260227.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 27, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 42
Headlines
919 109th AVENUE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Andrews Due Nov. 9
A+ STAFFING: Settlement Agreement in Vasquez Suit Gets Approval
AHAAA LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 2
AIM DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Sielaff Due July 30
ANGEL SALAZAR: Bid for Class Cert and Settlement Approval Tossed
APOLLO GLOBAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Lunstrum Fed. Securities Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Parties' Joint Status Report Granted
CIGNA GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Snyder Suit Due June 26
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Home Insurance Class Suit
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Cal
COSMED GROUP: "Motley" Suit Remains Stayed
CURB MOBILITY: Kretschmer Balks at Unfair Price Fixing Agreements
DEPOP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Junk Fees
DEXCOM INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures
DEXCOM INC: Faces Prime Securities Suit over Glucose Device
ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Securities Class Suit
EUGENE CARLTON: Gladney Seeks to Certify Class Action
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Mosher Bid to Certify Class Tossed
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Mosher Case Referred to Magistrate Judge
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Consolidated Labor Suit for Arbitration
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Settlement in Kassam Suit Get Initial Nod
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Christensen Seeks Initial OK of $750K Settlement
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Notice
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Bieber Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
GOTHAM MEDICARE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Metelus Says
GRANITE WELLNESS: Establishes $725,000 Data Breach Settlement Fund
HENRY INDUSTRIES: $300K Class Settlement in McEvoy Gets Final Nod
HESAI GROUP: Narrows Claims in "Wong" IPO Suit
HILL-ROM GROUP: Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Epperson Due July 1
J. STRICKLAND AND CO: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN: Agrees to Settle Sex Trafficking Suit for $35MM
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised K-Cups
KNOW INK: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Tooker Suit Says
KROGER CO: Certain Exhibits in Womick Suit Maintains Under Seal
LEVTOP INC: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
LIVE VENTURES INC: Faces Sieggreen Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court
LOWE'S HOME: Harmon Sues Over Deceptive Free Delivery Ads
MARLBORO PLAZA: Court Grants Motion to Approve "Wilson" Settlement
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Judge Curbs Claims in Mustard Labeling Suit
NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Shareholder Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Cookers' Defective Coating
NEWREZ LLC: Wins Bid to Toss "Tuttle"
NIKITA BAKER: Class Cert Hearing in D.N.N. Rescheduled to March 3
NORTH AMERICAN: Keohohou Sues Over Illegal Sports Gambling Services
OPENLOOP HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Cyberattack
ORACLE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6
OSTIN TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17
PACIFIC LIFE: Agrees to Settle Life Insurance Class Suit for $58.3M
PELICAN INVESTMENT: Amended Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered
PETROLEX II: Class Certification Bids in Kelly Suit Due May 21
PICARD MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 13
PINE HOSPITALITY: Bid to Certify Class in Desposati Due March 12
PINE HOSPITALITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
POMDOCTOR LTD: Louie Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Cherkin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Cherkin Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
PRUDENTRX LLC: Court OKs Discovery Bid in "Gluesing"
SALESFORCE INC: Young Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
SAPP BROS: Amended Complaint Filing in Loebach Due March 23
SAPP BROS: Filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint Due March 23
SAPP BROS: Noel Consolidated Amended Complaint Filing Due March 23
STAFF SUPPORT: Settlement Agreement in Vasquez Gets Approval
STARBUCKS CORP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Brazil Forced Labor Case
STEPHEN JAMES: Best Wins Unopposed Bid for Class Certification
TAK BROADBAND: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
TEMPUS AI: Discloses Genetic Info to Third Parties, Nash Suit Says
TESLA INC: Hyde Sues Over Vehicles' Material Safety Defect
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Class Cert Opposition in Phan Due April 2
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Must File Class Cert Opposition by April 9
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit in Washington
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Malone Labor Class Suit in Pa.
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: ClassAction.org Investigates Cyberattack
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court Certifies Three Classes in Ford Suit
VETERANS UNITED: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over RESPA Violations
VISTA HM: Bid to Stay Scroggins Class Suit Granted in Part
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Set for May 21
WASHINGTON: C.F. Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Suit
Asbestos Litigation
*********
919 109th AVENUE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Andrews Due Nov. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREWS REVOCABLE TRUST;
LINDA ANDREWS, a Washington resident; KRISTEN ANDREWS, a resident
of British Columbia; SUSAN ANDREWS, a resident of British Columbia,
v. 919 109th AVENUE OWNER, LLC, a foreign limited liability company
d/b/a PACIFIC REGENT BELLEVUE SENIOR LIVING; COGIR MANAGEMENT USA,
INC., a foreign corporation; FOUNTAINS BELLEVUE SL, LLC, a foreign
company; WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01672-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Martinez entered an order granting the Parties stipulated
motion to continue the case schedule deadlines for eight (8) months
as follows:
Class certification discovery cut-off: Sept. 5, 2026
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion for class
certification: Nov. 9, 2026
Opposition to motion to certify class: Nov. 23, 2026
Reply in support of motion to certify class: Nov. 30, 2026
The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion
for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cap2Ss at no extra
charge.[CC]
A+ STAFFING: Settlement Agreement in Vasquez Suit Gets Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL VASQUEZ, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. A+
STAFFING LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02306-PCG (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Cross-Goldenberg entered an order granting the parties'
motion to approve the settlement agreement.
