---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 26, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 41

                            Headlines

71 WORTH: Faces Serrano Suit Over Labor Law Violations
AINS LLC: Faces Dees Suit Over Data Breach
ALL-METRO HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ASSET INVESTIGATIONS: Stiver Seeks Transport Drivers' Unpaid OT
BARRETT FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Schloss Says

BAXTER INT'L INC: Faces Securities Suit over "Novum LV" Pump
BRIDGE IT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Automatic Renewals
BROOKSIDE, AL: Agrees to Settle Towing Scheme Suit for $1.5MM
BROSNAN RISK: Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
BUCK MASON: Faces Johnson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

CATALINA RUG: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wood Says
CATALYST RCM: Taulbee Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
CERNER CORP: Proctor Suit Moved From D.D.C. to W.D. Mo.
CGI FEDERAL: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
CHERVON NORTH: Faces Matue Class Suit Over Fire-Prone Products

CORSAIR MEMORY: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
DAPPER LABS: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Action for $5MM
DIGI-KEY CORP: Scholin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
DON FILIPPO: Solis Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EDWARD JONES: Discloses Consumers' Info to LinkedIn, Shah Alleges

ENPHASE ENERGY: Tripathi Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
ENTERPRISE FLEET: Underpays Support Coordinators, Kilgore Says
ETAM USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vacuum Pump Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Thieme Suit Over Brake Vacuum Pump Defect

HALFDAY TONICS: Vickers Sues Over Tea's Misleading Ads
HF SINCLAIR: Dakos Suit Removed to D. Colo.
I-SOURCE & SHIP: Davis Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Fraud Scheme
INTERNAL MEDICINE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Phelan Says
JOVANI FASHIONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Kramer Says

K-CITY INC: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Lin Suit Says
KITTY POO: Esparza Sues Over Auto Renewal of Website Subscription
KTH PARTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Schultz Suit Alleges
LEVI STRAUSS: Whitfield Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MAJOR DRILLING: Fails to Pay Drillers' Proper Wages, Velarde Says

MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Bellissimo Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to E.D. Tex.
MOCHI HEALTH: Ward Sues Over Illegal Data Tracking Software
MORAN MINING: Boger Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Miners
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Walker Balks at Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
NUSCALE POWER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements

NUSCALE POWER: Truedson Sues Over 12% Stock Price Drop
OUTFRONT MEDIA: Arevalo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
PANELMATIC ELECTRICAL: Miscalculates OT Pay Rate, Scalise Suit Says
PEPSICO INC: Wins Court Order Barring Snack Pricing Class Action
PRADA USA: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users

PYURE BRANDS: Chakravarthy Balks at Mislabeled Sweetener Products
RYOKO RAIN: Bathersfield Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Schroeder Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
SIBYLLINE AMERICAS: Keane Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.

SPRING & MULBERRY: Chocolates Contain Salmonella, Rabinowitz Says
TEA LIVING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says
UNILEVER UNITED: McElroy Sues Over Skin Bar Soap Deceptive Label
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Imposed Tariffs on Imported Goods
V&B PHARMACY: Ziscand Sues Over Unlawful Payroll Policy

VENEZIA BULK: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Brantley Claims
W.W. GRAINGER: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
WALMART INC: Flores Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
WARRIOR MET: Blackmon Seeks Locomotive Operators' Unpaid Overtime
WEBSTER FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Sale to Banco Santander

Z GOURMET: Porro Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
ZILLOW INC: Hernandez Employment Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.

                            *********

71 WORTH: Faces Serrano Suit Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SERRANO on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 71 WORTH LLC, d/b/a AS IS NYC, and BRANDON DUFF,
Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01348 (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2026)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender from 2022 until
January 29, 2026. For the last 2-3 years of Plaintiff's employment
with Defendants, he worked additionally as a photographer/social
media manager. The Plaintiff often worked more than 40 hours per
week as a bartender. However, the Plaintiff was paid inappropriate
minimum and overtime wages.

In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide proper wage
notices and retained gratuities belonging to Plaintiff and the
Class Members, says the suit.

71 Worth, LLC is a New York limited liability company that owns and
operates As Is NYC craft beer bar in Manhattan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
         JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
         45 Broadway, Suite 320
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 688-5640
         Facsimile: (212) 981-9587

AINS LLC: Faces Dees Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
BOBBY DEES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AINS, LLC D/B/A OPEXUS A/K/A CASEPOINT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00413 (E.D. Va., February 12, 2026) is
a putative class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons
in the United States and the State of Alabama whose personally
identifiable information was exposed, compromised, accessed,
copied, deleted, or otherwise mishandled as a result of grossly
inadequate data security and insider access controls maintained by
the Defendant.

According to the complaint, in February 2025, the Defendant enabled
two (federally convicted) employees to use privileged access to
Defendant's information systems to exfiltrate files and delete
dozens of databases containing government records, including
records related to federal agencies' Freedom of Information Act
requests, audits, and investigations. The Defendant's insufficient
background checks, inadequate access controls, and systemic
security failures permitted persons with known histories of cyber
offenses to access, copy, retain, and delete sensitive information,
says the suit.

As a direct and proximate result of these security failures, the
Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members have sustained and
continue to face: (a) increased risk of identity theft, fraud, and
misuse of their PII; (b) ascertainable losses attributable to
efforts to mitigate and remediate harms; (c) deprivation of the
benefit of the bargain for cybersecurity protections promised by
Defendant; and (d) privacy invasions that the law protects.

AINS, LLC, doing business as Opexus and Casepoint, is a government
technology contractor that stores, processes, and manages highly
sensitive government and third-party information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan M. Peak, Esq.
          BRACKER & MARCUS LLC
          3355 Lenox Rd NE, Ste. 660
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (770) 988-5035
          Facsimile: (678) 648-5544
          E-mail: Nathan@fcacounsel.com

               - and -

          D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Holmes Ave., NE, Ste. 100
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com
                  artrip@mastandoartrip.com

ALL-METRO HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
NERRIS PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALL-METRO HEALTH CARE SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a
METRO HEALTH CARE, Case No. 2:26-cv-00931 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026)
alleges that Defendant has pursued a policy, practice, and pattern
of stealing wages from Plaintiff and other home health aide
employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law

The Defendant violated the state and federal laws by willfully and
intentionally prohibiting employees from logging work outside of
certain pre-approved hours, regardless of when the work actually
occurred.

The Plaintiff is an experienced HHA who worked for and was employed
by Defendant from in or around 2023 until in or around November
2025. In May 2023, the Defendant assigned Plaintiff to care for a
single elderly patient in Nassau County, New York. The Plaintiff
lived in the Patient's home, providing health and home care
services. She was expected to and did work seven days a week
throughout her employment.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' costs and
fees.

The Defendant is a home health care services provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Naidich, Esq.
          137 5th Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (516) 212-6944


ASSET INVESTIGATIONS: Stiver Seeks Transport Drivers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STIVER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ASSET INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOVERY, INC. and STAMATIS
FERAROLIS, Individually Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00431 (M.D.
Fla., February 17, 2026), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Stiver was employed with Defendants as a full-time
transport driver, from February 12, 2024 until November 28, 2025,
and averaged $850.00 per week in pay. Throughout Plaintiff's
employment, he was required to work over 40 hours a week but was
not compensated at the rate of at least one and a half times his
regular hourly rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA for all hours
worked over 40 in the work week, the suit alleges.

Asset Investigations and Recovery, Inc. provides services to
financial institutions in locating and recovering collateralized
assets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
         Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
         FLORIN|GRAY
         16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
         Lutz, FL 33558
         Telephone: (727) 254-5255
         Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
         E-mail: MBouzas@floringray.com
                 angela@floringray.com
                 WFlorin@floringray.com

BARRETT FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Schloss Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE SCHLOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BARRETT FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2:26-cv-01139-SMB (D. Ariz., Feb. 18, 2026) sues the Defendant for
its failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's and the
Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information.

On Feb. 9, 2026, the Defendant was the victim of a Data Breach. The
cybercriminal group "SilentRansomGroup" claimed responsibility for
the Data Breach.

As a result of the Defendant's negligence and deficient data
security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated the
Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Now, the
Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals
who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the
rest of their lives, the suit asserts.

Plaintiff Schloss is a former employee of the Defendant.

