claims --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON K. RIDDICK on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00700-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying class claims. The Defendant is an American check verification service and consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5a8QKb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Mark C. Leffer, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Drew David Sarrett, Esq. Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com drew@clalegal.com emily@clalegal.com CHEX SYSTEMS: Riddick Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON K. RIDDICK on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00700-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal the unredacted version of the Plaintiff's memorandum in support of motion for class certification and Exhibit (the Jaffe Report). The Defendant is an American check verification service and consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xisokB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Mark C. Leffer, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com emily@clalegal.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Class Suit Over Baby Detergents' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Davontaya Johnson filed a class action lawsuit against Church & Dwight Co. Inc. Why: Johnson alleges Church & Dwight falsely advertises its Arm & Hammer hypoallergenic baby detergent products as being hypoallergenic. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Church & Dwight of falsely advertising its Arm & Hammer hypoallergenic baby detergent products as being hypoallergenic. Plaintiff Davontaya Johnson claims Church & Dwight's Arm & Hammer hypoallergenic baby detergent products contain fragrance chemicals that can cause allergic reactions and skin irritations. Johnson argues Church & Dwight's alleged misrepresentations about its Arm & Hammer hypoallergenic baby detergent products have caused consumers to pay a premium for the products. "By deceiving consumers about the nature of its products, the defendant is able to take away market share from competing products and increase its own sales and profits," the Arm & Hammer class action lawsuit says. Arm & Hammer class action: Consumers rely on hypoallergenic label Johnson wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased Arm & Hammer hypoallergenic baby detergent products during the applicable statute of limitations period. She claims Church & Dwight is guilty of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Johnson demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages for herself and all class members. Similarly, Unilever United States Inc. faced a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely labeled its Vaseline-brand Baby Healing Jelly as hypoallergenic despite containing fragrance chemicals that can cause allergic reactions. The plaintiff is represented by Michael D. Braun of Kuzyk Law LLP and Jeffrey I. Carton and Steven R. Schoenfeld of Denlea & Carton LLP. The Arm & Hammer class action lawsuit is Johnson v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02409, in the California Superior Court for San Bernardino County. [GN] CRIMINALRECORDCHECK.COM INC: Morris Alleges Unfair Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASHAR MORRIS, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRIMINALRECORDCHECK.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00148 (M.D.N.C., February 10, 2026) seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of North Carolina and was the subject of a consumer report produced by the Defendant for employment purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by (i) failing to contemporaneously notify Plaintiff and other consumers of Defendant's reporting of public record information to end users; and (ii) producing consumer reports regarding Plaintiff and other consumers that were incomplete and not up to date. Criminalrecordcheck.com Inc., a consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA, is engaged in the business of producing consumer reports for employment purposes and can be served through its registered agent, Sebastian Dehnel, based in Cary, North Carolina.[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 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com CRUNCHBASE INC: Lockwood and Buchanon Sue Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA LOCKWOOD and JERMAYNE BUCHANON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRUNCHBASE INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01283-SK (N.D. Cal., February 12, 2026) arises from the Defendant's data security failures that resulted to the January 2026 data breach affecting approximately two million records containing personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the said data breach is attributable to the ShinyHunters cybercrime group who claims responsibility for the attack. The hackers have made available more than 400 MB of compressed files for download on their website after Defendant refused to pay a ransom. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members are at substantially increased risk of future identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brings claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Crunchbase Inc. operates as a predictive private intelligence solution company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sylvie Bourassa, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com sbourassa@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com CVS PHARMACY: Court Lifts Stay of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 20 WELFARE AND BENEFIT FUND; and INDIANA CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 16-cv-046-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order modifying rulings as follows: -- The Court's earlier stay is lifted; -- The claims of TPPs with delegated arbitration agreements governed by Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia law are dismissed; -- The claims of TPPs with delegated arbitration agreements governed by Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin law may proceed; and -- The Caremark and MedImpact Subclasses are eliminated. The case is a class action consisting of two consolidated cases. Plaintiffs are third party payors ("TPPs") or health plans that offer their members prescription drug insurance at subsidized or reduced costs. CVS distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zc8o0m at no extra charge.[CC] DETMAR LOGISTICS: Stears Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY STEARS, AMANDA WILSON, and JOSEPH GREEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. DETMAR LOGISTICS LEASING, LLC and DETMAR LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00593-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a four-week extension of the briefing deadlines for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Parties make this request to account for the time the Parties have spent diligently working to resolve outstanding class certification discovery beyond the Jan. 9, 2026, discovery deadline in this matter. If the Court grants the Parties' request for a four-week extension, the new deadlines will be as follows: -- On or before March 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs must file a motion for Rule 23 class certification [limited to 30 pages]. -- the Defendants must respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before April 10, 2026 [limited to 30 pages]. -- The Plaintiffs may reply to the Defendants' response on or before May 8, 2026 [limited to 20 pages]. The requested extension will afford the Parties sufficient time to prepare the class certification briefing after accounting for the time the Parties expended resolving these discovery issues beyond the Pre-Class Certification Discovery deadline. Detmar is a logistics company that specializes in last mile delivery of frac sand for the oil & gas industry. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=54zD7P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca King, Esq. Whitney Flanagan, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: rking@getmansweeney.com wflanagan@getmansweeney.com - and - Austin Kaplan, Esq. Caitlin Boehne, Esq. Andrew Eckhous, Esq. J. Bryan Wood, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2901 Bee Cave Road, Ste. G Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Facsimile: (512) 692-2788 E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com aeckhous@kaplanlawatx.com bwood@kaplanlawatx.com The Defendants are represented by: Omer Salik, Esq. E. Leon Carter, Esq. Linda R. Stahl, Esq. Stacey Cho Hernandez, Esq. Nichol M. John, Esq. CARTER ARNETT PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 550-8188 Facsimile: (214) 550-8185 E-mail: osalik@carterarnett.com lcarter@carterarnett.com lstahl@carterarnett.com shernandez@carterarnett.com njohn@carterarnett.com - and - David M. Prichard, Esq. PRICHARD YOUNG, L.L.P. 10101 Reunion Place, Suite 600 San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (210) 477-7400 Facsimile: (210) 477-7450 E-mail: dprichard@prichardyoungllp.com ELMER W. DAVIS INC: Schwarzott Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elmer W. Davis, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Schwarzott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Elmer W. Davis, Inc., Case No. E2026003612 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany Cty., Feb. 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). Elmer W. Davis, Inc. -- https://elmerdavis.com/ -- has been a leader in commercial roofing since 1936, offering a diverse range of roofing systems including EPDM, TPO, PVC, built-up roofing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com EMERSON EQUITY: Armen Securities Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as LIDA ARMEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TONY BAROUTI, an individual, and EMERSON EQUITY, LLC, a California corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV35753, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, California, to the United States District Court, for the Central District of California on February 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01432 to the proceeding. The action arises under the laws of the United States because all of Plaintiff's claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act of 1998. Emerson Equity, LLC provides investment advisory services. The Company offers investment advice, portfolio management, securities, and other financial services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wendy M. Thomas, Esq. Kellen Adams, Esq. TADJEDIN THOMAS & ENGBLOOM LAW GROUP LLP 6101 West Centinela Avenue, Suite 270 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 362-4970 E-mail: wendyt@ttelawgroup.com kellena@ttelawgroup.com EQT TGHL: Appeals Court Order in Taylor Fraud Suit to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- EQT TGHL EXPLORATION, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Ralph Taylor, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQT TGHL Exploration, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00082-JPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The appellate case is entitled EQT TGHL Exploration, LLC v. Ralph Taylor, Case No. 26-125, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on February 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents RALPH TAYLOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark A. Kepple, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT PLLC 1219 Chapline Street Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 233-3100 Defendants-Petitioners EQT TGHL EXPLORATION, LLC, et al. are represented by: Amanda Rose Cashman, Esq. Thomas Charles Ryan, Esq. Emily Celeste Weiss, Esq. K&L GATES, LLP 210 6th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6331 (412) 355-8335 (717) 355-7411 - and - Ragan Naresh, Esq. Charles Stephen Nary, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 879-5267 (202) 389-3231 EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Kickback Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- A report says that PBM is accused of enriching itself through a fraudulent kickback scheme while its customers missed out on billions of dollars in drug rebates. In a rough month for one of the US's largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBM), Express Scripts has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the company of running a kickback scheme that diverted billions of dollars in drug rebates from customers, just weeks after it entered a settlement agreement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to resolve claims it artificially inflated the price of insulin. Kickbacks At the crux of the class action is allegations of an "elaborate, fraudulent scheme" carried out by Express Scripts since April 2019, through which the PBM collected "exorbitant" kickbacks and bribes from drug companies in return for formulary access and favourable formulary placements, whereby high-price drugs were favoured over lower-cost drugs promised to its customers. In doing so, Express Scripts turned its back on its promise to "drive down prescription drug costs" for its customers through negotiations with drug companies and drug formulary management, the lawsuit alleges. The claim was filed on February 17 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Northern Illinois by US litigation boutique Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann (BLB&G) on behalf of the Plumbers' Welfare Fund, which provides health care benefits for members of Chicago-based union Plumbers Local 130. Ascent Sitting at the heart of the alleged scheme is Swiss-based Ascent Health Services, a subsidiary of Express Scripts' parent company Cigna, which has been named as a defendant in the complaint. According to the claimants, Ascent was formed under the guise of taking over Express Scripts' rebate administration functions. In reality, they say, the PBM funnelled bribes and kickbacks demanded from drug companies to Ascent while misclassifying the payments as legitimate fees to avoid its contractual obligations to share rebates with customers such as Plumbers' Welfare Fund. Cigna's chief medical officer Steve Miller has admitted that Ascent's creation had enabled Express Script and its parent companies Cigna and Evernorth (also a defendant in the proceedings) to "double, triple dip on fees" without its customers ever knowing. Express Script is alleged to have falsely represented to its PBM customers that the drug companies' payments to Ascent were "not considered for PBM formulary placement". RICO enterprises The lawsuit alleges the establishment of a series of bilateral RICO enterprises -- partnerships used as a base for racketeering activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) -- involving the defendants and Ascent on one side and, on the other side, almost all the major drug companies in the US. Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Novartis and Johnson & Johnson are among the long list of companies named as participants in the fraudulent enterprises. The lawsuit alleges five counts of action, including violations of the RICO Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plumbers' Welfare Fund, Local 130 and the class are being represented by Avi Josefson, Michael Blatchley, Li Yu, Peter Russell and Haley Tobin of BLB&G, Joseph Meltzer and Terence Ziegler of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, and James Cecchi, Donald Ecklund and Zachary Jacobs of Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody Agnello. "This is simply the latest example of healthcare companies abusing a highly complex, intentionally opaque system to take advantage of their customers," said BLB&G senior partner Avi Josefson in a statement. "This kind of misconduct increases costs and limits access for millions of Americans and can no longer be tolerated." Plumbers Local 130 business manager and Plumbers' Welfare Fund co-chairman James Coyne added: "For far too long, America's working men and women who rely on our corporate healthcare system have been grossly overcharged, and denied access to affordable care. A major corporation like Express Scripts, that takes kickbacks from drug companies rather than protecting the interests of its clients, needs to be held accountable." FTC settlement On 6 February, the FTC confirmed that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Express Scripts, resolving a lawsuit accusing the PBM of engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices to artificially inflate the list price of insulin drugs -- with excess costs ultimately borne by vulnerable patients. The settlement included a commitment from Express Scripts to enact "fundamental changes" to its business practices that the FTC says will "drive down patients' out-of-pocket costs for drugs like insulin by up to USD 7 billion over 10 years". Express Scripts was dealt another blow this month when a US district judge refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging the PBM sold confidential health data to Facebook and Meta. [GN] FCA US: Settles Chrysler Emission Warranty Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that FCA US agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to provide appropriate warranty coverage for emissions-related parts in certain Chrysler 200 vehicles. The Chrysler settlement benefits individuals who purchased a 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 vehicle that was originally sold as a Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont or Washington. According to the class action lawsuit, FCA US failed to provide appropriate warranty coverage for the MultiAir Actuator and Fuel Injector components in Chrysler 200 PZEVs. Plaintiffs in the case say these parts should have been covered under California emissions laws. FCA US is an automotive company that sells vehicles under brands such as Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Fiat and Ram. FCA US has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the emissions warranty class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Chrysler settlement, class members can receive a warranty extension for their Chrysler 200 PZEV. This warranty extension will cover the costs of replacing a failed MultiAir Actuator or Fuel Injector for 15 years from the vehicle's in-service date or 150,000 miles driven, whichever comes first. Class members can also receive reimbursement for past repairs related to a failed MultiAir Actuator or Fuel Injector. To receive reimbursement, class members must provide proof of payment and documentation identifying the vehicle, owner, component repaired and repair facility. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 2, 2026. The final approval hearing for the FCA US Chrysler 200 emissions warranty class action settlement is scheduled for June 4, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 30, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased a model-year 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 vehicle that was originally sold as a Partial Zero Emission Vehicle in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont or Washington. Potential Award Service reimbursement, extended warranty Proof of Purchase Proof of payment, such as a paid invoice, receipt or credit card statement showing the amount paid and date of service; documentation identifying the vehicle, including the VIN, owner, the component repaired and the name and contact information of the repair facility. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/30/2026 Case Name Thompson, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-09815, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California Final Hearing 06/04/2026 Settlement Website MultiairActuatorFuelInjectorSettlement.com Claims Administrator Thompson, et al. v. FCA US LLC c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 forms@multiairactuatorfuelinjectorsettlement.com (833) 754-8511 Class Counsel Jordan L. Lurie Ari Y. Basser POMERANTZ LLP Robert L. Starr LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR Defense Counsel Stephen A. D'Aunoy KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD [GN] FLOATME CORP: Loses Arbitration Bid in Military Lending Act Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Aaron Burrison, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FloatMe, Corp., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-10885-DJC (D. Mass.), Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in its entirety and stay court proceedings pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act in this putative class action alleging violations of the Military Lending Act, 10 U.S.C. Section 987, and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq. Plaintiff Aaron Burrison filed this action on April 10, 2025, on behalf of himself and two proposed classes generally encompassing any active duty servicemember or dependent, or other individual in the United States, who signed up for a FloatMe account and paid money to Defendant. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an active duty servicemember with the U.S. Coast Guard. Defendant operates an online platform offering cash advances, which it calls Floats, described as free advances of funds to help users cover emergency expenses or avoid overdrafts. Plaintiff signed up for a FloatMe account on December 7, 2022, and obtained forty-five advances from Defendant, totaling $1,740. Plaintiff did not opt out of the arbitration provision contained in Defendant's Terms of Service. Whether the MLA Displaces the FAA The Court found that the plain text of the Military Lending Act demonstrates that Congress intended to preclude enforcement of arbitration agreements against servicemembers in disputes involving the extension of consumer credit. Section 987(e)(3) makes it unlawful to extend consumer credit to a covered member if the creditor requires the borrower to submit to arbitration. Section 987(f)(4) provides that notwithstanding Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, or any other Federal or State law, rule, or regulation, no agreement to arbitrate any dispute involving the extension of consumer credit shall be enforceable against any covered member or dependent of such a member. Defendant argued that Section 987(f)(4) cannot be understood as a per se ban on arbitration because construing it as such would render Section 987(e)(3) superfluous. The Court rejected this argument, agreeing with the reasoning that Section 987(e)(3) and Section 987(f)(4) operate in different ways: the former makes it unlawful to include mandatory arbitration clauses in covered loan agreements and subjects a violator to civil or criminal liability, whereas the latter renders such provisions unenforceable as against the borrower. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the prohibitions serve different purposes, and neither renders the other superfluous. Whether the MLA Applies The Court assessed whether Defendant's cash advances constituted consumer credit under the MLA, applying a three-part framework: (a) credit, (b) consumer credit, and (c) creditor status. On the question of credit, the Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendant's model, under which users must link their bank accounts and authorize automated debits on the scheduled repayment date, squarely falls within the definition of credit as the right to incur debt and defer its payment. On consumer credit, the Court concluded that Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendant advanced cash to him primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Defendant marketed its Floats as fast cash when users need it, allowing eligible members to borrow up to $50 between paydays, and many advertisements encouraged consumers to take small amounts to pay for living or emergency expenses. The Court further concluded that at least the expedite fee Defendant charged plausibly represented a finance charge imposed as an incident to or a condition of the extension of credit. On creditor status, the Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleged Defendant extended consumer credit to covered borrowers more than twenty-five times in the relevant period. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant extended thousands of usurious loans to covered borrowers and entered into millions of credit transactions with consumers since at least 2020. The Court also noted that Defendant's Chief Executive Officer attested that Plaintiff alone obtained forty-five advances after signing up in December 2022. Defendant argued that the Court should compel arbitration of Plaintiff's Truth in Lending Act claim even if it denied the motion as to the Military Lending Act claim. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the MLA's limitation on the enforcement of arbitration agreements applies to any dispute involving the extension of consumer credit, not just to claims brought under the statute. Therefore, neither of Plaintiff's claims was found arbitrable, and the Court declined to compel arbitration of the Truth in Lending Act claim or to stay the litigation. As to the class action waiver in the Terms of Service, the Court found that it explicitly applied only to arbitration and therefore presented no bar to Plaintiff pursuing his claims in court on a class basis. The Court accordingly did not reach Plaintiff's argument that the Military Lending Act prohibits class action waivers. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 17, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QLDxk from PacerMonitor.com. Defendant FloatMe, Corp. is represented by Venyckles Amanda Witts and Arielle Stephenson of Mitchell Sandler PLLC, and Matthew C. Moschella and Eyal Schwartz of Sherin and Lodgen LLP. Plaintiff Aaron Burrison is represented by Joshua Robert Jacobson of Jacobson Phillips PLLC; John J. Roddy and Elizabeth A. Ryan of Bailey and Glasser; and Randall K. Pulliam and Edwin Lee Lowther III of Carney Bates and Pulliam PLLC. FRANKLIN BSP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: FBRT) resulting from allegations that Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Franklin BSP Realty Trust securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53434 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 12, 2026, Investing.com published an article entitled "Franklin BSP Realty Trust earnings missed by $0.16, revenue fell short of estimates." The article stated that Franklin BSP Realty Trust had "reported fourth quarter EPS of $0.120, $0.16 worse than the analyst estimate of $0.280. Revenue for the quarter came in at $81.12M versus the consensus estimate of $93.65M." On this news, the price of Franklin BSP Realty Trust stock fell 14.18% on February 12, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GEICO: Parties Must Confer on Amended Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBASSY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05853 (D.N.J., Filed May 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order directing the parties will meet and confer on an amended scheduling order that (1) is mutually agreeable, (2) does not stay or function as a stay of fact discovery, (3) provides a deadline for submission of an agreed-upon discovery confidentiality order, and (4) keys the deadlines for expert discovery regarding liability and damages to a decision on the class-certification motion. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Government Employees Insurance Company is an American vehicle insurance company.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: New Privacy Feature Settlement Gets Court's Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Attridge, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge granted final approval to a class action settlement in a case brought against Google over claims the technology giant illegally sells users' personal information in auctions for ad space. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers opened a hearing Tuesday, February 17, by indicating she would grant final approval of the settlement, while also reprimanding both parties for how they handled the case. "Nothing in this case has ever been simple. It is hard for me to understand how plaintiffs in this action can argue this is a complete win. It is not. You sought a significant amount of damages, you lost on those fronts," the Barack Obama appointee said. "I'm not pleased with either side. I'm a broken record. You are not going to get all the money you are asking for, and you are going to pay more money than you wanted," she added, speaking to each party's attorneys. The plaintiffs sued the company in 2021, accusing the company of having violated state and federal law by promising that it does not sell account holders' personal information to third parties, while repeatedly selling the data through real-time bidding (RTB) auctions to advertisers. The plaintiff Google account holders argued that Google solicits participants to bid on sending an ad to people, using data about each person in a bid request provided to the auction. This includes data that identifies people through device identifiers, geolocation and IP addresses, and highly detailed personal profile information about people's interests, race, religion, sexual orientation and health. The plaintiffs claim auction participants receive information about users and compete for space to send advertisements, with the winning bidder paying Google. Even participants who do not win or place a bid collect the personal data, the plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs additionally claim that Google also allows "surveillance participants" who have no interest in filling an ad space but participate in auctions to get access to users' personal information. They argue all of these practices earn revenue for Google and that the company does not disclose the auction practice or obtain consent from account holders. The parties agreed to mediation in January 2025 and reached a settlement in May. Class members for the case include "all individual Google account holders subject to a Google U.S. Terms of Service who have an active Google account" as of the court's final approval order. The settlement does not award class members monetary damages. Instead, Google agreed to create a new control that allows U.S. users to limit the information it shares with auction participants. Once enabled, the "RTB control" will restrict the amount of personal information shared with auction participants, including encrypted Google user IDs and IP addresses, making it more difficult for auction participants to identify, target, or track users. Users will be able to activate the new control regardless of whether they are signed in or out of their Google account. Elizabeth Pritzker of Pritzker Levine, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the judge that the settlement "proposes sweeping business practice changes" that protect personal information from auction. "What this settlement does is limit data flow to RTB," she said. "It means personal, targeted, identifiable information will no longer be sold to third parties. It's huge, enormous and never been done before." Google additionally agreed to send an email to all U.S. account holders with information about the RTB control, as well as create a webpage and additional disclosures on the new option. Plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan Levine of Pritzker Levine said the RTB will make any information sent to auction "non-personalized in a way that has never been done before," and that the disclosures are the first time Google will be detailing its ad auction business. "This is described as a sea change in how Google operates in ads," he said. Eligible users will be able to opt in and out of the option to limit the amount of their information shared for three years. After that period, Google can decide to continue offering the option or deviate from the agreement. Levine said that the three-year injunctive period was standard for cases of this nature, given the rapid pace of technological change. While the judge said she would approve the settlement, she chastised the parties for their fight over how much to award the plaintiffs in attorney's fees. The plaintiffs estimate the minimum economic value of the settlement to be $1.4 billion, while Google evaluates the agreement at a minimum of $740 million. Google asked the judge to award less attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs because they were not successful in getting the relief they requested in their initial complaint. "Injunctive relief is less than a percentage point for the class; they are delivering no damages, no monetary recovery to the class," Whitty Somvichian of Cooley, an attorney for Google, said. "They went after two things and got one." The plaintiffs defended the settlement, arguing that their claims focused on changing the RTB auction practice, and that the agreement offers "real, meaningful protection" for users who will have control over whether their data is sold by Google or not. "We achieved those litigation objectives through a lot of hard work and hard battle," Pritzker said. Gonzalez Rogers seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims of success and questioned them on why they agreed to an opt-out model that requires users to go in and manually turn off the control, versus an opt-in model, which would automatically apply to every user. The judge further floated the idea of tying the plaintiff attorney's payout to how successful they were at promoting the new opt-out option, a suggestion the plaintiffs strongly opposed. "At this point, you guys want to get paid, but if it's hidden, you get paid, they have business as usual, and yeah, maybe some people will take advantage," Gonzalez Rogers said. Despite her strong words for the plaintiffs, the judge placed equal blame on Google for making the case more difficult by stretching out litigation and causing attorney's' fees to increase dramatically. "You're not an easy defendant to fight against," she told Google. "You fight against everything. Why should they be damaged because Google is a bottomless pit and willing to pay lawyers to fight?" Gonzalez Rogers took the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees under submission and did not say when she would release a decision. After the hearing, a Google spokesperson told Courthouse News that they are "pleased to put this case behind us." "We do not sell or share personal data, and we already have the strictest real-time bidding restrictions in the industry," they said in an email statement. A representative for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] GREEN 70: Ruiz Wins Bid for Conditional Status of FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 an order granting Ruiz's motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and for approval of notice and a "consent to sue" form. Ruiz has carried his "low" burden at this stage of making a "modest factual showing" that he and "potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." The Defendants' assertions that the restaurants are each independently owned and operated, are belied by evidence that the restaurants share names, logos, principals, liquor licenses, websites, and social media presences, not to mention employees and supplies. Additionally, Ruiz's proposed collective action notice and "consent to sue" form, are approved, subject to the following rulings: -- Ruiz's categorical request for equitable tolling of the statute of limitation is denied -- without prejudice to an application from any opt-in plaintiff based on an individualized showing that tolling is warranted. -- As preliminary certification relates solely to the FLSA, Ruiz's request for notice to be sent to all non-exempt employees employed by Defendants for the six-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint is denied. In light of this ruling, the pretrial conference scheduled for tomorrow, February 6, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. is converted to a telephone conference. The Defendant operates a restaurant known as Green Kitchen. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0DIZNL at no extra charge.[CC] GROUND PENETRATING: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSE GONZALEZ, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUND PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. CGC-25-631963, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01331 to the proceeding. The class action arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professional Code in connection with Defendant's failure to pay for off-the-clock work, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods and rest breaks, failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, failure to pay all wages at separation, and failure to furnish accurate itemized statements. Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC provides detection of underground utilities, video pipe inspection, scanning of concrete structures, and inspection services. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy J. Long, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 E-mail: longt@gtlaw.com - and - Nathan Kenji Norimoto, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-3668 Telephone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 707-2010 E-mail: nathan.norimoto@gtlaw.com HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Buyers Ask Appeals Court to Reinstate Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a trio of Hermes shoppers has asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate their lawsuit accusing the French luxury house of illegally forcing buyers to spend thousands of dollars on its products before they can purchase one of the fashion brand's famed Birkin handbags. The consumers in a court filing, on Tuesday, February 17, told the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower judge applied the wrong legal standard in dismissing the proposed class action last year. The plaintiffs said they "plausibly alleged that Hermes conditions access to the Birkin handbag, its most iconic product, on the purchase of ancillary Hermes products that customers do not want or would prefer to buy from competitors." They said the alleged "tying" arrangement, where the sale of a Birkin handbag is contingent on shoppers purchasing other Hermes items, violates federal antitrust law. Hermes did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Glenn Danas, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that Hermes' sales practices for Birkin handbags amount to "quintessential anticompetitive conduct" and that they looked forward to presenting their appeal. U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco dismissed the case in September, siding with Hermes. The company had argued that sales of Birkin bags, which are handmade and can cost thousands of dollars, take place in a competitive market. Donato told lawyers for the plaintiffs at a 2024 hearing that if Hermes "chooses to make five Birkin bags a year and charge a million to them, it can do that." The consumers in their 9th Circuit filing faulted Donato for rejecting their definition of the market for elite luxury handbags in the United States, which was a threshold issue for the case. They also said Donato applied an overly stringent antitrust standard that demanded greater specificity and proof than what should have been required at an early stage of the litigation. The case is Cavalleri v. Hermes International, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-6587. For plaintiffs: Glenn Danas of Clarkson Law Firm; Shaun Setareh of Law Office of Shaun Setareh; and Joshua Haffner of Haffner Law For Hermes: Christopher Yates, Belinda Lee and Ashley Bauer of Latham & Watkins [GN] HERSHEY COMPANY: Lane et al. Sue Over Mislabeled Reese Products --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIMIE LANE, DENNIS GATTO, Jr., PAIGE JOHNS, and JENNIFER COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Hershey Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00824 (E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the New York General Business Law, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who purchased a Reese's Chocolate and Peanut Butter products in a package or wrapper that falsely represented that there were carved artistic designs on the products. The Plaintiffs assert that there are no such carvings on the actual products. Moreover, Hershey's packaging for these themed products is materially misleading, and consumers are routinely deceived by the pictures on the themed products' packaging, says the Plaintiff. The Hershey Company is a multinational confectionery company headquartered in Hershey, PA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq. ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ. 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law HF SINCLAIR: Aitwal Consumer Suit Removed to D. Colo. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KOUSUM AITWAL; SEAN BERRY; DORITA CHRONISTER; RACHEL COLLINGWOOD; ASHLEY COOPER; ASHLEY DANIELSON; RYAN DISHNOW; DYLAN FERNANDEZ; FELIMON FLORES AZANZA; KAELA FSOLTZ; GILBERT GARCIA; CONSTANTINA GARCIA; SUSANA GONZALEZ; CASIDY LUDWIG; RYAN MAHON; JAKE NEEL; JOSEPH NITURA; CHIEMELA NNAJI; MARGARET ROUGHTON; MARK STEINBECK; SCOTT THOMAS; and JUDY ZOTTO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. HF SINCLAIR REFINING & MARKETING, LLC; SINCLAIR OIL, LLC and/or HF SINCLAIR CORPORATION; CIRCLE K STORES INC. - ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; DILLON COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a KING SOOPERS/ CITY MARKET/ KING SOOPERS FUEL CENTERS; K & D ENTERPRISE INC. n/k/a NS PROPERTIES LLC; MAJOR LLC d/b/a WEST EVANS CONOCO/WEST EVANS SINCLAIR; MURPHY OIL USA INC. d/b/a MURPHY EXPRESS; S&S FUELS MANAGEMENT LLC; SAFEWAY STORES 45 INC.; TAGHAVI INC.; and TWIN STAR ENERGY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2026cv30152, was removed from the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on February 11, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00543 to the proceeding. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs claim, individually and on behalf of the putative class, that HF Sinclair delivered gasoline labeled as regular unleaded which was contaminated by and/or interchanged with diesel fuel to the other named defendants, operators of gas stations, who then sold that gas to hundreds of Colorado drivers on January 7 and January 8, 2026. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint sets forth these causes of action against all Defendants: (i) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; (ii) common law negligence; and (iii) strict liability and product defect. The Plaintiffs also assert a claim for breach of warranty against the Gas Station Defendants. HF Sinclair Refining & Marketing, LLC is an independent petroleum refiner in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. O'Donnell, Esq. Galen D. Bellamy, Esq. Eric L. Robertson, Esq. Danielle L. Trujillo, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 244-1800 Facsimile: (303) 244-1879 E-mail: odonnell@wtotrial.com bellamy@wtotrial.com robertson@wtotrial.com trujillo@wtotrial.com HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Parties Must File Bid for Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON WHATLEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order directing the parties to file a joint motion for approval of their settlement or a status report regarding the status, not substance, of the settlement. On Jan. 29, 2026, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating that they are still finalizing the settlement agreement and joint motion for approval of the same, and they need an additional 21 days to ensure they meet the standards required for Court approval. Honda manufactures automobiles and engines. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v2Off2 at no extra charge.[CC] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Lieber Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE LIEBER, KAREN ELIZABETH HARMS, AND DARIN STRAUSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00488-AMD-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ross entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendant Igloo's motion to dismiss to the extent that the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment are dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they provided Igloo with reasonably prompt notice. The Plaintiffs provided defendant Igloo with notice only after commencing litigation. Therefore, I grant the defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim. Igloo's motion to dismiss for lack of standing as to unpurchased Products is denied without prejudice, and "any specific concerns regarding the Products' differences can be addressed at the class certification stage." Judge Ross denies without prejudice Igloo's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims arising from unpurchased Products. The Defendant may renew this argument at the class certification stage. The case involves a variety of products made and sold by defendant Igloo Products Corp. marketed as "biodegradable," made of "recycled content," and "Made in the USA." The Plaintiffs bring this suit alleging that Igloo's representations are false and misleading, constituting deceptive and unfair trade practices under New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") section 349, false advertising under NYGBL section 350, a breach of express warranty under N.Y. U.C.C. Law section 2-313, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. Igloo Products is an American manufacturer of ice chests, drink containers, and supporting accessories. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bsbGeg at no extra charge.[CC] J.H. BAXTER: Bid to Decertify Class in Hart Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hart, et al., v. J.H. Baxter & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00663 (D. Or., Filed April 30, 2021), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting unopposed motion to decertify the class and vacate the appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The Court's prior orders certifying the class are vacated. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties are ordered to submit final papers or a joint status report apprising the Court of the status of settlement. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. J. H. Baxter is an American wood products treatment company.[CC] JEFFERY LEVY: Scheduling Conference in Theo Set for March 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THEO LEMASTERS, v. JEFFERY LEVY, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11481-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order setting scheduling conference as follows: 1. Counsel for the parties shall attend a scheduling conference on March 19, 2026, at 10:00 AM. 2. No later than Feb. 26, 2026, counsel for all appearing parties and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall meet, in person, telephonically or via video conference, and discuss the matters set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) ("Rule 26(f)"). 3. No later than March 5, 2026, counsel for all appearing parties, and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j7vZAO at no extra charge.[CC] KAPPA4TEAM USA: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPPA4TEAM USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01281-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., February 10, 2026) alleges that Defendant's website, www.kappa-usa.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. KAPPA4TEAM USA LLC operates the website that offers sports and athletic apparel for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, tracksuits, jackets, footwear, 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 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com KONICA MINOLTA: Bid for Seal Class Cert Exhibits Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CEZUS, and other similarly situated employees, v. KONICA MINOLTA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre entered an order that: 1. The Joint Motion to Seal 37 exhibits to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is terminated for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 5.3. 2. The parties shall file unredacted versions of the class certification exhibits at issue under temporary seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(4). 3. The parties shall thereafter file a revised motion to seal only those portions of the class certification exhibits that contain confidential or personal identifying information. The revised motion to seal shall include proposed redacted versions of the exhibits in question and a detailed explanation of the "the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought" and "the clearly defined and serious injury that would result" if the exhibits are not sealed. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF 99. Konica is a Japanese multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ozx3fN at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Jacobo Wins Bid to Certify Noncitizens Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR KALID JACOBO RAMIREZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard Boulware, II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and appoint class counsel. The Court certifies the Class defined as follows: "All noncitizens in the U.S. without lawful status (1) who are or will be arrested or detained by ICE; (2) who are or will be in removal proceedings before an Immigration Court within the District of Nevada; (3) whom DHS alleges or will allege to have entered the United States without inspection or parole; (4) who are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. sections 1226(c), 1225(b)(1), or 1231 at the time they are scheduled for or request a bond hearing; and (5) whose most recent arrest by ICE occurred inside the United States and not while arriving in the United States." The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs Victor Kalid Jacobo Ramirez and Edgar Michel Guevara Alcantar are appointed as representatives of the Class, and that their counsel, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, and the UNLV Boyd School of Law Immigration Clinic ("UNLV Immigration Clinic") are appointed as class counsel for the Class. The Court entered an order that Plaintiffs partial motion for summary judgement, as discussed at the Dec. 19, 2025, hearing and status conference is due on or before Feb. 13, 2026. The Defendants' opposition is due on or before Feb. 23, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply is due on or before Feb. 27, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file any request for and proposed notice to class members pursuant to Fed. R. Civ Proc. 23(c)(2)(A) on or before February 13, 2026. The Defendants may file their opposition to the proposed notice, if any, by Feb. 18, 2026. Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem is an American politician who is the 8th United States Secretary of Homeland Security. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M9Yuma at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: McVay Must File Class Certification Bid by May 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LaTina McVay v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-06176-SVW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wilson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims based on an omission theory, claims based on non-purchased products, request for injunctive relief, request for punitive damages, and out-of-state claims brought on behalf of out-of-state class members. The Plaintiff is ordered to file a motion for class certification by May 15, 2026. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff only has standing to bring claims related to the three products she purchased. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged the lack of a remedy at law. Although the Plaintiff seeks "actual damages"” she also pled that she is "entitled to equitable relief as no adequate remedy at law exists." She alleged that legal remedies may not equate to the price paid for the goods and may require more stringent proof. She further alleged that the scope of actionable misconduct under the unfair prong of the UCL is broader than the other causes of action. Relatedly, Plaintiff alleged that depending on the circumstances, she and class members may be entitled to restitution under the UCL, but not to damages under other causes of action. At least at this stage, the complaint plausibly alleges Plaintiff lacks an adequate legal remedy. The Plaintiff McVay purchased three kinds of Abound dog food products from Ralphs grocery stores near her home in North Hollywood. Her last purchase of these dog food products was in early 2025. Kroger manufactures and sells Abound brand dog food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IMnjgY at no extra charge.[CC] LAND O'LAKES: Parties Must File Amended Joint Scheduling Report --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lenz, et al., v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01371 (E.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order that the parties shall file an amended joint scheduling report that includes a proposed deadline for class discovery, class certification motion briefing schedule, and hearing date. No other dates or deadlines are required to be proposed, as the Court will set all remaining deadlines at a further scheduling conference following resolution of the class certification issue. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Land O'Lakes is an American member-owned agricultural cooperative.[CC] LAUNDRESS LLC: Ostenfeld Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al (RE LAUNDRESS MARKETING AND PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Furman entered a dismissal order. The Court entered an order that the action is dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 60 days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the settlement in this action requires judicial approval -- for example, because it involves a class action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), "an infant or incompetent person," -- the parties must file a letter within three business days of the entry of this Order alerting the Court and proposing a schedule for seeking such approval. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate and to close Case No. 24-CV-865. Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lUyS5C at no extra charge.[CC] LAUNDRESS LLC: Safran Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Safran v. The Laundress LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00865-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Furman entered an order dismissing Safran case and discontinuing without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 60 days of the date of the Order if the settlement is not consummated. The Court having been advised at ECF No. 403 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the settlement in this action requires judicial approval -- for example, because it involves a class action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), "an infant or incompetent person," -- the parties must file a letter within three business days of the entry of this Order alerting the Court and proposing a schedule for seeking such approval. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 403 in Case No. 22-CV-10667 and to close case No. 24-CV-865. Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUsXlJ at no extra charge.[CC] LENS.COM INC: Martin Case Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order of reference to magistrate judge. The motion is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation consistent with 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. Judge Augustin-Birch may conduct a hearing to the extent she believes a hearing is necessary. Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s6rqTO at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Must File Class Cert. Response by March 9 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526 (D. Mass., Filed March 1, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply: -- Liberty Mutual shall file its response to Motion for Class Certification no later than March 9, 2026. -- The Plaintiff to file a reply brief no later than March 30, 2026. -- Reply brief shall not be redundant of earlier briefs filed and addresses only matters raised which were not reasonably foreseeable. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Liberty is an American diversified global insurer.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Lee's Bid to Certify Class Action Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California municipality; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-07032-CBM-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marshall entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action. 1. The Court certifies the Class defined as: "All current and former non-exempt employees of City of Los Angeles covered by the MOU – Regarding the Plant Equipment Operation and Repair Representation Unit (MOU #9) between the City of Los Angeles and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 501, AFL-CIO, who worked at the Bureau of Sanitation during the period of July 2, 2020 through the date of class certification (the "Class")." 2. The Plaintiff Jessica Lee is appointed as the Class Representative. 3. David P. Myers, Jason Hatcher, Cassandra A. Castro and Andriana N. Bravo of The Myers Law Group, A.P.C. are appointed as class counsel. 4. The Defendant shall provide in Microsoft Excel format, the names, addresses, telephone number, e-mail addresses, and dates of employment for all Class members to the third-party administrator and Class counsel no later than Feb. 12, 2026. 5. The Plaintiff's proposed notice to the Class is approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and notice to the Class of the pending action and right to opt-out in substantially the same form as approved by the Court shall be mailed to Class members by the third-party administrator no later than March 19, 2026. The Defendant did not file an opposition. Therefore, the Defendant's failure to file an opposition is deemed consent to granting the Motion. 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=PgKcSw at no extra charge.[CC] LULULEMON USA: Appeals Arbitration Order in Brown Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LULULEMON USA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Nishae D. Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lululemon USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09629-WLH-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. On Nov. 12, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Wesley L. Hsu denied on Jan. 28, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Brown v. Lululemon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-936, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 17, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on February 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 30, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on April 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee NISHAE D. BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Defendants-Appellants LULULEMON USA, INC., et al. are represented by: Katharine Liao, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US), LLP 1120 Avenue of the Americas, 13th Floor New York, NY 10036 MAREX GROUP: Katz Appointed as Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michaella G. Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Marex Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08368 (RA) (SDA) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Aaron entered an order as follows: 1. Katz is appointed as lead plaintiff in Case No. 25-CV-08368, and Katz's selection of Scott+Soctt as lead counsel in that case is approved. 2. Shahsavanpour and Patel are appointed as lead plaintiffs in Case No. 25 CV-08393 and their selection of the Schall Firm as lead counsel in that case is approved. 3. Case No. 25-CV-08368 and Case No. 25-CV-08393 shall be coordinated for discovery and case management purposes. 4. No later than Feb. 16, 2026, the parties in Case No. 25-CV-08368 and Case No. 25-CV-08393 shall meet-and-confer and file a joint letter providing a proposed schedule for the Plaintiffs to file any amended pleadings and for the Defendants to respond to the pleadings in the respective actions. The Clerk of Court is requested to change the caption on the ECF docket for Case No. 25-CV-08393 to list Shahsavanpour and Patel as lead plaintiffs. The Katz Action is brought on behalf of a putative class of: "All persons and entities that sold short Marex securities between Aug. 14, 2024 and Aug. 5, 2025, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." The Narayanan Action is brought on behalf of a putative class of: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Marex securities between May 16, 2024 and Aug. 5, 2025, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Both actions allege that the Defendants defrauded investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Marex is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=59MLDG at no extra charge.[CC] MAREX GROUP: Shahsavanpour, Patel Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ravishanker Narayanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Marex Group PLC, et al. Case No. 1:25-cv-08393-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Aaron entered an order as follows: 1. Katz is appointed as lead plaintiff in Case No. 25-CV-08368, and Katz's selection of Scott+Soctt as lead counsel in that case is approved. 2. Shahsavanpour and Patel are appointed as lead plaintiffs in Case No. 25 CV-08393 and their selection of the Schall Firm as lead counsel in that case is approved. 3. Case No. 25-CV-08368 and Case No. 25-CV-08393 shall be coordinated for discovery and case management purposes. 4. No later than Feb. 16, 2026, the parties in Case No. 25-CV-08368 and Case No. 25-CV-08393 shall meet-and-confer and file a joint letter providing a proposed schedule for the Plaintiffs to file any amended pleadings and for the Defendants to respond to the pleadings in the respective actions. The Clerk of Court is requested to change the caption on the ECF docket for Case No. 25-CV-08393 to list Shahsavanpour and Patel as lead plaintiffs. The Katz Action is brought on behalf of a putative class of: "All persons and entities that sold short Marex securities between Aug. 14, 2024 and Aug. 5, 2025, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." The Narayanan Action is brought on behalf of a putative class of: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Marex securities between May 16, 2024 and Aug. 5, 2025, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Both actions allege that the Defendants defrauded investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Marex is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QraVyi at no extra charge.[CC] MARYLAND: Bid for Interim Seal of Class Exhibits OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., by his next friend, BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-MJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for interim seal of Exhibits 2, 3 (and appendices C GG) and 5 to their memorandum in support of reopening class certification. 1. Exhibits 2, 3, 5 and appendices C to GG of Exhibit 3 to the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of reopening class certification are sealed; and 2. The Plaintiffs may file a redacted version of Exhibit 3 and accompanying appendices, without sealing, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 8 of the Court's Protective Order. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c70opc at no extra charge.[CC] MEMBERCLOSE LLC: Drouchie Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------ HOLLY DROUCHIE, KEITH MITCHELL, JENNIFER MARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMBERCLOSE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10731-RGS (D. Mass., February 10, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiffs and approximately 4,485 of its clients due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On January 15, 2026, MemberClose announced the data breach to the public. According to MemberClose, it was able to confirm that an authorized threat actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members on a cloud application on October 30, 2025. According to the complaint, MemberClose disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. MemberClose further failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members, depriving them of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. MemberClose LLC is a web-based, lending platform and settlement services provider launched in 2004. It acts as a single-point, online portal allowing credit unions to manage the entire lending process.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julien P. Gelly, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com MIT45 INC: Moorhead Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA MOORHEAD, L.M., D.H., and E.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MIT45, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00499-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the proposed Classes, appoint L.M., D.H., and E.L Class Representatives and Jenn French and Neal Deckant as Class Counsel, and allow this case to proceed to trial as a class action. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Classes: California Class: "All persons within the State of California who purchased MIT45 kratom products within the applicable statute of limitations period." New York Class: "All persons within the State of New York who purchased MIT45 kratom products within the applicable statute of limitations period." Oregon Class: "All persons within the State of Oregon who purchased MIT45 kratom products within the applicable statute of limitations period." While marketing its products as a way to "live healthier and happier naturally," with a safety profile like coffee, MIT45 failed to disclose that regular use can lead to physical dependence, withdrawal, and, in some cases, the need for medical detoxification, including medication-assisted treatment, the suit alleges. The Defendant is the pioneering kratom company responsible for formulating kratom extracts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nVCper at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Jennifer M. French, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Dr., Ste. 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1903 E-mail: jennf@lcllp.com NANO NUCLEAR: Xie Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- HONGYU XIE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Hongyu Xie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-6057, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Jan. 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 21, 2025. On Mar. 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Apr. 11, 2025. On Jan. 8, 2026, Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an Order granting in full the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court concludes that Xie already had one opportunity to amend following the Defendants' initial motion to dismiss, and although she requests leave to amend again, she does not identify any facts she would add. Moreover, there is good reason to doubt that Xie would be able to remedy some of the substantive issues identified above. That said, mindful that leave to amend a complaint should be freely given when justice so requires, and that complaints dismissed under Rule 9(b) are almost always dismissed with leave to amend, the Court will grant Xie one final chance to amend. Xie shall file any Third Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of the Opinion and Order. On Feb. 12, 2026, the Court entered judgment to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled Xie v. Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc., Case No. 26-346, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant HONGYU XIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees NANO NUCLEAR ENERGY, INC., et al. are represented by: Eric Landau, Esq. ELLENOFF GROSSMAN & SCHOLE LLP 949 South Coast Dr., Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 NATIVAS LLC: Fails to Disclose Salmonella Contamination, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Nativas Organics failed to adequately inform consumers that its now-recalled Organic Chia Seeds are at risk of salmonella contamination. The 20-page lawsuit states that Nativas Organics in January 2026 voluntarily recalled the organic chia seeds due to the potential presence of salmonella, a "precautionary measure" in the wake of a recall by Nativas' chia seed supplier, the company said. The case contends that Nativas misrepresented the quality and safety of its 8oz bags of Organic Chia Seeds by failing to inform consumers of the potential salmonella contamination risk affecting several lots of the products at issue. Salmonella, the complaint explains, is one of the top causes of foodborne illness, hospitalizations and deaths worldwide, and is particularly dangerous for children, older people, and those with weakened immune systems. According to the FDA's website, 8-oz pouches of Nativas Organic Chia seeds bearing UPC 858847000284 with the following lot codes and expiration dates were included in the recall: -- W31025283 - Best If Used By: End APR 2027; -- W31025286 - Best If Used By: End APR 2027; -- W31025287 - Best If Used By: End APR 2027; -- W31025311 - Best If Used By: End MAY 2027; -- W31025314 - Best If Used By: End MAY 2027; -- W31025315 - Best If Used By: End MAY 2027; -- W31025316 - Best If Used By: End MAY 2027; and -- W31025317 - Best If Used By: End MAY 2027. The affected products were distributed nationally through retail stores such as Whole Foods and Target, and through online retailers like Amazon.com, the suit mentions. Because Nativas is in the "superior position" of knowing the ingredients, materials and manufacturing processes to produce its products, the company should have been aware of the risks involved in production, including salmonella contamination, and recklessly failed to inform consumers, the lawsuit argues. "Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain or verify whether a product contains unsafe substances, such as Salmonella, especially at the point of sale, and therefore must and do rely on Defendant to truthfully and honestly report what the Products contain or are at risk of containing on the Products' packaging or labels," the case relays. In fact, a substantial portion of the product's packaging displays language assuring consumers of Nativas' apparent commitment to "rigorous third-party certifications" and lab testing of "every bag" it sells to ensure the quality and safety of its food products, according to the case. "Defendant's labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading statements and omissions concerning its Products inasmuch as it misrepresents that the Products are safe for consumption and does not list that the Products contain Salmonella," the complaint claims. According to the suit, Nativas also issued a recall of certain products in 2014 due to potential salmonella contamination. The Nativas Organic Chia Seeds class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased an affected Nativas chia seeds product. [GN] NCH HEALTHCARE: Bid to Decertify McFalls Collective Action Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Chappell entered an order that: 1. The Defendants' motion to decertify the collective action is granted. 2. Opt-in Plaintiffs Madison Hitchcock, Stephanie Kumetz, and Jimi Williamceau's FLSA claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff assumes that the different actions Defendants took to recoup the program fee all constitute wage deprivation. But the Plaintiff cites nothing on point in support. That is not enough to sustain her burden. The Court finds the first and second factors support decertification. There are legal and factual issues not common amongst the collective. So "judicial economy is not served in this circumstance because each Plaintiff's claims raise distinct factual and legal issues which would essentially evolve into four distinct trials." The Court finds the third factor supports decertification. NCH is a not-for-profit, healthcare system. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38YywY at no extra charge.[CC] NORTON HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $11MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Norton Healthcare has agreed to an $11,000,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit over a massive May 2023 data breach that potentially compromised the confidential information of its current and former patient and employees. The Norton Healthcare class action settlement received preliminary court approval on January 13, 2026 and covers all individuals whose personal information may have been compromised in the data breach as identified on the class list. Court documents estimate that approximately 2,487,683 current and former patients and employees are set to be covered by the settlement. The court-authorized website for the Norton Healthcare data breach settlement can be found at NortonDataIncidentSettlement.com. The settlement site explains that Norton Healthcare settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible for multiple benefits. According to the site, class members who submit their claim form with documented proof of out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the data breach are eligible to receive up to $2,500 in reimbursement. The site explains that losses must be directly attributable to the data breach and include costs for credit reports/monitoring and identity theft insurance purchased between May 9, 2023 and May 18, 2026, as well as bank fees and miscellaneous expenses such as mileage or postage. Class members may also submit a claim for up to four hours of lost time spent addressing the breach at a rate of $20 per hour, for a maximum payout of $80. Per the site, covered activities include freezing credit, remedying actual fraud, reviewing bank/credit statements and other actions related to the breach. In addition to claims for documented losses and lost time, all class members may also submit a claim form to receive a one-time cash payment of at least $5. According to the settlement website, the amount of this payment will be a pro rata (equal share) portion of the net settlement fund after all administrative expenses, attorneys' fees and lead plaintiff service awards have been paid. Settlement documents note that if the total number of valid claims exceeds the amount available for the one-time cash payment, each payment for a valid out-of-pocket loss claim will be reduced on a pro rata basis until the amount of the one-time cash payment is at least $5. In addition to any/all monetary benefits, the agreement states that all class members may file a claim to receive an enrollment code for three free years of CyEx Medical Shield Pro from the settlement administrator. To submit a Norton Healthcare claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID 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 listed on the first page. All Norton Healthcare settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than May 18, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Norton Healthcare settlement at a hearing on May 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Norton Healthcare class action lawsuit alleged that the Kentucky-based healthcare system failed to protect confidential patient and employee information in its care, leading to a May 2023 data breach. According to the second amended complaint, the information that may have been impacted by the breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, marital status, employers (with contact information), insurance policy information, demographic information, driver's license or state ID numbers, medical history and diagnoses, banking and credit card information, and other highly confidential data. [GN] NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Class Settlement in Lytle Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN LYTLE, et al. , Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00835-FMO-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order re: motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Plaintiffs' amended unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. 2. The court preliminarily appoints the plaintiffs Justin Lytle and Christine Musthaler as class representatives for settlement purposes. 3. The court preliminarily appoints Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Levin Papantonio as class counsel for settlement purposes 4. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for attorney's fees and costs, as well as any incentive payments, no later than April 23, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs shall, no later than July 13, 2026, file and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and a response to any objections to the settlement. 6. A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for Aug. 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. On May 6, 2022, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and certified the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 with respect to plaintiffs' claim under the CLRA: "All persons residing in California who purchased during the limitations period the following canine Cosequin products for personal use: Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets; Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets; and Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews." The Court excluded from the class: the defendants, the defendants' officers, directors, agents or affiliates; the defendants' past and present employees; and the judge who presides over the case. Nutramax researches, develops, manufactures, and sells supplements for both humans and household pets, including Cosequin canine joint health supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9j2Fpj at no extra charge.[CC] ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit over SiC Business ----------------------------------------------------------------- ON Semiconductor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2026 that on December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned "Hubacek v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024 which again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The company file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. On September 6, 2024, plaintiff filed their second amended complaint and the company filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on October 10, 2024. Full briefing for this motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was completed on December 20, 2024. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the company's silicon carbide (SiC) business. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Oral arguments for the motion to dismiss were heard by the court on June 27, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. On August 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed their third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this third amended complaint on September 25, 2025. Full briefing on this motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was completed on December 10, 2025. ON Semiconductor Corporation provide intelligent power and sensing solutions with a primary focus towards automotive and industrial markets. OPW FUELING: Canales Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- OVIS MATAMOROS CANALES is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ovis Matamoros Canales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. On Feb. 10, 2026, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff. The Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not receive the wages he had been promised and had earned and that the Defendant did not pay him overtime pay for workweeks where he worked more than 40 hours. Moreover, the Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in a legally protected activity. The appellate case is styled as Ovis Canales v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Case No. 26-1176, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on February 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant OVIS MATAMOROS CANALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: S. Byron Frazelle, Esq. Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq. Briahna Branker Koegel, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 South Academy Street Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Defendant-Appellee OPW FUELING COMPONENTS LLC is represented by: Nicholas S. Hulse, Esq. David I. Klass, Esq. Sharon Suh, Esq. FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 227 West Trade Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 334-4565 OTTNO INC: Faces Haycook Suit Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HAYCOOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OTTNO INC. d/b/a NATIONAL AUTO LOAN NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00332 (C.D. Cal., February 12, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant on or around January 14, 2026. According to the complaint, the private information compromised in the data breach included 600GB of certain personal information including, but not limited to: full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account details, loan information and other data provided for refinancing auto loans. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons who are similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, for failing to promptly detect the cyberattack, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access and exfiltration by cybercriminals. The Plaintiff further seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, violation of California Unfair Competition Law, violation of California Consumer Privacy Act, and public disclosure of private facts, and California constitutional right to privacy. Headquartered in Tustin, CA, Ottno Inc. provides financing services for consumers looking to purchase a vehicle or refinance an auto loan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com PAMELA BONDI: Must Release Lecky from Custody --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELADDO FERNANDO LECKY, v. PAMELA BONDI, ET AL, Case No. 2:25-cv-02637-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa Fricke entered an order granting in part petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's re-detention occurred without meaningful notice, without a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and without evidence of relevant violations of his OSUP or changed circumstances under the agency’s regulation, that would allow for revocation of his Order of Supervision. This violated ICE's regulations and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner is therefore in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted in part. 1. The government shall release petitioner from custody within 24 hours of the filing of this Order, under the conditions of his June 12, 2015 OSUP; 2. Prior to any future detention by ICE, petitioner is entitled to notice and a pre deprivation hearing at which a neutral decision-maker must determine whether here is any valid basis for their detention—i.e., whether he poses a danger to the community or a flight risk that can only be mitigated through detention. At such a hearing, the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that a valid basis exists for his detention. 3. The evidence the government presented in this case is insufficient to meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. sections 241.13(i)(2), 241.13(i)(2); and 4. No later than two days after petitioner's release (for example, if petitioner is released on a Monday, then the government shall file the declaration no later than Wednesday; or, if petitioner is released on a Friday, then the declaration shall be filed no later than the following Monday) the government must file with the Court a declaration confirming the date and time petitioner has been released from custody. Petitioner Deladdo Fernando Lecky, a citizen, and native of Jamaica, is detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at the Northwest ICE Processing Center ("NWIPC") in Tacoma, Washington. He has been detained since Sept. 17, 2025. On May 21, 2015, an Immigration Judge granted withholding of removal to Jamaica. Petitioner was later released on an Order of Supervision ("OSUP"). He complied with this order for ten years, until his re detention. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uMPLwx at no extra charge.[CC] PASSES INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alice Rosenblum, v. Passes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08457-JLS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Passes Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike class allegations, and -- granting in part and denying in part Ginoza's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations. Counts I and III and are dismissed only as to Guo, with leave to amend. Count II is dismissed with prejudice. Count VIII is dismissed in its entirety, with leave to amend. The class allegations are stricken and this case shall proceed as an individual action. The Plaintiff may amend the pleading in a manner, correcting the deficiencies identified herein, in a manner consistent with all Rule 11 obligations. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this Order. Any claim not included in a timely-filed amended complaint will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The Court sees no reason to depart from "traditional principles" of vicarious liability, which would hold Passes, Celestin's employer, vicariously liable for Celestin's actions, rather than Guo, Passes CEO. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim as to Guo's direct or vicarious liability under section 2255. The Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Ginoza intentionally distributed CSAM, and that Passes, having actual knowledge of the nature of the content distributed from the Plaintiff's account, also intentionally distributed CSAM. However, just as the Plaintiff fails to allege that Guo personally distributed CSAM in violation of sections 2252 and 2252A, Plaintiff also fails to allege that Guo distributed CSAM in violation of section 1708.85. Moreover, as discussed above, Guo cannot be held vicariously liable for Celestin and Ginoza's actions. Because Guo was allegedly acting as an agent of Passes in her capacity as CEO while she was engaging with the Plaintiff and facilitating the distribution of her content, the Plaintiff has successfully stated a CTVPA claim as to Passes. Accordingly, Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss Count VII are DENIED. Plaintiff's barebones allegations do not plead facts to support the existence of any other similarly situated class members. Plaintiff merely proffers the fact that Passes was, for a time, open to creators under the age of 18. But this is far from sufficient to adequately allege the existence of any other class members who, like Plaintiff, were subject to violations of state and federal law due to specific interactions with Passes and its employees. Further, at the hearing, Plaintiff did not object to the class allegations being stricken. Thus, it "is sufficiently obvious from the pleadings" that a class action may not be maintained, Route, 2013 WL 658251, and Passes Defendants' and Ginoza's motions to strike are granted. Passes is an online platform through which creators sell exclusive content, livestreams, chats, and personalized experiences to customers and subscribers. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aw7cMQ at no extra charge.[CC] PAYBYPHONE US: Alicea Sues Over Deceptive Street Parking Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN ALICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYBYPHONE US INC., a Delaware corporation, PAYBYPHONE TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Canadian corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01266 (N.D. Cal., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for misleading Plaintiff and other consumers by starting street parking meter timers before they have confirmed and paid for a transaction. According to the complaint, PayByPhone begins charging customers for their time before they make a payment. Reasonable consumers do not expect that to happen, and PayByPhone's deceptive interface and payment flow give reasonable consumers no reason to think otherwise. For example, PayByPhone does not make clear and conspicuous disclosures about its unorthodox method of counting time or charging for parking. As a result, consumers are not given the full allotted parking time for which they pay. PayByPhone profits from this deceptive practice because it charges a service fee for each transaction. The more transactions it processes, the more it earns, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy PayByPhone's conduct and to recover the sums he and other Class members were unjustly charged. PayByPhone Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its headquarters in Vancouver, British Columbia. It offers payment-by-phone services for street parking in over 1,300 cities across the world through its regional subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabanez, Esq. Taylor Applegate, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2305 E-mail: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com taylora@salahilaw.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PYPL) common stock between February 25, 2025 and February 2, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). PayPal investors have until April 20, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO SUFFERED A LOSS IN PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. (PYPL), CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. Contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss your legal rights by email at howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, by telephone at (215) 638-4847 or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. What Happened? On February 3, 2026, PayPal announced a surprise leadership change, replacing Chief Executive Officer Alex Chriss, effective immediately. PayPal noted in its announcement the "pace of change and execution was not in line with the Board's expectations." The leadership change coincided with the Company's fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings report, wherein PayPal admitted "execution has not been where it needs to be, particularly in branded checkout." The Company revealed, among other things, net revenue for the quarter had only increased 3% on a currency neutral basis. On this news, PayPal's stock price fell $10.63, or 20.3%, to close at $41.70 per share on February 3, 2026, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) PayPal had overstated its ability to execute on its business initiatives; (2) PayPal was not effectively executing on Branded Checkout initiatives; (3) PayPal had unduly dismissed investor concerns of competition; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased PayPal common stock, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Visit our website at: www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] PENNYMAC LOAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Suit Due 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00276 (M.D.N.C., Filed April 9, 2025), the Hon. Judge Irene Cornelia Berger entered an order adopting Joint Rule 26(f) Report, with the following clarifications: (1) The parties shall conduct mediation by Aug. 10, 2026. (2) The Plaintiff shall serve expert disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Sept. 9, 2026 (3) The Defendant shall serve expert disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Oct. 9, 2026 (4) The parties shall complete discovery by Nov. 9, 2026 (5) The parties shall file any dispositive motions and Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification by Dec 9, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. PennyMac provides home mortgage loans to borrowers and investors.[CC] PEPSICO INC: Jewat Sues Over Anti-Competitive Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HAYCOOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OTTNO INC. d/b/a NATIONAL AUTO LOAN NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00332 (C.D. Cal., February 12, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant National Auto Loan Network, Inc. on or around January 14, 2026. According to the complaint, the private information compromised in the data breach included 600GB of certain personal information including, but not limited to: full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account details, loan information and other data provided for refinancing auto loans. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons who are similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, for failing to promptly detect the cyberattack, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access and exfiltration by cybercriminals. The Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, violation of California Unfair Competition Law, violation of California Consumer Privacy Act, and public disclosure of private facts, and California constitutional right to privacy. Headquartered in Tustin, CA, Ottno Inc. provides financing services for consumers looking to purchase a vehicle or refinance an auto loan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com PETRO-LUD INC: Hunter Class Action Closed ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEO HUNTER, v. PETRO-LUD, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00181-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to close the case and adjust the docket to reflect, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissal with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the putative class. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff represented to the Court his intent to withdraw his class claims, the Plaintiff has made no filing that operates to withdraw those claims. In light of the Plaintiff's filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e) does not require the Court's approval of the dismissal. This action shall be terminated by operation of law without further order of the Court. Here, no class has been certified, Plaintiff has not sought certification, certification has not been proposed for purposes of settlement, and Plaintiff asserts that he no longer intends to proceed with a class action. Where no class has been certified, and where any dismissal would not affect putative class members' claims (i.e., where the dismissal of class claims is without prejudice), Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of any settlement or notice to putative class members. On Feb. 2, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a jointly executed stipulated dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Petro-Lud is a full-service drilling and service company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6MryT3 at no extra charge.[CC] PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due June 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT FRAZIER, et al., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Case No. 8:22-cv-01768-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Chasanow entered an amended scheduling order: Date Description March 6, 2026: Deadline for notice of proposed factual stipulations, if any, and comment on advisability of ADR referral May 29, 2026: Fact discovery deadline June 12, 2026: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures June 29, 2026: Deadline for renewed motion for class certification July 31, 2026 Deadline for response to renewed motion for class certification Sept. 14, 2026 Deadline for summary judgment motions Prince George's County is located in the U.S. state of Maryland bordering the eastern portion of Washington, D.C. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o8HrpU at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE AUTO: Faces Class Action Illegal Personal Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Botos of Canton Repository reports that a Massillon auto dealer is accused of waiting more than seven months to notify customers that their personal information may have been accessed during a data breach. Cincinnati attorney Terence Coates has filed a pair of lawsuits in Stark County Common Pleas Court this month against Progressive Auto Group. The suits are filed on behalf of two local residents, and at least the first one asks for class action status. Such a designation would allow Coates to represent at least 1,680 people affected by the breach, according to his filings. Neither Coates, nor Progressive's sibling owners Craig and Tim Sanders, responded to a request for comment for this story. "It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to defendant's network before the breach was discovered," Coates wrote in a complaint. "In other words, defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems-thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its consumers' (personal information)." The suit seeks at least $25,000 in damages. Coates alleges that Progressive was hacked on June 20, 2025. And that the dealer has also admitted an "unauthorized actor" accessed and acquired certain files on that day. Those files, he stated, included Social Security, driver's license and/or state IDs, and passport, financial account and debit card numbers. "And yet, defendant waited until Jan. 27, 2026, before it began notifying the class -- a full 221 days after the data breach began," he alleged. Coates' suits were filed on Feb. 5 and Feb. 13, on behalf of a Canton man and a Navarre woman. Exhibits within a complaint include a letter to those affected, from Craig Sanders, Progressive president. In it, Sanders tells them: -- To remain vigilant by reviewing account statements and credit reports for any unauthorized activity. -- Contact their financial institution immediately if they see unauthorized charges or activity. -- Be vigilant for incidents of fraud or identity theft by reviewing account statements and free credit reports for any unauthorized activity over the next 12 to 24 months. Sanders also wrote that Progressive would provide one-year free access to Epiq's Privacy ID Solutions, which can help detect fraud. The suit alleges Progressive's negligence in securing data made it vulnerable to a hack. "Worryingly, the cybercriminals that obtained plaintiff's and class members' (personal information) appear to be the notorious cybercriminal group Nitrogen," Coates wrote. He stated that Nitrogen Ransomware group was "first detected in September 2024" and initially it targeted organizations in the U.S. and Canada before expanding into Africa and Europe. "And as the Harvard Business Review notes, such (cybercriminals) frequently use the Dark Web -- a hub of criminal and illicit activity -- to sell data from companies that they have gained unauthorized access to through credential stuffing attacks, phishing attacks, [or] hacking," the suit alleges. Last month, a Minnesota attorney filed a similar type of data breach lawsuit against Canton's Aultman Health System. Progressive Auto Group was founded in 1937. Its current leaders, the Sanders brothers, represent the fourth-generation of the family business founders, according to its website. The company, its website states, operates a Chevrolet and a Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram dealership on Hills and Dales Road NW, along with Economy Auto Outlet on Erie Street South. [GN] PROVIDENCE HEALTH: 401K Mismanagement Class Settlement Reaches $43M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Muoio of Fierce Healthcare reports that settlement agreement awaiting approval from a federal judge would see Providence Health & Services spending nearly $43 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging mismanagement of its employee retirement plan. The case was brought in late 2024 by a former employee, with the parties in mediation to discuss a potential agreement since last October, according to court documents. Recent weeks saw the sides reach a settlement in principle, per filed joint status reports, and last week, representation for the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval laying out the deal's terms. A Providence spokesperson also confirmed the settlement. The former employee claimed the nonprofit system had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by using forfeitures (matching funds that were not 100% vested at the time of termination) to reduce the organization's contributions to its sponsored 401(k) plan. Terms laid out in plan documents direct plan fiduciaries to use forfeited funds should first go toward plan expenses not paid by Providence. "Halter alleges that Defendants failed to act in accordance with Plan documents and in the process breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, caused the Plan to enter into prohibited transactions, and engaged in self-dealing," according to a summary of the allegations in the plaintiff's unopposed motion. The pending settlement would bring over $42.7 million in total benefits to the roughly 202,000 individuals who participated in or were beneficiaries of the 401(k) since Jan. 1, 2018. Just over half comes from the allocation of funds currently being held by Providence in plan forfeiture and special unallocated accounts to class members' plan accounts, with some former plan participants having their accounts reinstated at Providence's expense. Providence would also be spending $15.3 million to pay all plan recordkeeping and administrative expenses for calendar years 2026, 2027 and 2028, as well as $6 million to pay any court-ordered attorney fees, service award to the plaintiff ($5,000 requested) and other miscellaneous expenses and costs. If approved as requested, the deal would automatically deposit $106 in each class members' plan account and cover about $75 of their recordkeeping and administrative expenses. "These benefits, which total nearly $182 per Class Member, significantly exceed benefits negotiated in recent, similar ERISA settlements," the filing reads. The class-action lawsuit was initially filed in Oregon's federal court but was transferred earlier this year to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Providence runs 51 hospitals and more than 1,000 other sites in eight states. It currently employs around 120,000 people. Across 2024, it reported nearly $31 billion in total operating revenues but a $644 million operating loss (-2.1% operating margin). In response to a request for comment, a Providence spokesperson said that "under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed not to comment on the settlement. We remain confident in the integrity and compliance of our retirement plans and in our continued commitment to supporting the long-term financial wellbeing of our caregivers." [GN] QUINSTREET PL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 28 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Minor, v. QuinStreet PL, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-09348-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: 1. Trial date: March 27, 2028 2. Final pretrial conference: Feb. 10, 2028 3. Expert discovery cut-off: March 11, 2027 4. Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 28, 2026 5. Motion for class certification: Last Day to be heard: Jan. 19, 2027 2:00 p.m. in person Reply due: Dec. 11, 2026 Opposition due: Nov. 9, 2026 Last Day to file class certification motion: Sept. 28, 2026 The Defendant operates in the personal loan and financial services industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0KK0Pq at no extra charge.[CC] RICOH USA: Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEO BATTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RICOH USA, INC., THE RICOH RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:25-cv-04658-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement entered into with the Defendants, approval of form and manner of class notice, preliminary approval of plan of allocation, and scheduling of fairness hearing. Ricoh is a global technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qeJnZK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. Giulia T. Conboy, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com Jayw@capozziadler.com giuliac@capozziadler - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Ste. 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com S. MARTINELLI & CO: Bid to Dismiss with Leave to Amend Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOLY RAMIREZ, and others, v. S. MARTINELLI & COMPANY, Case No. 5:25-cv-07569-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cousins entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' sixth claim for unjust enrichment under New York law and seventh claim for punitive damages with leave to amend and denies the Defendant's motion in all other respects. The Plaintiffs may amend the Complaint by Feb. 27, 2026. The Plaintiffs may not add additional parties or claims without leave of the Court. The Defendant does not need to file an answer until the Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint or a notice that they will not amend. The Court agrees with the Defendant regarding punitive damages, but notes that this claim is otherwise sufficiently pled as discussed in Section B. The Plaintiffs must identify an officer, director, or managing agent who committed an act of oppression, fraud, or malice to seek punitive damages. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' seventh claim with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims under New York law would be considered as duplicative of their consumer protection claims since "they are premised on the same factual allegations and the same theory of liability." Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under New York law only with leave to amend. Here too, since Plaintiffs have satisfied the reasonable consumer standard with respect to their consumer protection claims under New York and California law, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a breach of express warranty claim. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' express warranty claim. The Defendant sells various beverages containing apple juice. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mdkw5X at no extra charge.[CC] SAFEMOON LLC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Prelim Approval of Settlements ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK COMBS, VLAD IACOB, and BENJAMIN NORTHEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SAFEMOON LLC, SAFEMOON US, LLC, SAFEMOON CONNECT, LLC, TANO LLC, SAFEMOON LTD, SAFEMOON PROTOCOL LTD, SAFEMOON MEDIA GROUP LTD, BRADEN JOHN KARONY, JACK HAINES-DAVIES, HENRY “HANK” WYATT, JAKE PAUL, KYLE NAGY, DeANDRE CORTEZ WAY, BEN PHILLIPS, MILES PARKS McCOLLUM, THOMAS SMITH and DANIEL M. KEEM, Case No. 2:22-cv-00642-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (i) preliminarily approving the proposed settlements; (ii) approving the form and manner of providing notice of the proposed Settlements to the Settlement Class, including the procedures and deadlines for objecting, seeking exclusion from the Settlement Class, and submitting Claim Forms; (iii) scheduling a date for a hearing (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlements, the proposed plan of allocation for the Settlements' proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation"), and Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; (iv) appointing Stretto, Inc. as the Claims Administrator to administer the Settlements; and (v) granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem fair and proper. Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, and Defendant Jake Paul, have reached a global resolution to resolve this securities class action for $200,000 for the benefit of Class Members. Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, and Defendant Daniel Keem, have reached a global resolution to resolve this securities class action for $90,000 for the benefit of Class Members. SafeMoon was a cryptocurrency and blockchain company based in Pleasant Grove, Utah. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XgAE9w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com smasson@scott-scott.com - and - Brent O. Hatch, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP 22 E 100 S STE 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 869-1919 E-mail: hatch@hatchpc.com SHELL CHEMICAL: Flynn Allowed to File Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mr. Flynn's motion to file an amended complaint. The parties shall confer and file any proposed scheduling modifications that may be needed given the timing of this disposition. Mr. Flynn moves for leave to file a second amended complaint to his putative class action to add additional named plaintiffs whose residences are geographically located in different portions of the proposed class area and to add a putative class representative who is a renter of residential property. While the proposed Second Amended Complaint contains allegations related to the physical impact of the Shell plant, a fair reading of the pleading only supports that the putative class action seeks damages related to property. Therefore, without a cause of action that supports damages for physical/personal injury, any allegations of the same may be impertinent to this case, and Shell would need not delve into discovery topics outside of Plaintiffs' claim for property damage. Thus, given the context of a putative class action, the limited scope of the amendment, and the scheduling deadlines, the Court will permit Mr. Flynn's amendment. The Plaintiff's claims are based upon alleged noxious odors, fugitive dust, and light emissions from Shell's ethylene cracker plant facility located in Beaver County. In his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Flynn sought to represent a class defined as follows: "All owner/occupants or renters of residential property from 2 years of the filing of this Complaint to the present who are located within a two (2) mile radius of the Facility." The Defendant operates a major petrochemical complex in Potter Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FmGNyt at no extra charge.[CC] ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Court Reserves Ruling on "Miller" FLSA Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Bradley Miller, Kayla Kilpatrick, and Blake Bumann, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. St. Clair County, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-2597-JPG (S.D. Ill.), Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois reserved ruling on the parties' joint motion to approve a settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs are employed as Telecommunicators who manage 911 calls for the County's Emergency Management Administration, a subdivision of the Defendant. They were assigned to work eighty hours in a two-week period such that one week they worked more than forty hours and one week they worked less. Under the Work Week Policy, the Defendant paid overtime premiums only for hours worked over eighty hours in a two-week period, even when employees worked over forty hours in a one-week period. The Plaintiffs alleged this violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (Section 201-219) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (Section 105/1-15). Upon careful examination, the Court noted it was uncomfortable evaluating a settlement agreement not in the record. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to file the complete settlement agreement under seal as an exhibit to the pending motion within seven days. The Court identified four criteria it would apply in reviewing the proposed settlement: (1) whether it resolves a bona fide dispute rather than simply accomplishing a waiver of statutory rights; (2) whether it represents a reasonable compromise of the issues in dispute; (3) whether it was obtained fairly and not by overreaching by the Defendant; and (4) any other matter relevant to its fairness. On the question of attorney fees, the Court noted the documents submitted in support of the fee award were not detailed enough to assess whether adjustments were warranted under the lodestar method, which involves multiplying the number of hours the attorney reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Therefore, the Court reserved ruling on the motion for approval of the settlement and indicated it would set a telephone status conference to inquire further into the attorney fee award. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 17, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gs0BU7 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant The County of St. Clair, Illinois Represented By: Garrett P. Hoerner Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa, P.C. 618-235-0020 gph@bhylaw.com Mediator Stephen Williams Kuehn, Beasley & Young, P.C. 23 South 1st Street Belleville, IL 62220 Plaintiff Blake Bumann Represented By: Philip Oliphant The Crone Law Firm 901-519-4667 poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com Hannah Strong The Crone Law Firm 901-519-4664 hstrong@cronelawfirmplc.com Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm, LLC 314-806-9626 erolwes@rolweslaw.com Plaintiff Kayla Kilpatrick Represented By: Philip Oliphant The Crone Law Firm 901-519-4667 [poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com] Hannah Strong The Crone Law Firm 901-519-4664 [hstrong@cronelawfirmplc.com] Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm, LLC 314-806-9626 [erolwes@rolweslaw.com] --- Plaintiff Bradley Miller Represented By: Philip Oliphant The Crone Law Firm 901-519-4667 [poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com] Hannah Strong The Crone Law Firm 901-519-4664 [hstrong@cronelawfirmplc.com] Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm, LLC 314-806-9626 erolwes@rolweslaw.com TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Defective Vehicle Door Handle Design --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that tens of thousands of 2023-present Tesla Model S vehicles are defectively designed with flush-mounted electronic exterior and interior door handles that cannot be opened when the car's high-voltage battery loses power. The 36-page Tesla lawsuit charges that the electric vehicle's electronically activated door handle design renders the Model S "not reasonably escapable and not reasonably rescuable" in the event of a collision that causes a loss of low-voltage power, or an emergency system shutdown, particularly for drivers and passengers attempting to exit the rear of the vehicle. Should a Model S lose power, the exterior door handles will fail to extend and actuate, meaning the doors cannot be opened from the outside, and the interior door handle latches will also fail to actuate, the suit says. Importantly, the complaint highlights that the Model S interior rear door handles do not have the same readily accessible manual emergency release mechanism as the interior front door handles. Should a Tesla Model S lose power, the case says, the rear interior door handles can only be opened manually by folding back the carpet below the rear seats to expose the mechanical release cable, which the filing argues is "not reasonably discoverable or usable by an average occupant under emergency conditions." Despite a litany of complaints from drivers -- and numerous instances of occupants becoming trapped inside the vehicles at issue -- Tesla has done nothing to prevent the problem or fix the Model S door handle design, or warn consumers at the time of purchase or lease, the class action lawsuit says. The suit also contends that 2023-present Tesla Model S vehicles are worth less than consumers paid due to the door handle problems. Emergency rear door handle release is not easily accessible, class action says The suit states that although the Tesla Model S front interior doors have a "readily accessible" manual emergency release mechanism, the rear interior doors can be manually released only by a mechanical cable hidden beneath the carpet under the back seats. According to the case, the "no power" procedure to utilize the rear interior door handles has remained the same for the Model S for more than a decade -- folding back the carpet below the rear seats to expose the release cable and then pulling the cable toward the center of the car. However, the class action contends that this design is inherently flawed and potentially dangerous, given that the cables are "not reasonably discoverable" by an average passenger, especially during the panic and stress of an emergency. A passenger would need to be "intimately familiar" with the Model S design to find the emergency release for the rear interior door handles, the case asserts. "Even though there is a hidden cable underneath the rear seat carpet, if the passenger is unaware of it, [is] unable or does not know how to pull that emergency manual release, there is no way to quickly enter the vehicle from the outside in the instance of a battery failure other than breaking the windows," the filing stresses. Additionally, the allegedly defective Tesla door handles pose a significantly higher safety risk for pets, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities who may not be able to locate or use the cable, the filing states. Lawsuit says Tesla failed to warn consumers of door handle defect The lawsuit contends that Tesla has misled and concealed the door handle design defect from consumers, when the material information should have been "conspicuously" provided through advertising and marketing campaigns, information stickers, placards, or brochures, dealership personnel, social media, and a "full and complete disclosure" through a recall of the affected vehicles. To add insult to injury, the case goes on, Tesla has "distorted" the value of its vehicles by misrepresenting them as suitable for everyday use, despite the significant safety risks posed by the defective door handles. Per the complaint, every individual who purchased a Tesla Model S from 2023 onward received a vehicle at a higher price and with a markedly lower value than what they were led to believe. Who is covered by the Tesla Model S lawsuit? The Tesla Model S class action lawsuit seeks to represent all California residents who purchased and still own, or lease/leased, at least one 2023-2026 model year Tesla Model S vehicle. How do I sign up for the Tesla door handle lawsuit? Generally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, settlement class members will typically receive written notice of the deal via mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights. Please keep in mind that some class action lawsuits take years to settle. If you've purchased or leased a 2023-2026 Tesla Model S, or just want to stay informed about class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] TFW-VA LLC: Cowan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM COWAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TFW - VA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00009-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., February 10, 2026) is an action for unpaid minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, as well as unpaid regular wages in violation of the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiff contends Defendant has violated and continues to violate the FLSA, VOWA, and VMWA, and VWPA by having a policy or practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to perform opening and closing work off the clock without pay. As a result of this policy and practice of Defendant requiring unpaid working time, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees incur unpaid overtime, in violation of the federal and state laws, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Cowan is a resident of Virginia who has been employed by the Defendant as a server and bartender from approximately April 2024 to the present. TFW - VA, LLC operates First Watch restaurants in Charlottesville, Virginia and other locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com TOTES ISOTONER: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Totes Isotoner Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00004 (N.D. Ind., February 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.isotoner.