Specifically, the Court entered an order:
Approving the settlement and Agreement as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and binding on all Class Members who have not timely
opted out of the settlement;
Directing the Administrator to distribute Settlement Checks;
Directing that attorneys' fees of $416,250 and costs of $22,000 to
be paid to Class Counsel out of the Settlement Amount;
Directing that the Administrator's fees and expenses to be paid out
of the Settlement Amount;
Directing that the Service Awards be paid out of the Settlement
Amount;
Dismissing with prejudice of all State Law Claims by all Class
Members who did not opt-out as well as Named Plaintiffs; and
Dismissing of Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims for all Class
Members who submitted opt-in/Claim forms.
A+ Staffing is a national event staffing and experiential marketing
partner.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Ac6Pv at no extra
charge.[CC]
AHAAA LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 2
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CHAMUL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHAAA, LLC, Case No.
9:25-cv-81013-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
for extension of time to file a Rule 23 motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff may file any motion for class certification under
Rule 23 no later than March 2, 2026.
At the time the Court entered the Scheduling Order in December
2025, the Court considered when the Plaintiff filed this action,
which was Aug. 15, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1LKz4G at no extra
charge.[CC]
AIM DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Sielaff Due July 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNELL SIELAFF, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AIM DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES LLC, ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:25-cv-00911-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett Ludwig entered
an order as follows:
1. The parties' initial disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a) must be exchanged on or before March 3, 2026.
2. All fact discovery must be completed no later than Nov. 25,
2026.
3. Primary expert witness disclosures are due on or before May
22, 2026, and rebuttal expert witness disclosures are due on
or before July 3, 2026. All expert discovery must be
completed no later than November 25, 2026.
4. Motions for conditional certification of a collective action
shall be served and filed on or before June 1, 2026. The
briefing schedule will comply with Civil L.R. 7.
5. Final certification, class certification, and decertification
motions shall be served and filed on or before July 30, 2026.
The briefing schedule will comply with Civil L. R. 7.
6. Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
56, Civil L.R. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and shall be served and
filed on or before Dec. 23, 2026.
Aim Distribution is an active carrier, broker.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZNwpmP at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANGEL SALAZAR: Bid for Class Cert and Settlement Approval Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN CHAMBERLAIN and
PAMELA ANDRAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ANGEL SALAZAR DESIGN LLC and ANGEL SALAZAR, Case No.
1:25-cv-00274-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and settlement approval.
The parties shall file a joint letter by March 2, 2026 advising the
Court how they propose to proceed in this action.
The parties are on notice that failure to comply with court orders
and all applicable rules, and expeditiously to move this case
toward resolution, may result in sanctions, including: monetary
penalties on counsel and the parties themselves; preclusion of
claims, defenses, evidence, and motion practice; and the
case-terminating sanctions of dismissal for failure to prosecute
and default judgment.
The Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they were similarly
situated to each other, let alone a definite class of misclassified
employees, as required for class and conditional certification
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs filed a putative collective and class action lawsuit
against the Defendants, asserting claims for violations of FLSA and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Proposed Settlement defines "Class Members" as "Plaintiffs and
all members of the FLSA Class and the Rule 23 Class."
The "FLSA Class Members" are defined as:
"any and all current and former individuals [sic] who
performed work for Defendants on a regular basis and were
classified as independent contractors and who worked in excess
of 40 hours in a particular week during the period from Jan.
13, 2022 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order."
The "Rule 23 Class Members" are defined as:
"any and all current and former individuals [sic] who
performed work for Defendants on a regular basis, were
classified as independent contractors rather than non-exempt
hourly employees, were not paid overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, and who worked in excess of 40
hours in a particular week during the period from Jan. 13,
2019 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order."
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a "Studio Manager" from
April 2024 through Sept. 15, 2024.