Barrett is a financial services company that offers home loan
services, including mortgages and refinancing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max Federman, Esq.
          BRIAN TED JONES, PC
          528 NW 12th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 843-9909
          E-mail: max.federman@briantedjones.com

                - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (800) 237-1277
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jaw@federmanlaw.com


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 October 16, 2025,
certain of the current and former officers and employees of Baxter
were named in a class action complaint captioned "Electrical
Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Baxter International
Inc. et al." that was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiff, which allegedly purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of common stock during the specified class period, filed
this putative class action on behalf of itself and those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Baxter common stock between
February 23, 2022 and July 30, 2025. The plaintiff 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.

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.


BRIDGE IT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Automatic Renewals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Wilfreda Waller filed a
class action lawsuit against Bridge It Inc., doing business as
Brigit.

Why: Waller claims Brigit charged consumers recurring subscription
fees without proper consent and used deceptive design tactics to
prevent users from canceling.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal
court.

Brigit is accused of using unlawful automatic renewal practices and
manipulative app design tactics to repeatedly charge financially
vulnerable consumers without their knowledge or permission.

Plaintiff Wilfreda Waller alleges Brigit violated state and federal
consumer protection laws by enrolling users in paid monthly
memberships that automatically renewed without clear disclosure or
meaningful consent.

According to the class action lawsuit, Brigit debits subscription
fees directly from users' bank or credit union accounts and
continues charging them until they successfully cancel, a process
the lawsuit claims is intentionally confusing and difficult.

Brigit operates a personal finance mobile app that markets
short-term cash advances to consumers living paycheck to paycheck.


While Brigit advertises that users can cancel memberships
"anytime," Waller claims the company conceals critical cancellation
terms and uses interface designs that discourage or delay
cancellation.

The class action lawsuit describes these tactics as "dark
patterns," a term used to describe user interface designs that
manipulate consumers into taking actions they would not otherwise
choose.

Waller claims her credit union account was charged multiple times
in December 2024 and January 2025 without her awareness. Several of
the charges allegedly triggered insufficient funds fees of $35 per
transaction, ultimately leading her credit union to close her
account.

The plaintiff explains she did not discover the charges until
reviewing her bank statements and says she never affirmatively
agreed to repeated automatic renewals.

Brigit allegedly used deceptive design to trap users in
subscriptions

The class action lawsuit alleges Brigit's cancellation process
violates automatic renewal laws by failing to provide clear,
conspicuous disclosures and by burying cancellation information
within the app.

Waller claims Brigit intentionally deemphasizes cancellation
options while emphasizing enrollment, making it unlikely that
reasonable consumers can easily stop recurring charges.

The lawsuit also references prior regulatory scrutiny of Brigit,
including enforcement actions related to similar subscription and
marketing practices. Waller alleges that despite those actions,
Brigit continued to engage in the same conduct that allegedly
prevented consumers from canceling and resulted in unauthorized
charges.

Waller seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who were
charged Brigit subscription fees through automatic renewals as well
as a Georgia subclass of users charged while residing in the state.


She asserts claims for violations of automatic renewal laws,
consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief, restitution, damages, attorneys' fees and
a jury trial.

Similarly, Surfshark was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging
it unlawfully charged California consumers via automatic
subscription renewals.

The plaintiff is represented by Harper T. Segui, Erin J. Ruben,
Thomas Pacheco and Kathryn Anne B. Robinson of Lee Segui PLLC and
Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP.

The Brigit class action lawsuit is Waller v. Bridge It Inc. d/b/a
Brigit, Case No. 1:26-cv-00206-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia. [GN]

BROOKSIDE, AL: Agrees to Settle Towing Scheme Suit for $1.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Bell of ABC News reports that a proposed $1.5 million
settlement could bring sweeping changes to policing in the small
town of Brookside, which drew national attention after allegations
that its police department boosted revenue through aggressive
ticketing and towing.

Brookside has agreed to pay $1.5 million and adopt reforms to its
towing and ticketing practices as part of a federal class action
case brought by four drivers who said they were targeted in an
aggressive towing and ticketing scheme. The settlement still
requires approval from a federal judge.

The named plaintiffs are Brittany Coleman, Brandon Jones,
Chekeithia Grant and Alexis Thomas. The lawsuit alleges Brookside's
police budget became heavily dependent on aggressive ticketing and
towing, especially along Interstate 22.

Court documents show a 640% increase in revenue from fines, fees
and forfeitures. In 2020, Brookside brought in more than $610,000
through fines and forfeitures, with more than $544,000 going
directly to the police department for salaries, vehicles and
equipment.

Body camera video from nearly six years ago shows a police
encounter involving Thomas and her mother, Grant.

"My experience in Brookside is definitely something I wasn't
expecting to go through and it's still hard, even to this day. It's
crazy," Thomas said.

Grant said, "They are out here terrorizing people. They think it's
funny, but you're here to protect and serve, and the people that
are here to do that, should not take pleasure in your pain."

The Institute for Justice, a national nonprofit public interest law
firm, litigated the case. Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili, who
represents the plaintiffs, said the settlement is aimed at removing
financial incentives from policing.

"Policing is supposed to be about justice and supposed to be about
doing right by the community. But when it gets infected by this
profit motive, it can be it can become something else. Right. And
that's really the goal here is to ensure that that improper
incentive is eliminated. And this settlement does that,"
Tsitsuashvili said.

Under the proposed agreement, $1 million would compensate people
whose cars were ordered towed by Brookside police from March 1,
2018, to Aug. 1, 2022. Another $500,000 would compensate people who
were charged with offenses in Brookside's municipal court during
the same period. The Institute for Justice has agreed not to seek
attorneys' fees arising from litigation of the case.

"We did this, so not just we would get some of our money back, but
everybody who you terrorized will get a little something back,"
Grant said.

The settlement also includes reforms. Brookside would permanently
repeal its $175 fee to retrieve towed cars. The town would remove
the Brookside Police Department from Interstate 22 for 10 years
unless necessary to respond to an emergency. Brookside would keep
0% of the revenue generated by its policing and code enforcement
for five years, then keep only 1% for another 10 years, and only
2.5% for another 15 years -- a 30-year obligation intended to sever
the link between policing and revenue.

The town also agreed to implement transparency measures designed to
ensure compliance and to provide documents for 10 years. In
addition, Brookside would provide class members an acknowledgment
that the town's "policy of aggressive policing likely interfered
with the Town's obligation to administer justice equally under law,
undermined the public's trust in the justice system, and raised
serious constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment."

Tsitsuashvili said, "We're confident that we've achieved our goals
here. We really had two ambitious goals that we set out for. One
was, you know, monetary relief for the people that have been
impacted, but also the systemic change that will make sure that
those people and others won't be impacted similarly in the
future."

For Grant and Thomas, the case was about more than their own
experience.

"Don't be afraid to get you a lawyer and get it in order," Thomas
said.

"I'm just glad they aren't able to do any of those things to anyone
anymore. To say the least, I'm proud of what we've done to change
how the police officers are able to take in their revenue," Grant
said.

The proposed settlement now goes to federal court, where a judge
will decide whether it moves forward. If it receives preliminary
approval, eligible drivers will be notified about how to file a
claim.

David Hubbard, an attorney for Brookside, confirmed the town agrees
with the settlement terms. [GN]

BROSNAN RISK: Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANT, LTD,
WALMART, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
4:25-cv-10995, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on February
17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-01602-JLS-AJR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Brosnan Risk Consultant, Ltd. is a provider of technology-driven
security services based in New York.

Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation,
headquartered in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Arash Sadat, Esq.
      Camron Ali Dowlatshahi, Esq.
      Kathleen Zoeann Moore, Esq.
      MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP
      333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 613-9434
                 (213) 279-2612
                 (213) 806-7277
      Email: arash@msdlawyers.com
             camron@msdlawyers.com
             kathleen@msdlawyers.com

BUCK MASON: Faces Johnson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUCK MASON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01167 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2026) is a civil action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.buckmason.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, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law.

On multiple occasions in 2025 and 2026, including November 15,
2025, November 20, 2025, and January 10, 2026, Mr. Johnson
attempted to use the website with Nonvisual Desktop Access(NVDA) to
browse product collections, add items to his cart, and proceed to
checkout.

While attempting to access the Defendant's products, the Plaintiff
encountered numerous accessibility barriers that prevented NVDA
from reading or interpreting essential content. These barriers
included missing or placeholder alternative text on product images;
aria-hidden containers that nonetheless contained focusable content
and produced silence when focused; interactive controls and form
elements lacking programmatic labels; empty, malformed, or
improperly structured headings; broken and repeated links; empty
href and src attributes; unlabeled iframes and carousels; carousels
and interactive widgets lacking proper labeling; and pricing and
variant information that was not programmatically exposed.