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 18, 2025, while searching online for ballerina slippers, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website. After reviewing the available products and favorable feedback, Plaintiff Deinnocentes attempted to make a purchase directly through the website. However, while attempting to purchase the Women's Classic Satin Ballerina Slipper, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the order. While navigating the website, the Plaintiff encountered sub-menus that did not announce whether they were collapsed or expanded. These sub-menus also expanded automatically and could not be collapsed using the Escape key, requiring her to navigate through all sub menu elements, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Totes Isotoner Corporation operates the website that offers a selection of slippers, mocassins, gloves, beanies, and hats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Schubert Jonckheer Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is investigating a data breach that led to unauthorized access to the sensitive information of more than 700,000 individuals affiliated with health care providers that contracted or subcontracted with TriZetto Provider Solutions ("TriZetto"). TriZetto is a Missouri-based organization owned by Cognizant that provides revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems. An unauthorized third party gained access to records relating to insurance eligibility verification transactions on one of TriZetto's web portals between November 2024 and October 2, 2025. The data breach has impacted the following health care providers so far: -- Asian Americans for Community Involvement -- Axis Community Health -- Baltimore City Health Department -- Bay Area Community Health -- Benton County Health -- Best Care -- CE-Edinger Medical Group -- Chattanooga C.A.R.E.S. d/b/a Cempa Community Care -- Deschutes County Health Services -- Friends of Family Health Center -- Gardner Health Services -- Harmony Health Medical Clinic and Family Resource Center -- Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley -- Ko-Kwel Wellness Center -- La Clinica de la Raza -- La Pine Community Healthcare Center -- Lifelong Medical Care -- Lynn Community Health -- Mendocino Community Health Clinic -- Mission Neighborhood Health Center -- Native American Health Center -- OLE Health (dba CommuniCare + OLE) -- One Community Health -- Open Door Community Health Centers -- Petaluma Health Center -- Planned Parenthood Northern California -- Share Ourselves -- San Francisco Community Health Center -- Riverland Community Health -- Santa Barbara County Health Department -- Santa Cruz Community Health -- Santa Rosa Community Health Centers -- Terry Reilly Health Services (Community Health Clinics Inc.) -- Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center -- Valley Family Care -- Variety Care -- Winters Healthcare Although the breach began in November 2024, TriZetto did not begin notifying impacted individuals until around December 2025, which may have violated state and federal laws. The following data may have been compromised in the breach: address, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance member numbers, Medicare beneficiary numbers, health insurer names, information about the primary insured or beneficiary, and other demographic health and health insurance information. If your personal information was impacted by this incident, you may be at risk of identity theft and other serious violations of your privacy. As a result, you may be entitled to money damages and an injunction requiring changes to TriZetto's cybersecurity practices. [GN] UNILEVER UNITED: Court Denies Prelim Class Deal OK in "Little" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Elizabeth Little, Cathy Armstrong, Clair Awad, Kelly Branch, Suzanne Fitzgerald, Mari Gunn, Sarah Hernandez, Stacy Vail, Christina VanVliet, Billie Barnette, and Robert Rullo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Unilever United States, Inc., Aeropres Corporation, and Voyant Beauty, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01189-MPS (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a consolidated class action alleging that the Defendants manufactured and sold benzene-contaminated dry shampoo products. The Court also ordered the Plaintiffs to file a status report no later than March 3, 2026, setting forth how they proposed to proceed. The Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The Defendants did not oppose the motion; however, a group of Plaintiffs originally from Florida, the Simmons Plaintiffs, opposed it, raising concerns about their exclusion as named class representatives and questioning Article III standing. Upon careful examination, the court addressed whether at least one named Plaintiff had standing and whether the class was defined to include only those with Article III injury. The court found that Plaintiff Barnette had sufficiently alleged standing. Barnette alleged she regularly purchased Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness during the past 15 years, with specific purchases in June 2021 and February 2022. Third-party testing by Valisure and Impact Analytical detected benzene in all 12 tested batches of that product, making contamination of Barnette's purchases plausible, not merely possible. The court declined to extend that finding to the remaining named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs other than Barnette either failed to identify a specific contaminated product line or did not allege sufficient frequency of purchase. Plaintiff Rullo, for instance, stated only that he purchased Bedhead Oh Bee Hive dry shampoo during the relevant time period, without alleging regularity. Accordingly, the court found the proposed settlement class impermissibly broad on two grounds. First, the class period beginning January 1, 2014, exceeded the earliest evidence of contamination, which dated to January 2018. Second, the definition of Covered Products encompassed all dry shampoo lines under the Suave, TIGI, TRESemme, Dove, and Nexxus brands, extending beyond product lines confirmed by third-party testing to contain benzene. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yudhIa from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Unilever United States, Inc. Represented By Robert Reginald Simpson Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. 860-515-8901 [rsimpson@shb.com] Lauren R. Greenspoon Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 860-402-9029 [lgreenspoon@shb.com] Plaintiffs Cathy Armstrong Clair Awad Kelly Branch Suzanne Fitzgerald Mari Gunn Elizabeth Little Stacy Vail Sarah Herandez Christina VanViet Represented By Steven Bloch Silver Golub & Teitell LLP 203-325-4491 [sbloch@sgtlaw.com] Zachary Rynar Silver Golub & Teitell LLP 203-325-4491 [zrynar@sgtlaw.com] Ian Wise Sloss Silver Golub & Teitell LLP 203-325-4491 [isloss@sgtlaw.com] WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Consumer Privacy Suit for $2.75MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports Disney has agreed to a $2,750,000 settlement to resolve California Department of Justice (DOJ) allegations that the entertainment behemoth failed to entirely stop the collection and transfer of the data of state residents who opted out of data sharing on Disney's streaming services, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The Disney settlement was announced by California Attorney General Rob Bonta via press release on February 11, 2026. Under the deal, Disney must pay $2.75 million in civil penalties and alter its opt-out procedures to "fully effectuate" users' requests to not sell or share their data across all devices and streaming services associated with their Disney accounts. The allegations against Disney arose from an investigation initiated by the California DOJ in January 2024 that sought to evaluate streaming services for potential violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The state investigation found "key gaps" in Disney's tracking opt-out methods that allowed the company to continue selling and sharing consumers' data, per the press release. "Consumers shouldn't have to go to infinity and beyond to assert their privacy rights," Attorney General Bonta said in the press release, emphasizing that a consumer's privacy rights in the state apply "wherever and however a business sells data." Specifically, the California settlement requires Disney to implement an easy-to-use opt-out procedure that is made clear and conspicuous to the consumer. Should a user complete the opt-out process, Disney must entirely stop selling and sharing their personal data across all associated platforms and on all associated devices. The deal also covers provisions for the time a consumer is or is not logged into their streaming service accounts operated by Disney. When a consumer is logged in, Disney must effectuate their choice to opt-out, if that is the case, across all of its streaming services associated with their account (e.g. Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+). Similarly, when a consumer is not logged in or does not have an account, Disney must inform them that signing into an account may be required to process their opt-out request. "Effective opt-out is one of the bare necessities of complying with CCPA," the press release reads. The $2.75 million ordered to be paid by Disney is the highest California Consumer Privacy Act settlement to date, according to the California Attorney General. The Disney deal was preceded by a related $530,000 AG settlement with Sling TV in October 2025 that helped to establish the investigative basis and enforcement actions for CCPA cases against streaming companies to come. The Disney AG lawsuit claimed that the entertainment company had maintained loopholes in its procedures for opting out of data collection that allowed it to continue to track and sell the private information of Californians, including minors, who use its streaming services, namely Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. [GN] WATER SONG: Faces Bao Suit Over Failure to Provide Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- YAJUN BAO a/k/a Gavin Bao, and VIVI NOVIANA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WATER SONG FOOD AND BEVERAGE LLC d/b/a Water Song Yunnan Kitchen, and CHENG LIANG a/k/a Colin Liang, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00558-CJC (D. Md., February 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Maryland Wages and Hours Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, arising from their various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices. The Plaintiffs seek to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime wages; (3) liquidated damages equal to twice, or prejudgment interest on, unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages; (4) post-judgment interest; (5) reasonable attorney fees; and (6) costs. The Plaintiffs further seek to recover from Defendant the greater of: (1) statutory damages for filing fraudulent information returns; and (2) (a) actual damages from filing fraudulent information returns; (b) reasonable attorney fees; and (c) costs. Plaintiff Bao was employed by the Defendants to work as a miscellaneous kitchen helper at Water Song Yunnan Kitchen from December 8, 2024 through April 10, 2025. Water Song Food and Beverage LLC operates the restaurant "Water Song Yunnan Kitchen" located in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: tiffanytroy@troypllc.com troylaw@troypllc.com WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Settle CARES Act Class Suit for $56.85MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Wells Fargo agreed to a $56.85 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to report CARES Act forbearances accurately. The Wells Fargo settlement benefits California mortgagors with a mortgage on property located in California whose accounts were "current," who received a CARES Act forbearance on or after March 27, 2020, and whose accounts were reported as "in forbearance" (or something similar) by Wells Fargo to a consumer reporting agency. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Wells Fargo of violating the FCRA by reporting accounts with CARES Act forbearances as "in forbearance" instead of "current." This allegedly inaccurate reporting harmed consumers' credit scores. Wells Fargo is a bank that offers a variety of financial services, including mortgages. Wells Fargo has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $56.85 million to resolve the FCRA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Wells Fargo settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount deducted for fees and expenses. Class members who receive a settlement check will have 90 days to cash it. Any funds remaining in the settlement after the first round of payments may be used for a second round of payments if the remaining funds are large enough to warrant a second distribution. If the remaining funds are not large enough to warrant a second round of payments, the funds will be donated to Credit Builders Alliance, a nonprofit organization that helps low- and moderate-income consumers build credit. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 25, 2026. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 17, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the Wells Fargo CARES Act class action settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible California residents with a Wells Fargo mortgage on property in California who were current on their mortgage payments and received a CARES Act forbearance on or after March 27, 2020, and whose accounts were reported as "in forbearance" by Wells Fargo to a consumer reporting agency. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 03/25/2026 Case Name Stoff v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No. 37-2020-00020808-CU-BT-CTL, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Final Hearing 04/17/2026 Settlement Website CaresActLitigation.com Claims Administrator Wells Fargo CARES Act Mortgage Credit Reporting Class Action c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173008 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@CaresActLitigation.com (877) 307-7268 Class Counsel Andrew Brown THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN Russell S. Thompson IV THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP P.C. Defense Counsel Enu Mainigi Craig Singer Suzanne Salgado WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Mark Lonergan Rebecca Saelao STINSON LLP [GN] ********* 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 ***