ASD is a "a premium floral design company specializing in luxury,
hospitality, and special events."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U4L7ZT at no extra
charge.[CC]
APOLLO GLOBAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Apollo Global Management, Inc. (NYSE: APO)
resulting from allegations that Apollo may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Apollo securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1323 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On February 1, 2026, Financial Times published
an article entitled "Apollo chief Marc Rowan consulted Epstein on
firm's tax affairs". The article stated that top "Apollo Global
Management executives including chief Marc Rowan held wide-ranging
discussions over the firm's tax arrangements with Jeffrey Epstein
throughout the 2010s, despite the private capital firm having
previously said it 'never did any business' with the child sex
offender."
On this news, Apollo stock fell 1% on February 2, 2026, and 4.76%
on February 3, 2026.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at
that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked
No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Lunstrum Fed. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Lunstrum federal securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On July 9, 2025, a putative federal securities class action, Brock
Lunstrum v. Centene Corp., et al. (the Securities Action), was
filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege that the Company made false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's 2025 earnings
guidance in violation of federal securities laws.
The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending
itself against the claims in the Securities Action.
Centene Corporation is a healthcare enterprise that provides fully
integrated services to government-sponsored and commercial
healthcare programs, including Medicare Prescription Drug Plans.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Parties' Joint Status Report Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harper v. Charter
Communications, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 (E.D. Cal.,
Filed May 17, 2019), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an
order granting the parties' Joint Status Report:
The Court will not issue a Scheduling Order until the Court
resolves the motions on class certification.
At this time, the Court is not requesting any additional briefing
on either motion.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Charter Communications is an American broadband connectivity
company and cable operator.[CC]
CIGNA GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Snyder Suit Due June 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snyder, et al., v. Cigna
Group, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01451 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 02,
2023), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of time.
-- Fact discovery must be complete on or before May 22, 2026.
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be due on or
before June 26, 2026.
-- Any response thereto will be due on or before August 26, 2026.
-- Any reply brief will be due on or before October 21, 2026.
-- All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by the parties
without court approval.
Because the court granted the parties' joint motion for extension
of time, the parties' joint request for a status conference, is
moot.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Cigna is an American multinational for-profit managed healthcare
and insurance company.[CC]
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.
In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against
Concho Resources Inc. (Concho), certain of Concho's officers, and
ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah
Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California as lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs).
On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations in violation of
the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief and such other
relief that may be deemed appropriate.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on March 8, 2022.
On June 23, 2023, the court denied defendants' motion as to most
defendants including Concho/ConocoPhillips.
On April 7, 2025, the court certified a class. The Company believes
the allegations in the action are without merit and are vigorously
defending this litigation.
ConocoPhillips is an independent E&P company based in Texas.
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Home Insurance Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the home insurance class suit.
In 2025, a putative class action was filed against oil and gas
companies, including ConocoPhillips, seeking to hold energy
companies liable for increased home insurance premiums allegedly
due to climate change losses. The amounts claimed by plaintiffs are
unspecified and the legal and factual issues involved in these
cases are unprecedented.
The Company believes the lawsuit is factually and legally meritless
and is an inappropriate vehicle to address the challenges
associated with climate change, and it will vigorously defend
against such lawsuit.
ConocoPhillips is an independent E&P company based in Texas.
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Cal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated ("Corcept" or the "Company") and certain of the
Company's current senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").
The action is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Corcept common stock between October 31, 2024,
and December 30, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is captioned Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System
v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, No. 26-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal.).
The complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful
evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is
available on BLB&G's website by clicking here.
Corcept's Alleged Fraud
Corcept is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development of
medications to treat severe endocrinologic, oncologic, metabolic
and neurologic disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone
cortisol. One of its lead new product candidates is relacorilant,
which is being developed for multiple indications, including as a
treatment for patients with hypercortisolism (also known as
"Cushing's syndrome").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
represented that the key clinical trials supporting the use of
relacorilant as treatment for patients with hypercortisolism were
"powerful support" for the New Drug Application ("NDA") that
Corcept submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
for this indication. Defendants also stated that they had
communicated with the FDA about this NDA and were confident in
submitting the NDA, foreseeing no impediments to approval. Toward
the latter part of the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly told
investors that "relacorilant is approaching approval." In truth,
the FDA had repeatedly raised concerns about the adequacy of the
clinical evidence supporting the relacorilant NDA and, as a result,
there was a known material risk that Corcept's relacorilant NDA
would not be approved.
The truth emerged on December 31, 2025, when Corcept revealed that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") regarding the
NDA for relacorilant as a treatment for patients with
hypercortisolism. The press release issued by the Company stated
that the FDA had "concluded it could not arrive at a favorable
benefit-risk assessment for relacorilant without Corcept providing
additional evidence of effectiveness." As a result of this
disclosure, the price of Corcept common stock declined by $35.40
per share, or 50.4%.