Because the accessibility barriers prevented Mr. Johnson from
obtaining the information necessary to purchase the items he
sought, he suffered a concrete and particularized injury: denial of
full and equal access to Buck Mason's goods and services, says the
suit.

Buck Mason, Inc. operates the website that offers men's and women's
apparel, denim, outerwear, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Schonfeld, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC  
          825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700   
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
          E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com

CATALINA RUG: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wood Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Catalina Rug Gallery, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-01591 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.catalinarug.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or
visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

On November 11, 2025, while searching online for Persian rugs, Wood
accessed the Defendant's website and decided to make a purchase.
However, while navigating the website, the Plaintiff encountered
accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his
ability to complete the transaction. When navigating the filter
menu using a keyboard, elements within the sub-menus remained
focusable even when the sub-menu was collapsed.

As a result, Plaintiff was forced to navigate through all sub-menu
elements, making it difficult to select a product. Furthermore, the
Plaintiff was unable to activate the Color filter button using the
Enter or Spacebar keys. These accessibility barriers render the
website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and
visually impaired individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Wood 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.

Catalina Rug Gallery, Inc. operates the website that offers a
variety of rugs in multiple colors, sizes, materials, and
shapes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Office: (844) 731-3343
          Direct: (929) 442-2154
          E-mail: Achan@ealg.law

CATALYST RCM: Taulbee Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TAULBEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CATALYST RCM LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:26-cv-01253 (S.D. Tex., February 17, 2026) asserts claims arising
from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private
information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying
responsibility to store and transfer that information.

Between November 8, 2025, and November 9, 2025, the Defendant
experienced a cyber incident on a server used to store data of
Clients' patients. As a result of the data breach, an unauthorized
third-party was able to access and copy files containing the
sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's negligent
conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
for declaratory judgment.

Catalyst RCM LLC is a revenue cycle management provider based in
Fulshear, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
         14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com

CERNER CORP: Proctor Suit Moved From D.D.C. to W.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case J.S., J.P., and T.S., by their parent and natural
guardian, TONIQUE PROCTOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION and CHILDREN'S NATIONAL
HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-04495, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
February 17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:26-cv-00129-BP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty by
failing to protect their personal identifiable information and
protected health information following a data breach.

Cerner Corporation is a healthcare information-technology company,
with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri.

Children's National Hospital is a healthcare provider,
headquartered in the District of Columbia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

              - and -

      Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 254-6808
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com

CGI FEDERAL: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CGI FEDERAL INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CU064342C, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for San Diego County to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on February
17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:26-cv-01018-AJB-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations
of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law.

CGI Federal Inc. is a technology and professional services company
based in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Timothy L. Hix, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 270-9600
      Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
      Email: thix@seyfarth.com

              - and -

      Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 397-2823
      Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
      Email: bbifoss@seyfarth.com

              - and -

      Niles A. Pierson, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 277-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
      Email: npierson@seyfarth.com

CHERVON NORTH: Faces Matue Class Suit Over Fire-Prone Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDEN MATUE and MICHAELA TIERNEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CHERVON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case
No. 1:26-cv-01720 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2026) is a class action suit
arising from Defendant's design, manufacture, advertising,
marketing, and sale of dangerous fire-prone products.

According to the complaint, the Products were sold at Lowe's, and
other hardware and home improvement stores nationwide, and online
at Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Lowes.com from October 2019 through
December of 2024 for $170 individually and about $400 when sold in
combination with 2lawnmowers.

The Defendant knew of should have known of the Defect and
nevertheless sold the Products to consumers, including Plaintiffs,
for home use, failed to warn consumers of the serious safety risk
the Defect posed to consumers and failed to remove these dangerous
and defective Products from consumers' homes. Additionally, the
Defendant offers no compensation for remedies related to the
destruction or damages to property or persons caused by the
Products, just a refund or replacement, the suit says.

On Dec. 19, 2024, Chervon recalled "About 63,000" of its "SKIL 40V
5.0 Ah Lithium-Ion Batteries" due to the Product's ability to
"overheat, posing fire and burn hazards" (Fire Risk).

Chervon is a designer and manufacturer of power tools and outdoor
power equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY
          ANASTOPOULO, LLC  
          32 Ann Street  
          Charleston, SC 29403  
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222  
          E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  cmad@poulinwilley.com

CORSAIR MEMORY: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Corsair Memory, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01556 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://drop.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bennett and
other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff Bennett was searching online for
mechanical keyboards and encountered the Defendant's website. After
reviewing customer feedback, he proceeded to the website with the
intent to make a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing
the transaction. Specifically, the "Skip to content" link was
improperly implemented. When Bennett attempted to bypass the
navigation menu by activating the skip link, keyboard focus did not
move to the main content area, instead remaining within the
navigation menu and forcing him to tab through all navigation
items. These accessibility barriers render the Website inaccessible
to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired
individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Bennett 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.

Corsair Memory, Inc. operates the website that offers electronics
and computer accessories, including mechanical keyboards,
headphones, audio equipment, and desk accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Office: (844) 731-3343
          Direct: (929) 442-2154
          E-mail: Achan@ealg.law

DAPPER LABS: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Action for $5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Dapper Labs has
agreed to a $5,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit
that alleged the non-fungible token (NFT) developer shared the
private information of consumers with NFL All Day, Disney Pinnacle,
UFC Strike, NBA Top Shot and/or La Liga Golazos accounts without
their express consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA).

The $5 million Dapper Labs class action settlement received
preliminary approval from the court on December 19, 2025 and covers
all individuals who held an account on NFL All Day
(www.nflallday.com), Disney Pinnacle (www.disneypinnacle.com), UFC
Strike (www.ufcstrike.com), NBA Top Shot (www.nbatopshot.com)
and/or La Liga Golazos (www.laligagolazos.com) between June 15,
2020 and January 30, 2025.

The court-approved website for the Dapper Labs VPPA settlement can
be found at DapperVPPAClassActionSettlement.com.

According to the website, Dapper Labs settlement class members who
file a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time
$5 cash payment. The settlement outlines that cash payments may be
pro-rated if the number of valid claims filed exceeds the aggregate
cash benefit cap of $3,331,333.  

Dapper Labs class members may elect to receive their cash payout
via check or electronic payment when filing a claim, the agreement
notes, and all settlement checks must be cashed within 180 days of
issuance before expiration.

As part of the settlement, Dapper Labs has also agreed to cease the
operation of third-party tracking technologies on any of its
website pages -- including pixels from Meta, Google, Microsoft,
Twitter or X, Reddit and TikTok -- that could capture information
regarding videos purchased or viewed by site users.  

To file a Dapper Labs VPPA settlement claim form online, class
members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as
listed on their received copy of the settlement notice.
Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form
from the settlement site to print, fill out and return by mail to
the address of the settlement administrator as noted on the top of
the first page.

All Dapper Labs settlement claim forms must be submitted online or
by mail by April 15, 2026.

Consumers who believe they may be a Dapper Labs settlement class
member but did not receive a notice can contact the settlement
administrator to confirm their identity and obtain their claimant
information.

The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the
Dapper Labs class action settlement at a hearing on April 15, 2026.
Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only
after final approval is granted and any appeals have been
resolved.

The Dapper Labs class action lawsuit alleged that the software
company, which develops NFTs, wrongfully disclosed
personally-identifiable information for users with accounts on its
suite of websites, including NFL All Day, Disney Pinnacle, UFC
Strike, NBA Top Shot and/or La Liga Golazos. The lawsuit claimed
the distribution of private consumer information to third parties
via video tracking pixels was in violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act. [GN]

DIGI-KEY CORP: Scholin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAIGE SCHOLIN, individually, and on behalf of the Digi-Key
Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, and on behalf of all the
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan,
Plaintiff v. DIGI-KEY CORPORATION; DIGIKEY CORPORATION 401(k)
PROFIT SHARING PLAN COMMITTEE; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their
capacities as fiduciaries and members of the Committee, Defendants,
Case No. 0:26-cv-01485 (D. Minn., February 17, 2026) accuses the
Defendants of breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Defendants allegedly violated their fiduciary duties by both
(1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the
American Century Target Date Fund for more than eight years, even
when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and,
consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment
option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of
dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary
duties, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks all available relief on behalf of
the Plan  participants.

Headquartered in Thief River Falls, MN, Digi-Key Corporation
operates as an electronic components distributor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
         Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
         CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
         100 Washington Ave S, Ste 1700
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-7300
         E-mail:  pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
                  bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

                  - and -

         Alexandr Rudenco, Esq.
         MILBERG, PLLC
         800 S Gay St, Ste 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com

DON FILIPPO: Solis Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER SOLIS and HOLGER ANTONIO MUZHA RAMON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. DON FILIPPO RESTAURANT CORP.
(d/b/a PIZZERIA DON FILIPPO), and "JANE DOE" as Administrator of
the Estate of PHILIP ARCARA, Case No. 1:26-cv-01371 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
18, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
their hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay, or for
any additional overtime premium, the suit says.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day.  

The Plaintiffs were employed as cook, dishwasher, pizza dough
preparer and general assistants.

Plaintiff Solis was employed by the Defendants from Sept. 28, 2018
until Dec. 7, 2025.

Don Filippo is a pizzeria owned by Philip Arcara, located at 1133
Lexington Avenue, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165  
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200

EDWARD JONES: Discloses Consumers' Info to LinkedIn, Shah Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VISHAL SHAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. d/b/a EDWARD JONES, Case
No. 8:26-cv-00364 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2026) is a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons who have accessed and used
www.edwardjones.com to find a financial advisor.

The Defendant allegedly disclosed information provided by consumers
on its financial advisor matching pages to LinkedIn Corporation.
The Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
and the California Invasion of Privacy Act by disclosing the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information
without consent, the suit contends.

Plaintiff Shah is a citizen of California, residing in Buena Park,
California. In October 2025, the Plaintiff sought to be matched to
a financial advisor on the Website.

The Defendant offers financial advising services and matches
customers with financial advisors through its Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Wilner, 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: jwilner@bursor.com 


ENPHASE ENERGY: Tripathi Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
GAURAV TRIPATHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENPHASE ENERGY, INC., BADRINARAYANAN
KOTHANDARAMAN, and MANDY YANG, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01380
(N.D. Cal., February 17, 2026), accuses the Defendants of violating
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.

The Plaintiff brings this a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase securities
between April 22, 2025 and October 28, 2025 both dates inclusive.
Throughout the said period, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Enphase
overstated its ability to manage its channel inventory; (ii)
Enphase overstated its ability to mitigate effects arising from the
termination of the 25D Credit; (iii) accordingly, Enphase
overstated its financial and operational prospects, says the suit.

Enphase Energy, Inc. is an energy technology company headquartered
Fremont, CA. The company's stock trades in an efficient market on
the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol ENPH. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                 - and -

         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

ENTERPRISE FLEET: Underpays Support Coordinators, Kilgore Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA KILGORE and ERIKA BROWN on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET MANAGEMENT, INC. and
THE CRAWFORD GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00235 (E.D. Mo., Feb.
17, 2026) is a collective action for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Accordingly, as Defendants' employees, Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated claims support employees regularly worked over
40 hours per week, but did not receive overtime compensation for
all of their overtime hours.

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are current and former
employees who seek damages for unpaid overtime.

Plaintiffs Tamika Kilgore and Erika Brown were employed by
Defendants as Claims Support Coordinators.

The Defendants lease vehicles to companies, organizations, and
government agencies that operate a "fleet" of 15 or more vehicles
per year. Enterprise provides a depth of services for company
fleets, including the acquisition and resale of vehicles, vehicle
maintenance, vehicle tracking, fuel, and accident management.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          E-mail: markp@mp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq.
          Callie E. Dydo, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: smb@mselaborlaw.com  
                  pmb@mselaborlaw.com  
                  ced@mselaborlaw.com

ETAM USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Says
----------------------------------------------------------
TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Etam Usa Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01553 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://us.etam.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Echols and
other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Echols attempted to complete a purchase on the
Defendant's website on December 12, 2025 after searching on Google
for stores offering women's sleepwear. She navigated the website
and attempted to purchase the 3-Piece Cotton Pajama Set with
Hearts. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility
barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. Different
images of the same product had similar, non-descriptive alternative
text, which prevented Echols from understanding the product details
and distinguishing its features using assistive technologies.
Furthermore, on the product detail page, the color selector used
inappropriate and non-descriptive names, preventing the Plaintiff
from understanding its function through assistive technologies.
These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not
independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals,
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.

Etam Usa Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of
women's fashion essentials including lingerie such as bras,
panties, bodysuits, sleepwear, loungewear, and swimwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Office: (844) 731-3343
          Direct: (929) 442-2154
          E-mail: Achan@ealg.law

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vacuum Pump Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Brake Report reports that General Motors LLC faces a proposed
class action filed on February 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit alleges the
automaker failed to fully warn owners about a brake vacuum pump
defect that can cause sudden loss of power assist.

Highlights

-- Vacuum pump failure leads to hard or unresponsive brake pedal
with reduced stopping power

-- Defect can occur without warning during normal driving and
affects emergency braking

-- GM issued multiple technical service bulletins on vacuum and
booster issues starting in 2017

-- Three named plaintiffs seek nationwide class certification,
damages and vehicle repairs

Lawsuit Filing Details

The case is titled Thieme et al v. General Motors LLC, case number
2:26-cv-10570. Named plaintiffs are Kaylee Thieme, Rebecca Gill and
Meghan Morley. The Miller Law Firm represents them. The complaint
asserts claims under consumer protection and product liability
laws. It demands a jury trial, monetary damages, and corrective
action such as repairs or buybacks.

Public docket records list exhibits that include NHTSA owner
complaints, GM service bulletins, owner forum posts on Terrain and
Equinox vacuum pump failures, and related technical articles. No
full complaint text is available free online at this time.

Alleged Brake System Defect

The defect involves the brake vacuum pump that supplies power
assist to the brake booster. When the pump fails, the pedal becomes
stiff or sinks, requiring much greater force to achieve braking.
Drivers often see brake and ABS warning lights illuminate. The
issue reportedly develops abruptly and can compromise safe stopping
distances.

Court records reference GM technical service bulletins dating to
March 2017 on vacuum pipe routing, March 2018 on brake booster
replacement, and later notices addressing spongy pedals and stored
diagnostic codes. Plaintiffs claim these steps did not eliminate
the root cause across the vehicle population.

Affected Vehicles and Related Investigation

The allegations target certain crossover models equipped with the
affected brake system. These include 2018-2024 Chevrolet Equinox
and GMC Terrain vehicles, along with 2017-2021 Buick Envision
models. Clarkson Law Firm is separately investigating identical
symptoms of hard pedals and loss of braking power in these exact
vehicles.

Owners have reported the pump failure in online forums dedicated to
Terrain and Equinox models. Some cases note additional engine
damage from pump debris. The defect directly impacts core safety
systems relied upon by drivers.

Next Steps in Litigation

The case remains in its early stages in Michigan federal court
under Judge Robert J. White. GM has not yet filed a public
response. Plaintiffs pursue certification of a nationwide class of
affected owners. [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Thieme Suit Over Brake Vacuum Pump Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEE THIEME, REBECCA GILL, and MEGHAN MORLEY on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-10570-RJW-DRG (E.D. Mich., Feb. 18, 2026)
seek damages against General Motors for breach of its warranty
obligations, unjust enrichment, and unfair, deceptive, and
fraudulent acts or practices pertaining to its design, manufacture,
advertisement, and sale of the 2016-2020 Buick Envision, 2018-2022
Chevrolet Equinox, and 2018-2022 GMC Terrain vehicles (the "Class
Vehicles").

The suit contends that the Class Vehicles contain a significant
design and manufacturing defect in their braking systems (the
"Brake Vacuum Pump Defect" or "Defect"). GM defectively designed
and manufactured defective brake booster pump assemblies in the
Class Vehicles, which cause their braking systems to fail.

The Brake Vacuum Pump Defect directly affects the Plaintiffs' use,
enjoyment, safety, and value of the Class Vehicles. It turns an
ordinary drive into a life threatening event. The Defect manifest
without warning, at highway speeds, in traffic, at an intersection
approaching a red light, and in emergencies. Owners report pressing
the brake pedal, and, as in a nightmare, unable to stop. Cars slam
into the rear of other vehicles, while other drivers are forced to
steer into curbs or barriers to avoid striking pedestrians or
causing greater harm, the Plaintiffs add.  

In March 2023, Thieme purchased a certified pre-owned 2020
Chevrolet Equinox from Cole Krum Chevrolet, an authorized GM
dealership in Schoolcraft, Michigan.