On January 30, 2026, after the end of the Class Period, the FDA
published a redacted copy of the CRL. The CRL detailed the FDA's
concerns with the relacorilant NDA, including concerns that the
clinical studies that were submitted as part of the NDA were not
sufficient evidence of relacorilant's efficacy for the proposed
indication. The CRL also noted that, during pre-submission
meetings, the FDA informed Corcept "on several occasions" of its
"concerns about the adequacy of the clinical development program,"
and had warned the Company "to expect significant review issues,"
if it submitted the application.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than April 21, 2026, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of February 20, 2026. Any member of the proposed
Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the
proposed Class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott R.
Foglietta of BLB&G at 212-554-1903, or via e-mail at
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com.
About BLB&G
BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising
institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance,
shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding
in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence
and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to
achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its
peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most
significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $40
billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about
the firm can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.
Contacts
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(212) 554-1903
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com [GN]
COSMED GROUP: "Motley" Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Brenda Motley, Teresa Liriano, Diana
Valdes, and Angela Santiago, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cosmed Group, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09063 (BRM) (MAH) (D.N.J.), Judge
Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey ordered that the matter remain stayed
pending further developments in the bankruptcy proceedings of
Defendant Cosmed Group, Inc.
The Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Cosmed Group, Inc.
and non-debtor defendants CHS Property Development, LLC, JS Urban
Renewal Corp., and Balchem Corporation. On December 10, 2025, the
Court had granted the non-debtor defendants' motions to stay,
finding that an extension of Cosmed's automatic bankruptcy stay to
the non-debtor defendants was appropriate due to Cosmed's
indemnification obligations to them. The Court administratively
terminated the motions to dismiss and directed the parties to
submit a joint status report within sixty days.
In the Joint Status Report filed thereafter, the Plaintiffs argued
there was no longer any basis to maintain the stay extension,
pointing to the conversion of the Cosmed bankruptcy from Chapter 11
to Chapter 7. The non-debtor defendants countered that nothing had
materially changed since the December 10, 2025 order, as the
bankruptcy court had not lifted the automatic stay of third-party
proceedings against Cosmed.
The Court agreed with the non-debtor defendants. It noted that the
Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 conversion had become effective in August
2025, months before the December 2025 order, and that the parties
had pointed to no new developments warranting a lift of the stay.
Cosmed's automatic stay, which the Court had extended to the
non-debtor defendants, remained in effect.
Accordingly, on February 19, 2026, the Court ordered that the
matter remain stayed and directed the parties to jointly notify the
Court regarding the status of the Cosmed bankruptcy within sixty
days of of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/LNJMKTQ/Motley_et_al_v_Cosmed_Group_Inc_et_al__njdce-24-09063__0096.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
from PacerMonitor.com
Defendant
C.H.S. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC
Represented By:
George Hollon Buermann
Goldberg Segalla LLP
973-681-7002
Anthony I. Perchiacca
Goldberg Segalla LLP
973-681-7000
Defendant
COSMED GROUP, INC.
Represented By:
Diana C. Manning
Bressler, Amery & Ross
973-514-1200
Donald J. Camerson, II
Bressler, Amery & Ross, Esqs.
973-514-1200
James Wylie Crowder, IV
Bressler Amery & Ross PC
973-937-6802
Defendant
JS URBAN RENEWAL CORP.
Represented By:
George Hollon Buermann
Goldberg Segalla LLP
973-681-7002
Anthony I. Perchiacca
Goldberg Segalla LLP
973-681-7000
Defendant
BALCHEM CORPORATION
Represented By:
Jenna Christine Ferraro
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
215-963-5802
Alexa D'Angelo
Baker & Hostetler LLP
212-589-4614
Notice Only
John R. Fonda
Notice Only
PHV Matthew D. Thurlow
Plaintiff
TERESA LIRIANO
Represented By:
Jared Michael Placitella
Cohen Placitella & Roth
215-567-3500
Eric Scott Pasternack
Cohen, Placietella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-6019
Patrick James Lanciotti
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
212-397-1000
Michael Coren
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-3500
Plaintiff
BRENDA MOTLEY
Represented By:
Jared Michael Placitella
Cohen Placitella & Roth
215-567-3500
Eric Scott Pasternack
Cohen, Placietella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-6019
Patrick James Lanciotti
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
212-397-1000
Michael Coren
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-3500
Plaintiff
ANGELA SANTIAGO
Represented By:
Jared Michael Placitella
Cohen Placitella & Roth
215-567-3500
Eric Scott Pasternack
Cohen, Placietella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-6019
Patrick James Lanciotti
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
212-397-1000
Michael Coren
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-3500
Plaintiff
DIANA VALDES
Represented By:
Jared Michael Placitella
Cohen Placitella & Roth
215-567-3500
Eric Scott Pasternack
Cohen, Placietella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-6019
Patrick James Lanciotti
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
212-397-1000
Michael Coren
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.