GM is an American multinational automotive manufacturing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com  
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

                - and -

          Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
          Yana Hart, Esq.
          Mark I. Richards, Esq.  
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com

HALFDAY TONICS: Vickers Sues Over Tea's Misleading Ads
------------------------------------------------------
LACHAE VICKERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALFDAY TONICS INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-00935 (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2026) seeks for monetary and
injunctive relief against Defendant for violating the New York
General Business Law, under other states' consumer protection laws,
and for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff bought the Defendant's tea after seeing claims
advertising the tea's health benefits, such as claims that the tea
was "good for your gut" and had "prebiotic benefits" on its
packaging. However, in truth, the tea cannot provide the advertised
benefits. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive practices,
Plaintiff has been injured, suffering an ascertainable loss by
paying more for a product than they otherwise would have but for
the false advertising, alleges the suit.

Halfday Tonics Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered
in Laurel Springs, NJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Raphael Janove, Esq.
         Max Ian Fiest, Esq.
         JANOVE PLLC
         500 7th Ave., 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (646) 347-3940
         E-mail: raphael@janove.law
                 max@janove.law

HF SINCLAIR: Dakos Suit Removed to D. Colo.
-------------------------------------------
The case styled LAIRD DAKOS, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HF SINCLAIR
REFINING & MARKETING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
and S&S FUELS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 2026CV30060, was removed from the District
Court of Larimer 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-00542 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff claims, individually and on behalf of the putative
class, that HF Sinclair distributed and sold motor fuel that was
represented as unleaded gasoline but was, in fact, contaminated
with diesel fuel, causing widespread engine damage and losses to
consumers throughout the State of Colorado.

The Plaintiff's complaint sets forth these causes of action: (i)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (ii) strict
liability; and (iii) common law negligence.

HF Sinclair Refining & Marketing, LLC operates a fuel terminal in
Henderson, Colorado.[BN]

Defendant HF Sinclair Refining & Marketing, LLC is 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

I-SOURCE & SHIP: Davis Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Fraud Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DAVIS and LINVA ROSE v. DEAN A. BAYLEY HA , ROMA C. BAYLEY
HAY, I-SOURCE & SHIP LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-60449-PAB (S.D. Fla.,
Feb. 17, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs
and other persons similarly situated alleging breach of a maritime
contract, maritime torts, fraud, deceptive and unfair practices,
and violations of Florida law arising from a bait-and-switch
fraudulent scheme involving the international shipment of vehicle
parts and other goods from Pompano Beach, Florida, to Montego Bay,
Jamaica.

ln 2024, Plaintiff Davis sought to repair his 2015 Infinite
Skyline/Q50, a project that was financially unfeasible using local
Jamaican parts markets due to exorbitant pricing. To facilitate the
repair, Plaintiff Davis sought to leverage the informal "links"
system a common Jamaican practice where trusted intermediaries
facilitate affordable shipping and custom s clearance.

Mr. Davis is a resident of Jamaica and a continuous U.S. taxpayer.


The Defendants is an active Florida-based company that operates
primarily in the logistics and shipping industry. The company is
headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]

INTERNAL MEDICINE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Phelan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN PHELAN, individually and all others similarly situated v.
INTERNAL MEDICINE OF MILFORD, P.C., Case No. 3:26-cv-00237 (D.
Conn., Feb. 17, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive
personally identifiable information1 and protected health
information and who were impacted in a data breach that occurred on
or about Nov. 5, 2025, but which Defendant only was discovered in
Feb. 2026.

The Defendant is a medical provider located in Milford, Connecticut
which purports to "provide extensive clinical care solutions to all
of the individuals and families who need our services in
Connecticut."

As a condition of receiving medical treatment from IMMCT, the
Plaintiff and other patients were required to provide Defendant
with their sensitive Private Information, including their names,
dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, contact information,
medical and health insurance information, medical history, driver's
license and other information.

On Feb. 7, 2026, it was discovered that IMMCT's systems had been
infiltrated by cybercriminals, believed to be Insomnia, on or about
Nov. 5, 2025, in a ransomware cyberattack, resulting in the Private
Information of Defendant's patients -- The Plaintiff and the
proposed Class Members -- being unauthorizedly disclosed, says the
suit.

Internal Medicine of Milford, P.C. is a patient-centric healthcare
practice located in Milford, Connecticut, specializing in internal
and family medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (929) 677-5181
          E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com  

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Grayson Wells, Esq.
          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com  
                  gwells@stranchlaw.com
                  amize@stranchlaw.com


JOVANI FASHIONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Kramer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BETH KRAMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOVANI FASHIONS LTD., Case No.
11:26-cv-01304  (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026) alleges that the
Defendant has failed to ensure that its Website, www.jovani.com is
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, including
Plaintiff, in violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff visited www.jovani.com on three
different occasions with a clear, specific, and commercial purpose:
to shop for apparel for herself and for her niece, who is
celebrating her Sweet Sixteen in 2026. The Plaintiff intended to
browse categories, compare styles, review product details, and
locate authorized retailers.

Ms. Kramer is a resident of New York City and is permanently
disabled due to advanced Macular Degeneration complicated by
Retinal Detachment, resulting in profound central vision loss.

The Defendant markets, advertises, and sells its products to New
York consumers through its Website, transmits digital content to
users located in this District, and maintains a highly interactive
online platform that enables consumers to browse products, review
descriptions, select colors and styles, access promotions, and
locate authorized retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Schonfeld, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          825  Third Avenue, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
          E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com

K-CITY INC: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Lin Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
XIAO LIN, and XUEFENG LIAN, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. K-CITY INC. D/B/A K-CITY BBQ HOT
POT & SUSHI, JOHN "DOE," AND MICKEY "DOE," Case No. 2:26-cv-00945
(E.D.N.Y., 17, 2026) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their
own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law arising from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a buffet business in the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Ziyi Gao, Esq.
           Jiaxin Na, Esq.
           GAO & NA, LLP
           3418 Northern Blvd.,  
           Long Island City, NY 11101
           Telephone: (212) 899-5598
           E-mail: zgao@gnlaws.com  
                   jna@gnlaws.com

KITTY POO: Esparza Sues Over Auto Renewal of Website Subscription
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KITTY POO CLUB, LLC, d/b/a
WWW.KITTYPOOCLUB.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26CU008485C (Cal. Super.,
San Diego Cty., February 17, 2026) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and California's Business and Professions Code.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of
automatically renewing paid subscription at its website,
www.kittypooclub.com, without proper disclosures. According to the
complaint, the Defendant violated the law by failing to provide
"clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and
failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the
automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the
cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a
manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a
result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers suffered damages.

Kitty Poo Club, LLC is an online retailer, doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
         Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
         PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
         4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 706-6464
         Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
         Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

KTH PARTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Schultz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SHULTZ II, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KTH PARTS INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
3:26-cv-00051-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, February 17, 2026) seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff Shultz from approximately 1998
until January 2026. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked 40
or more hours in one or more workweeks. However, the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated regularly performed overtime work without
compensation, says the suit.

KTH Parts Industries, Inc. manufactures structural frame components
for automobiles, including front bulkheads, rear frames, and door
beams. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          Kevin A. Nickel, Esq.
          1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  knickel@mcoffmanlegal.com

LEVI STRAUSS: Whitfield Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as JERMAINE WHITFIELD, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01205-CDS-NJK, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada to the United States
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-1300 to the proceeding.

The suit was initially removed from the Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada, District Court, to the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada on July 3, 2025.

This is a class and collective action Complaint for unpaid wages
and overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest under the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada common law and
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Levi Strauss & Co. owns and operates the Henderson Distribution
Center in Clark County, Nevada, a facility that fulfills e-commerce
orders for Levis products, ships stock to brick-andmortar retail
shops and ships orders to wholesale channels.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
          Noel M. Hernandez, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 500
          Las Vegas, NV 89135
          Telephone: (702) 369-6800
          Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
          E-mail: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
                  noel.hernandez@ogletreedeakins.com


MAJOR DRILLING: Fails to Pay Drillers' Proper Wages, Velarde Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS VELARDE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff v. MAJOR DRILLING AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-00138 (D. Utah, February 17, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment
of Wages Act.

Defendant Major Drilling America, Inc. has employed Velarde as a
driller since approximately May 2019, including in Utah since
approximately January 2025, in Wyoming from approximately September
2024 to January 2025, in Arizona from approximately June 2024 to
September 2024, and in Minnesota from approximately February to
June 2024.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant has subjected
Plaintiff to its off the clock policy, rounding policy, per diem
pay scheme, and bonus pay scheme. As a result of these unlawful
policies and schemes, Plaintiff and the other hourly employees are
denied wages for hours worked, including overtime wages for
overtime hours during workweeks they work more than 40 hours. In
addition, the Plaintiff's non-discretionary bonuses are not
included in calculating his regular rates of pay for overtime
purposes, says the suit.

Based in West Valley City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Major Drilling
America, Inc. provides drilling services in the metals and mining
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
        HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
        HC 63 Box 8715
        Duchesne, UT 84021
        Telephone: (801) 415-9909
        Facsimile: (801) 303-7324
        E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com

                - and -

        Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
        BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
        11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
        Houston, TX 77046
        Telephone: (713) 877-8788
        E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                - and -

        Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
        Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
        JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
        11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
        Houston, TX 77046
        Telephone: (713) 352-1100
        Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
        E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                adunlap@mybackwages.com

MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Bellissimo Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to E.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case EDYTHE BELLISSIMO and JERRY LIVINGSTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE
SOLUTIONS, INC. and THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK of PENNSYLVANIA, Case
No. 2:26-cv-00069, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 17,
2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:26-cv-00169-ALM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment by
failing to protect their personal identifiable information
following a data breach.

Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a software firm based in Plano,
Texas.

The First National Bank of Pennsylvania is a financial institution
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
      D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      Stanley D. Ference IV, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      437 Grant Street, Suite 1100
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com
             arihn@peircelaw.com
             mference@peircelaw.com

MOCHI HEALTH: Ward Sues Over Illegal Data Tracking Software
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOCHI HEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-01393 (N.D. Cal., February 17, 2026) arises out of
Defendant's unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies by
data brokers such as Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook, Hotjar,
Microsoft Bing, Microsoft Clarity, TikTok and other third parties
to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' and
prospective patients' highly sensitive protected health
information.

Defendant Mochi Health Corp. installed the Tracking Tools with the
intent to collect and to disclose users' personal health
information in violation of federal and state laws including, but
not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action to recover for the
harms suffered and asserts these claims for violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violations of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, breach of express contract, breach of
implied contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, bailment,
and violations of the Comprehensive Computer Data And Access And
Fraud Act.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Mochi Health Corp. operates as
a virtual weight loss support membership-based platform. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Victor J. Sandoval, Esq.
       ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
       111 W. Ocean Blvd Suite 426
       Long Beach, CA 90802
       Telephone: (562) 534-5907
       E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com

               - and -

       David S. Almeida, Esq.
       ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
       849 W. Webster Avenue
       Chicago, IL 60614
       Telephone: (312) 576-3024
       E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com

               - and -

       Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
       PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
       One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
       St. Louis, MO 63101
       Telephone: (314) 833-4825
       E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

       Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
       PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
       235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400
       Atlanta, GA 30303
       Telephone: (404) 282-4806
       E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com

MORAN MINING: Boger Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Miners
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD BOGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORAN MINING USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00018-TJC (D. Mont., February 16, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Boger was employed by the Defendant as an underground miner in
Mullan, Idaho and a miner/operator in Nye, Montana from
approximately January 2022 through March 2024.

Moran Mining USA Inc. is a mining company, with its principal place
of business in Big Timber, Montana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
       BECHTOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC
       P.O. Box 7051
       Missoula, MT 59807
       Telephone: (406) 721-1435
       Email: tim@bechtoldlaw.net

               - and -

       Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
       Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
       JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
       Houston, TX 77046
       Telephone: (713) 352-1100
       Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
       Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

       Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
       BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
       Houston, TX 77046
       Telephone: (713) 877-8788
       Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
       Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Walker Balks at Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG WALKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA, INC., and BRENT HAMILL,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00631 (D. Colo.,
February 17, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other delivery drivers who
use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. However, instead of reimbursing Plaintiff and
these delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the
business use of their vehicles, the Defendants allegedly used a
flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such
an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of
the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses
cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during
some or all workweeks.

Headquartered in Wheat Ridge, CO, Mountainside Pizza, Inc. operates
Domino's franchise stores in Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Colby Qualls, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (214) 210-2100
         Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
         E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com

NUSCALE POWER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against NuScale Power Corporation ("NuScale" or the
"Company") (NYSE:SMR) in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon -- Portland Division on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NuScale Class A
common stock between May 13, 2025 and November 6, 2025, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 20, 2026
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Allegation Details:

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) ENTRA1 Energy LLC ("ENTRA1") had never built, financed,
or operated any significant projects– let alone projects in the
highly technical and complicated field of nuclear power generation
during its entire operating history; (2) NuScale had entrusted its
commercialization, distribution, and deployment of its NuScale
Power Module ("NPMs") and hundreds of millions of dollars of
NuScale capital to an entity that lacked any significant prior
experience owning, financing, or operating nuclear energy
generation facilities; (3) the purported experience and
qualifications attributed to ENTRA1 by defendants during the Class
Period in fact referred to the purported experience and
qualifications of the principals of the Habboush Group, a distinct
entity without significant experience in the field of nuclear power
generation; and (4) as a result, NuScale's commercialization
strategy was exposed to material, undisclosed risks of failure,
delays, regulatory challenges, or other negative setbacks. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Next Steps:

If you purchased or otherwise acquired NuScale shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, 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 Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in securities,
derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in
consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a
nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and
state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit
www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

     Brandon Walker, Esq.
     Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
     Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
     Telephone: (212) 355-4648
     investigations@bespc.com
     www.bespc.com [GN]


NUSCALE POWER: Truedson Sues Over 12% Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
CHADWICK P. TRUEDSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NUSCALE POWER CORPORATION, JOHN L. HOPKINS,
ROBERT RAMSEY HAMADY, and FLUOR CORPORATION, Case No.
3:26-cv-00328-JR (D. Or., Feb. 18, 2026) is a securities class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of NuScale
Class A common stock between May 13, 2025 and Nov. 6, 2025, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Prior to the start of the Class Period, NuScale entered into a
global commercialization partnership with ENTRA1 Energy LLC.
NuScale's reliance on ENTRA1 as an exclusive commercialization
partner appeared to be validated when, on Sept. 2, 2025, ENTRA1 and
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) jointly announced an agreement
to develop power plants to provide the TVA with up to six gigawatts
of new nuclear power generation.

However, after market hours on Nov. 6, 2025, NuScale surprised
investors by revealing that the Company's general and
administrative expenses had ballooned more than 3,000% to $519
million during its third fiscal quarter, up from $17 million in the
prior year period, due largely to NuScale's payment of $495 million
to ENTRA1 for its TVA agreement. As a result, NuScale's quarterly
net loss skyrocketed to $532 million, up from $46 million in the
prior year period, the suit says.

Following NuScale's earnings announcement, analysts at Guggenheim
Securities, LLC published a report further undermining defendants'
Class Period claims about ENTRA1's experience and capabilities.
Based on the analysts' own independent checks, the report described
ENTRA1 as a "3-year old company that has never built, financed or
operated anything," the suit adds.

On this news, the price of NuScale Class A shares declined more
than 12% over a two-day trading period on abnormally high trading
volume, from approximately $32 per share on Nov. 6, 2025 to
approximately $28 per share on Nov. 10, 2025. The price of NuScale
Class A stock continued to fall in subsequent days, dropping to a
low of just $17 per share by Nov. 21, 2025 -- more than 70% below
the Class Period high of more than $57 per share -- and causing the
plaintiff and the Class to suffer significant financial losses and
economic damages under the federal securities laws.

NuScale is a developer of nuclear power technology focused on
scalable, modular reactors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keil M. Mueller, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1900
          Portland, OR  97204
          Telephone: (971) 253-4600
          E-mail: kmueller@kellerrohrback.com

                - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Francisco J. Mejia, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

OUTFRONT MEDIA: Arevalo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case MARCOS AREVALO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. OUTFRONT MEDIA LLC and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV38794, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for Los Angeles County to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on February
17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-01682 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and
Professions Code.

Outfront Media LLC is an advertising company based in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Lara C. De Leon, Esq.
      CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
      2020 Main St., Suite 1200
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 743-3979
      Facsimile: (949) 743-3934
      Email: ldeleon@constangy.com

              - and -

      Komal Jain, Esq.
      CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
      550 West C. Street, Suite 1400
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 605-6171
      Email: kjain@constangy.com

PANELMATIC ELECTRICAL: Miscalculates OT Pay Rate, Scalise Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SCALISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANELMATIC ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
limited liability company, Case No. 4:26-cv-01254 (S.D. Tex.,
February 17, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Scalise worked for Defendant as a welder/frabricator from
approximately March 13, 2023, through August 28, 2025. Throughout
their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and Defendant's
hourly employees earned Cost of Living Adjustment pay and other
non-discretionary remuneration. However, the Defendant failed to
properly calculate Plaintiff's COLA pay and other non-discretionary
remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation,
says the suit.