215-567-3500
CURB MOBILITY: Kretschmer Balks at Unfair Price Fixing Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDAN KRETSCHMER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURB MOBILITY LLC, CREATIVE MOBILE
TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ARRO, INC., and FLYWHEEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01347 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2026)
arises from the Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act by entering into horizontal agreements to fix prices and
eliminate competition in the market for on-demand transportation
services facilitated through mobile applications or online
platforms.
Starting in 2022, the Defendants and Uber Technologies, Inc.
entered into agreements to coordinate pricing among (i) UberX, the
standard ride-sharing option from Uber, (ii) Uber Taxi, the option
within the Uber app that lets the user request a licensed taxi, and
(iii) licensed taxis hailed using Defendants' apps. These
agreements eliminated competition between Uber and the Defendants
and resulted in higher fares, fewer consumer choices, and
substantial harm to the competitive process.
After its creation in 2009, Uber drew droves of passengers away
from traditional taxis by offering a completely different
experience: upfront pricing, dynamic-fare adjustments, and seamless
ride-hailing through a mobile phone. In contrast, ride-hailing for
traditional taxis was long constrained by government-regulated
metered pricing systems that prevented them from responding to
market conditions or matching Uber's pricing transparency. But
beginning in 2018 and continuing through today, regulators in major
cities authorized the Defendants and other taxi-hailing apps to
offer upfront pricing and greater flexibility in setting fares for
taxi rides hailed through their platforms. This regulatory shift
enabled them to compete more effectively with Uber, especially with
their own apps, asserts the suit.
These agreements constitute a per se violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. They are horizontal arrangements among direct
competitors to fix prices -- precisely the type of conduct the
antitrust laws were designed to prohibit. The agreements are not
part of a larger procompetitive endeavor. Their sole purpose is to
suppress competition and inflate prices, the suit contends.
Curb Mobility LLC owns and operates ARRO, Inc., a mobile e-hailing
application that allows passengers to request, track, and pay for
traditional yellow taxi rides directly through licensed taxi
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (646) 494-2900
E-mail: ingo@fnf.law
- and -
Kyle Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Stephen Lagos, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
155 E. 44th Street, Suite 915
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 494-2900
E-mail: kroche@fnf.law
tnormand@fnf.law
slagos@fnf.law
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
DON BIVENS PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 762 2661
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
DEPOP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Junk Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges that Depop fails to properly disclose during
checkout a mandatory "marketplace" fee tacked onto each
transaction, in violation of the California Honest Pricing Law.
The 21-page lawsuit contends that Depop, one of the largest online
fashion marketplaces, failed to include the so-called marketplace
fee in its advertised prices and discloses the extra charge only
after consumers have initiated the checkout process. According to
the complaint, the junk fee is unrelated to any taxes or shipping
costs and exists solely for the purpose of increasing Depop's
profits.
"In all cases, the Fee is not disclosed in the initially advertised
prices, misrepresenting to consumers the total price of the
products they intend to purchase," the complaint states. "As a
result, consumers are blindsided by the additional Fee, requiring
them to reevaluate or forgo their purchase plans or to begrudgingly
expand their budgets."
The case explains that the practice of drip-pricing, whereby the
advertised cost of a product increases as other charges are tacked
on to a transaction, has been illegal in California since the
enactment of the state's Honest Pricing Law, a 2024 amendment to
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Under the law, retailers in the state are forbidden from falsely
advertising prices for goods or services that do not include all
required fees or charges. The suit explains that the amendment was
designed to ensure that Californians are not misled about the
actual price they will pay for an item.
"Defendant waits until consumers have gone through the laborious
process of selecting various clothing items before disclosing the
Fee, which is revealed only upon initiating the checkout process,"
the lawsuit says.
The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased an article of
clothing from Depop, which reportedly boasts over 43.5 million
registered users, in January 2025 that had an advertised price of
$17. The lawsuit reports that this pricing was a factor in her
purchasing decision but during checkout, an unexpected
"marketplace" fee of $1.55 was added to her bill.
The complaint notes that Depop has recently added an information
icon next to the price of specific products once a consumer selects
an item of clothing that displays its final price, inclusive of all
fees. However, the plaintiff maintains that this website feature
did not exist when she placed her order in January 2025.