Headquartered in Houston, TX, Panelmatic Electrical Solutions, LLC
designs and manufactures electrical and control systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
        SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
        One Town Square, 17th Floor
        Southfield, MI 48076
        Telephone: (248) 355-0300
        E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com

PEPSICO INC: Wins Court Order Barring Snack Pricing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that PepsiCo (PEP.O), and its
Frito-Lay unit have persuaded a California federal judge to block
convenience-store owners from pursuing a proposed class action
claiming the snack giant favors big retailers over smaller
competitors in its wholesale pricing.

U.S. District Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani in Santa Ana said in
her ruling, on Wednesday, February 18, that the convenience stores
failed to meet a requirement of federal law that proposed class
members have suffered the same harm.

The lawsuit filed last year, sought to represent thousands of
stores in California and accused PepsiCo of violating the
Robinson-Patman Act, a provision of U.S. antitrust law that bans
price discrimination.

In her ruling, Almadani said the law requires highly
individualized, transaction‑specific proof that the plaintiffs
had not provided. The judge pointed to other court orders finding
lawsuits raising price discrimination "require individualized proof
at every step."

Almadani's ruling was a setback for the individual plaintiffs but
she did not dismiss the lawsuit, which remains pending. The judge
also said she would allow the stores to amend their class-action
claims and refile them. Class actions can deliver larger recoveries
at lower cost than individual lawsuits.

PepsiCo and Frito-Lay did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Mark Poe, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said they intend to
file an amended lawsuit that "will identify numerous ways in which
Frito systematically discriminated against its independent
customers, while systematically favoring the national chains."

The lawsuit said independently-owned California convenience stores
have lost tens of millions of dollars in Frito-Lay chips sales due
to PepsiCo's alleged price discrimination.

PepsiCo and Frito-Lay, in their bid to strike the plaintiffs' class
claims, told the court that the convenience stores' allegations
"necessarily would require thousands of individualized inquiries
into the unique circumstances of each class member."

They said allowing the case to move ahead as a class action "will
add only complexity and confusion."

The case is Alqosh Enterprises et al v. PepsiCo Inc et al, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, No.
2:25-cv-01327-MRA-JDE.

For plaintiffs: Mark Poe and Randolph Gaw of Gaw | Poe

For defendants: Stephen Weissman and Jay Srinivasan of Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher [GN]

PRADA USA: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRADA USA Corp., Defendant, Case No.
0:26-cv-01380-JMB-SGE (D. Minn., February 12, 2026) alleges that
Defendant's website, www.prada.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.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology.

In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain accessible to individuals with visual disabilities.

PRADA USA Corp. operates the website that offers luxury apparel and
accessories for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms,
outerwear, dresses, jackets, leather clothing, swimwear, pajamas,
handbags, fine jewelry, perfumes, beauty products 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

PYURE BRANDS: Chakravarthy Balks at Mislabeled Sweetener Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GOPAL CHAKRAVARTHY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PYURE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:26-cv-01518 (C.D. Cal., February 12, 2026) is an action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers
in the United States, alleging violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False
Advertising Law.

The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets Pyure Organic
Monk Fruit Sweetener and Pyure Organic Monk Fruit Sweetener
Packets. According to the complaint, the Defendant misleadingly
labels the product as a "monk fruit" sweetener "free from
artificial sweeteners," when in fact the product is primarily
sweetened with the artificial sweetener erythritol. Despite being
labeled as a "monk fruit" sweetener, the product's rear label
ingredient list reveals that erythritol is the most prominent
ingredient in the product, says the suit.

The Plaintiff read and relied upon Defendant's advertising when
purchasing the product and was damaged as a result, asserts the
complaint.

Pyure Brands, LLC provides packaged food products. The Company
produces all-natural and organic stevia sweeteners and commercial
stevia extracts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.  
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (866) 276-7637
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
                  lilach@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com

RYOKO RAIN: Bathersfield Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BATHERSFIELD, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RYOKO RAIN INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:26-cv-00854-RBM-MMP (S.D. Cal., February 11, 2026) is a
putative class action arising from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Specifically, the
Defendant violated the TCPA by initiating telephone solicitations
to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members
before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members.

The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves
and members of the Class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.

Ryoko Rain Inc. is a corporation with its headquarters located in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          1515 NE 26th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Telephone: (754) 444-7539  
          E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Schroeder Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 2:26-cv-02162 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 18, 2026) seeks to recover
unpaid compensation, including overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit alleges that, although the Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members routinely worked (and continue to work) in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at
least one and one-half their regular rates for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members for overtime compensation on a routine and
regular basis, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members typically worked
(and continue to work) 45 hours per week. They did not and
currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt
work under the FLSA, added the suit.

Plaintiff Schroeder worked for Sedgwick as a Disability
Representative and as a Benefits Liaison from March 2022 until
October 2025.

Sedgwick is a claims administration, loss adjusting, and benefits
administration company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2901 Dobbs Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37211
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  mel@yezbaklaw.com

                - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com   
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com   
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CVUOE-2026-137, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for San Joaquin
County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California on February 17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-00478-JAM-AC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations
of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is a manufacturer of paints and
coatings based in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Shareef S. Farag, Esq.
      Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
      1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      Email: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
             npoper@bakerlaw.com

SIBYLLINE AMERICAS: Keane Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------
The case JOSEPH KEANE and JACOB GOLLIET, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SIBYLLINE AMERICAS INC.,
AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No.
25-2-38285-1 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of Washington in and for County of King to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on February
17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-00569 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to inform them of
the scope of layoffs, closure of teams, the number of workers
affected, or the schedule on which those layoffs would occur in
violation of Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 49.45.020(1).

Sibylline Americas Inc. is a consultancy firm headquartered in New
York, New York.

Amazon.com, Inc. is a multinational technology company
headquartered in Washington.

Amazon.com Services LLC is a multinational technology company
headquartered in Washington. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                
      
      Sheehan Sullivan, Esq.
      DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
      920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 622-3150
      Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
      Email: sheehansullivan@dwt.com

              - and -

      Melissa K. Mordy, Esq.
      DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
      929 108th Ave NE Unit 1500
      Bellevue, WA 98004
      Telephone: (425) 646-6194
      Facsimile: (425) 709-6094
      Email: missymordy@dwt.com

              - and -

      Rebecca Lynch, Esq.
      DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
      929 108th Ave NE Unit 1500
      Bellevue, WA 98004
      Telephone: (425) 646-6194
      Facsimile: (425) 709-6094
      Email: rebeccalynch@dwt.com

              - and -

      Blair C. Carter, Esq.
      TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
      90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500
      Colorado Springs, CO 80903
      Telephone: (719) 475-2440
      Email: bcarter@taftlaw.com

SPRING & MULBERRY: Chocolates Contain Salmonella, Rabinowitz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANA RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPRING & MULBERRY, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00938-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and
misleading business practices of Spring & Mulberry with respect to
the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of chocolates throughout the
United States which contained Salmonella.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly,
deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to
reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not
disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are
contaminated or are at risk of being contaminated with Salmonella,
a bacteria can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems, and in some circumstances (even in healthy persons)
can result in the bacteria getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

On Jan. 12, 2026, the Defendant released a press release announcing
that it initiated a voluntary nationwide recall of its Mint Leaf
flavor, date-sweetened chocolate bars due to potential presence of
Salmonella, and the FDA published the recall on its website on the
same day (the Initial Recall).

Two days later, on Jan. 14, 2026, the Initial Recall was expanded
to include seven additional flavors of Defendants chocolate bars to
include seven additional flavors produced during the same period on
the same equipment (the Expanded Recall).

Consumers who purchased the Defendant's Products, such as
Plaintiff, reasonably expected that the Products they purchased
would be safe for consumption and would not contain, or be at risk
of containing, any harmful substances such as Salmonella, the suit
contends.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes
the Products throughout the United States. Defendant created and/or
authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements,
packaging, and labeling of its Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

TEA LIVING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tea Living, Inc. d/b/a Tea Collection,
Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01394-DWF-JFD (D. Minn., February 12,
2026) alleges that Defendant's website, www.teacollection.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.

The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online
website content and services in a manner that is compatible with
screen reader technology, asserts the complaint.

In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities.

Tea Living, Inc., d/b/a Tea Collection, operates the website that
offers children's clothing and accessories for sale including, but
not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, hoodies, jackets, swimwear,
pajamas, baby clothing, accessories and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                  chad@throndsetlaw.com
                  jason@throndsetlaw.com

UNILEVER UNITED: McElroy Sues Over Skin Bar Soap Deceptive Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNETTA MCELROY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-01744 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2026) is a class action against
Unilever based on false and deceptive advertising and labeling of
their Sensitive Skin Bar Soap.

Since its founding, the Defendant touts Dove as being a credible
and trustworthy brand in the skin care and hygiene industry.
Seeking to capture the growing hypoallergenic and sensitive skin
market, Defendant prominently labels its Dove Sensitive Skin Bar
Soap as "hypoallergenic," "sensitive" or "sensitive skin," and
"fragrance free" and "Dermatologist #1 Recommended" (Labeling
Claims), the lawsuit says.

These representations are false and misleading, says the suit.
Scores of reviews on Defendant's own website for the Product1
demonstrate that in late 2024 and into 2025 (and continuing today),
users consistently noted that Defendant changed the formulation of
the Product in a way that made them break out in hives and rashes,
and suffer other ailments that made the Product totally unsuitable
for sensitive skin, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, and all other applicable laws and rules, individually, and on
behalf of all members of the following Classes:

Nationwide Class:

All natural persons who purchased at least one of the Class
Products in the United States within the applicable statute of
limitations period.

Illinois Subclass:

All natural persons who purchased at least one of the Class
Products in the State of Illinois within the applicable statute of
limitations period.

The Defendant manufactures personal care products. The Company
offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body
washes. as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads,
sauces, and tea. Unilever United States serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
          28 Geary Street, Ste. 650 No. 1507
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 839-7000
          E-Mail:  yeremey@skclassactions.com
                   joel@skclassactions.com

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC
          11 Park Place, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 1007
          E-mail: hbryson@brysonpllc.com
                   suciu@brysonpllc.com

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd St., 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Imposed Tariffs on Imported Goods
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. and ASSOCIATED HYGIENIC PRODUCTS,
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-01016 (Ct. International Trade, February 17, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendants for allegedly imposing unlawful
duties pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA).

According to the complaint, beginning in February of 2025, through
a series of executive orders, President Donald Trump invoked IEEPA
as authority to impose new and substantial tariffs (IEEPA tariffs)
on goods imported from nearly every foreign country, including
countries from which the Plaintiffs source their imports.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the IEEPA duties and the
executive orders underlying the IEEPA duties are unlawful; an
injunction preventing the Defendants from collecting further duties
on the Plaintiffs' entries under the executive orders establishing
the IEEPA duties; and a full refund from the Defendants of all
IEEPA duties the Plaintiffs have already paid, and those they will
continue to pay.

Attends Healthcare Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of healthcare
products, headquartered in North Carolina.

Associated Hygienic Products, LLC is a manufacturer of disposable
baby diapers and training pants, headquartered in Georgia.

United States Customs and Border Protection is a component agency
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headquartered in
Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Deanna Tanner Okun, Esq.
       Lydia C. Pardini, Esq.
       Dominic L. Bianchi, Esq.
       Jane C. Dempsey, Esq.
       Alissa M. Chase, Esq.
       Joonho Hwang, Esq.
       POLSINELLI PC
       1401 I Street NW, Suite 800
       Washington, DC 20005
       Telephone: (202) 626-8329
       Email: dtokun@polsinelli.com

V&B PHARMACY: Ziscand Sues Over Unlawful Payroll Policy
-------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY ZISCAND, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V&B PHARMACY INC. d/b/a
HAVEN DRUGS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00946 (E.D.N.Y., February
17, 2026) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and
Medical Leave Act, and the New York Labor Law.

From approximately February 2023 to February 2024, the Defendant
carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to
pay Plaintiff for all worked hours as required by law, including
non-payment of overtime pay. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover unpaid wages she had been deprived of, plus interest
(pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated.

The Plaintiff likewise seeks damages to redress the injuries she
has suffered as a result of being interfered with and deprived of
her right to leave to take care of her mother and retaliated
against following her request for the same.

V&B Pharmacy Inc. provides pharmacy services and dispenses
prescription medications and other pharmaceutical products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
         CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC
         6829 Main Street
         Flushing NY 11367-1305
         Telephone: (718) 412-2421
         Facsimile: (718) 489-4155
         E-mail: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com

VENEZIA BULK: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Brantley Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT BRANTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENEZIA BULK TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00993 (E.D. Pa., February 17, 2026) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its network systems following a
data breach discovered on or about August 5, 2025. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach.

As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.

Venezia Bulk Transport, Inc. is a trucking business, with its
principal place of business in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
      65 Overhill Rd.
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com

              - and -

      Mariya Weekes, Esq.
      MILBERG, PLLC
      333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (866) 252-0878
      Email: mweekes@milberg.com

W.W. GRAINGER: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case DEREK SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2025CUOE056901, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for Ventura County to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
February 17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-01624 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations
of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law.

W.W. Grainger, Inc. is an industrial supply company based in
Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Michael J. Nader, Esq.
      George J. Theofanis, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
      400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
      Sacramento, CA 95814
      Telephone: (916) 840-3150
      Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
      Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
             george.theofanis@ogletree.com

WALMART INC: Flores Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case GLORIA FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Case No. 26STCV01001, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for Los Angeles County to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on February 17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-01662 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation,
headquartered in Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is the management services company of
Walmart, Inc., headquartered in Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                
      
      Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 239-9800
      Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
      Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

              - and -

      Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
      Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
      695 Town Center Drive
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (714) 800-7900
      Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
      Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com

WARRIOR MET: Blackmon Seeks Locomotive Operators' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARRIOR MET COAL MINING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00263-AMM (N.D. Ala., February 17,
2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Blackmon was employed as a locomotive operator at the
Defendant's 7 North, 4 North, and 7 East underground mines from
approximately 2018 until June 2025.

Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC is a mining owner and operator, with
its principal place of business in Brookwood, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Erby J. Fischer, Esq.
       MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
       216 Summit Blvd., Suite 300
       Birmingham, AL 35243
       Telephone: (659) 204-6364
       Facsimile: (659) 204-6389
       Email: efischer@forthepeople.com

               - and -

       C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
       MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
       20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
       Orlando, FL 32802
       Telephone: (407) 420-1414
       Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
       Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

       Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
       Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
       JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
       Houston, TX 77046
       Telephone: (713) 352-1100
       Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
       Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

       Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
       BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
       Houston, TX 77046
       Telephone: (713) 877-8788
       Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
       Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

WEBSTER FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Sale to Banco Santander
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq reports that Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with
Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire
State Building in New York City, is investigating

-- Webster Financial Corporation (NYSE: WBS) related to its sale
to Banco Santander, S.A. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Webster shareholders are expected to receive $48.75 in
cash and 2.0548 Santander American Depository Shares for each
Webster common share.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/webster-financial-corporation/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CCO) related to its
sale to Mubadala Capital, in partnership with TWG Global. Under the
terms of the proposed transaction, Clear Channel shareholders are
expected to receive $2.43 per share in cash.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/clear-channel-outdoor-holdings-inc/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- European Wax Center, Inc. (NASDAQ: EWCZ) related to its sale to
General Atlantic. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
European Wax shareholders are expected to receive $5.80 per share
in cash.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/european-wax-center-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) related to its merger with Valaris
Limited. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Transocean
shareholders will own approximately 53% of the combined company.

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/transocean-ltd-2/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC Logo

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC. The
Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118
United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212)
971-1341 [GN]

Z GOURMET: Porro Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR PORRO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. Z GOURMET DELI CORP., and
ABDULAZIZ ALGHAZALI, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-01335
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026) is a civil action for damages and other
redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of
Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook from February
2019 to September 2024.

Accordingly, throughout Plaintiff's employment for the six-year
period pre-dating the commencement of this action, the Defendants
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due
to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Throughout the Relevant Period,
Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in
excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week, says
the suit.

The Defendant operates a deli in the Bronx, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan S. Riger, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205   
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

ZILLOW INC: Hernandez Employment Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case JAZMIN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ZILLOW, INC.; ZILLOW GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU067939C, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for San Diego County to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
February 17, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:26-cv-01014-BAS-BJW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Zillow, Inc. is a real-estate marketplace company headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.

Zillow Group, Inc. is a real-estate marketplace company
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                
      
      Stacey E. James, Esq.
      Christina H. Hayes, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 232-0441
      Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
      Email: sjames@littler.com
             chayes@littler.com


                            *********

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 ***