"[Depop]'s omission of the mandatory Fee until the very end of the
process is an unfair practice designed to string consumers along
with the false impression of lower prices and prevent consumers
from being able to make an accurate comparison between Defendant's
prices and its competitors' prices," the lawsuit argues.
The Depop class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals
in the United States who purchased any items from Depop and paid
its mandatory marketplace fee that was not advertised within the
initial advertised price within the applicable statute of
limitations period, inclusive of the final date of judgment in this
action. [GN]
DEXCOM INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEXCOM Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 12, 2026, that it is facing "In re Dexcom,
Inc. Class Action Securities Litigation," Lead Case No.:
24-cv-1485-RSH-VET) consolidated on December 13, 2024 by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Court appointed the lead plaintiff.
Between August 21 and October 9, 2024, three substantially similar
putative class action complaints were filed against the company and
certain of its executive officers in said court. On January 27,
2025, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act for
allegedly making false and misleading statements between April 28,
2023 and July 25, 2024, with respect to the company's expected
revenue for fiscal 2024 and ability to capitalize on its growth
potential.
On March 13, 2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On May 14, 2025, the court granted the
motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On May 28, 2025, lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. On June 11,
2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. On September 9, 2025, the court granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On October 7, 2025,
defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint. On October
10, 2025, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
as to the two surviving challenged statements. On January 7, 2026,
the court granted defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings
with leave to amend. On February 6, 2026, lead plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint. Defendants deadline to
respond to the second amended consolidated complaint is February
20, 2026.
DEXCOM is a medical device company primarily focused on the design,
development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring,
or CGM, systems for the management of diabetes and metabolic health
by patients, caregivers, and clinicians.
DEXCOM INC: Faces Prime Securities Suit over Glucose Device
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEXCOM Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 12, 2026, that on October 27, 2025, a
putative class action complaint was filed against the company and
certain of its executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Prime v.
Dexcom, Inc., et al," Case No.: 1:25-cv-08912).
The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act against Dexcom
and certain of its executive officers for allegedly making false
and misleading statements between July 26, 2024 and September 17,
2025, with respect to the accuracy, reliability, and functionality
of its "G7" Continuous Glucose Monitoring System device, as well as
its enhancements to and manufacturing of the device.
A lead plaintiff has been appointed and must file an amended
complaint no later than April 10, 2026. Dexcom's deadline to
respond to the amended complaint is June 9, 2026.
DEXCOM is a medical device company primarily focused on the design,
development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring,
or CGM, systems for the management of diabetes and metabolic health
by patients, caregivers, and clinicians.
ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Hayes securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On July 15, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer (collectively, the "Initial Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-04249 (the "Securities Class Action"), purportedly on
behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired its common stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25,
2023. The Securities Class Action alleges that Initial Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
On or about July 29, 2024, six additional stockholders filed
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have their selection of
counsel appointed as lead counsel in the Securities Class Action.
The Court held a hearing on the lead plaintiff motions on September
5, 2024, and appointed Lon D. Praytor as lead plaintiff on March
31, 2025.
On April 17, 2025, movant Andrey Ponomarchuk filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order appointing Praytor as lead
plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Praytor filed an amended complaint on May
21, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by Enphase and
its chief executive officer, purported only on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock
between February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023 and removing its chief
financial officer as a defendant (the remaining defendants referred
hereto as "Defendants").
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2025. Lead
Plaintiff's filed his opposition on August 15, 2025, and
Defendants' filed their reply on September 15, 2025. The Court has
not yet issued a decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The
company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar
generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform.
The company revolutionized the solar industry with their
microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated
solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont,
California.
EUGENE CARLTON: Gladney Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edward Gladney v. Carlton,
et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00537-KKM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m3GAaJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Mosher Bid to Certify Class Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mosher v. Federal Bureau
of Prisons, Case No. 1:26-cv-00075 (D. Colo., Filed Jan. 7, 2026),
the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order denying motion
to certify class.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated any change in
circumstances warranting reconsideration at this time.
A pro se litigant may not represent the interests of a class, and
therefore Plaintiff cannot certify a class in this action. Motion
for Order for Docket Sheet Copy is denied as moot, as the Court
previously granted that relief in its Order at 43.
Motion for order for a Mediator is denied as premature because
Defendant has not yet entered an appearance in this case.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Bureau provides for the care, custody, and control of federal
prisoners.[CC]
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Mosher Case Referred to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mosher v. Federal Bureau
of Prisons, Case No. 1:26-cv-00075 (D. Colo., Filed Jan. 7, 2026),
the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring the
following motions to Mag. Judge Scott T. Varholak:
-- Motion to appoint pro bono counsel.
-- Motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Bureau provides for the care, custody, and control of federal
prisoners.[CC]
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Consolidated Labor Suit for Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2026, that the San Diego
County Superior Court granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration with
regards to a consolidated labor suit, and arbitration has been
agreed to and is now scheduled for March 26, 2026.
On April 30, 2024, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against the company and Insperity, its third-party payroll service
provider, in said court for claims including failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay wages at separation,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to produce employment records and unfair
competition, which he has purported to assert on behalf of himself
and all other individuals who worked for the company or Insperity,
as non-exempt employees in California between April 30, 2020 and
the present.
On July 1, 2024, the company filed an answer to the complaint that
none of the asserted claims possessed any merit, contended that
many of the asserted claims were subject to immediate dismissal,
and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to
binding arbitration.
The plaintiff's Class Action lawsuit and PAGA lawsuit have now been
consolidated by the court. Plaintiff has refused to dismiss his
Class Action claims or submit his individual claims, including his
individual PAGA claims, to binding arbitration. Accordingly, at the
January 24, 2025 Case Management Conference in this matter, the
court authorized the company to proceed with the filing of a Motion
to Compel Arbitration.
Flux Power Holdings designs, develops, manufactures and sells a
portfolio of advanced lithium-ion energy storage solutions for
electrification of a range of industrial commercial sectors which
include material handling, airport ground support equipment and
other commercial and industrial applications.
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Settlement in Kassam Suit Get Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2025, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2026, that
following a December 4, 2025 hearing, on December 10, 2025 the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California issued an
order preliminarily approving a settlement of a purported federal
securities class action complaint captioned "Kassam v. Flux Power
Holdings, Inc. et al.," and setting a final approval hearing for
April 2, 2026.
On November 1, 2024, plaintiff Asfa Kassam filed the original case
(No. 2:24-cv-02051) in the District of Nevada, against the company,
its Chief Executive Officer, Ronald F. Dutt, and former Chief
Financial Officer, Charles A. Scheiwe.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded
securities between November 11, 2022 and September 30, 2024, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On January 14, 2025, the court granted an unopposed motion to
transfer the case to the Southern District of California for all
further proceedings (Case No. 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL).
On February 20, 2025, the court appointed Brandon Paulson to act as
lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 21, 2025, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 12, 2025, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
Following a mediation, on July 11, 2025, the parties entered into a
settlement term sheet to fully resolve the class action litigation.
The settlement was subsequently memorialized in a definitive
settlement agreement, executed on August 27, 2025, which was filed
with the court on August 28, 2025 in connection with an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
On October 23, 2025, the court held a preliminary hearing on
plaintiff's motion, but continued the hearing until December 4,
2025, pending certain supplemental submissions by the parties.
Flux Power Holdings designs, develops, manufactures and sells a
portfolio of advanced lithium-ion energy storage solutions for
electrification of a range of industrial commercial sectors which
include material handling, airport ground support equipment and
other commercial and industrial applications.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Christensen Seeks Initial OK of $750K Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS C. CHRISTENSEN,
JONATHAN JACK, and GLADIS MEDINA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01827-CPO-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order preliminary approving a class action Settlement in
the amount of $750,000.00.
The Plaintiffs will file a memorandum of law in support of the
unopposed motion separately.
The Defendant operates as a mortgage lender.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74BPiL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Javier Merino, Esq.
DANNLAW
825 Georges Road, Second Floor
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (201) 355-3340
E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Anna R. (Caplan) Doren, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
adoren@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS C. CHRISTENSEN,
JONATHAN JACK, and GLADIS MEDINA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01827-CPO-AMD (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Permitting the settlement administrator to send notice
consistent
with the forms attached to the accompanying stipulation as
Exhibits 1-2 to the Collective Action Members encompassed in
the
Parties' Agreement; and
2. Approving the Notice and the opt-in periods set forth in the
Agreement.
Accordingly, the Parties' proposed Notice plan is consistent with
the principles set forth by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit relative to Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA")
settlements.
The Defendant operates as a mortgage lender.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1KDOZr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Javier Merino, Esq.
DANNLAW
825 Georges Road, Second Floor
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (201) 355-3340
E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Anna R. (Caplan) Doren, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
adoren@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Tyler Z. Zmick, Esq.
Bernadette M. Coyle, Esq.
Gregory D. Herrold, Esq.
Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603-3433
Telephone: (312) 499-6700
Facsimile: (312) 279-6780
E-mail: GMaatman@duanemorris.com
TZmick@duanemorris.com
BCoyle@duanemorris.com
GDHerrold@duanemorris.com
DKlinges@duanemorris.com
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Bieber Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BIEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC Defendant,
Case No. 1:26-cv-00351 (W.D. Tex., February 13, 2026) is a putative
class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
To promote its services, the Defendant allegedly engages in
aggressive unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process. The Defendant utilizes aggressive
marketing to push its products and services without regards to
consumers' rights under the TCPA.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Goosehead Insurance Agency, LLC is an insurance company engaged in
the sale of home, auto and others insurance products and services
to consumers, based out of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
GOTHAM MEDICARE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Metelus Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARKIA METELUS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOTHAM MEDICARE ADVANTAGE, LLC d/b/a GOTHAM
HEALTHCARE, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 0:26-cv-60407 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2026) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for its
failure to pay federal overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours in workweeks for Defendant but
were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times their
regular rate for hours worked over 40, asserts the complaint. The
Defendant maintained a common pay practice and policy that resulted
in failing to pay overtime premiums and/or improperly paying all
hours at the straight-time rate even when employees worked
overtime, it adds.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its office in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida or at home from approximately July 12, 2023
through the present as a sales representative.
Gotham Medicare Advantage, LLC is a Florida for-profit limited
liability company that engages in insurance call-center
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
GRANITE WELLNESS: Establishes $725,000 Data Breach Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Granite Wellness
Centers in California and Pediatric Home Service in Minnesota have
both settled lawsuits stemming from cyberattacks that exposed
sensitive patient data.
Granite Wellness Centers Data Breach Settlement
Granite Wellness Centers, a network of drug addiction treatment
centers in Northern California, has agreed to settle class action
litigation over a January 2021 ransomware attack and data breach
that affected up to 15,600 individuals. The attack was detected on
or around January 5, 2021, and the forensic investigation confirmed
that the ransomware actor acquired files containing sensitive
patient data, including names, dates of birth, home addresses,
dates of care, treatment information, treatment providers, health
information, health insurance information, driver's license
numbers, medical histories, Social Security numbers, and bank
account numbers.
The affected individuals were notified on or around March 5, 2021,
and the first class action lawsuit was filed on June 14, 2023. An
amended complaint was filed in September 2023 -- Bente, et al. v.
Granite Wellness Centers -- in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Placer. The lawsuit asserted claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Granite Wellness Centers
maintains that there was no wrongdoing and denies claims that the
exposure of data caused any harm to individuals. Following
mediation, all parties agreed to settle the litigation to avoid the
cost and risk of a trial, with no admission of wrongdoing or
liability by the defendant.
Granite Wellness Centers has agreed to establish a $725,000
settlement fund to cover all costs associated with the litigation,
including attorneys' fees (up to 33.33% of the fund), litigation
expenses (up to $20,000), service awards for the class
representatives (up to $2,000 per class representative), and class
member benefits. There are three types of payments available to
class members. A claim may be submitted for a pro rata cash
payment, estimated to be approximately $750 per class member, but
may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims submitted.
A claim may be submitted for reimbursement of documented,
unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of
$5,000 per class member, and California residents at the time of
the data breach may submit a claim for an additional statutory $100
cash payment.
The deadline for opting out and objecting is March 28, 2026. The
deadline for submitting a claim is April 27, 2026, and the final
fairness hearing has been scheduled for April 28, 2026.
Pediatric Home Service Data Breach Settlement
Pediatric Home Respiratory Services (Pediatric Home Service), a
Roseville, MN-based independent children's home healthcare
provider, has agreed to settle litigation stemming from a November
2024 cyberattack and data breach. The lawsuit claims that 43,634
individuals were affected by the data breach. The HHS' Office for
Civil Rights was informed that the protected health information of
41,792 patients was exposed in the incident. The Pediatric Home
Service cyberattack was detected on November 7, 2024, and the
forensic investigation confirmed that an unauthorized third party
accessed its network between November 1, 2024, and November 7,
2024. The affected individuals were notified on January 8, 2025.
Two class action lawsuits were filed in response to the data
breach, which were consolidated into a single complaint -- In re
Pediatric Home Respiratory Services, LLC d/b/a Pediatric Home
Service Litigation --in the District Court for Ramsey County,
Minnesota. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, violation of the Minnesota
Health Records Act, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment,
and unjust enrichment. Pediatric Home Service denies all claims and
contentions in the lawsuit and maintains there was no wrongdoing.
Pediatric Home Service sought to have the lawsuit dismissed for
lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs
opposed the motion, and following mediation, a settlement was
agreed to resolve the litigation.
There are two cash payment options, one of which can be selected by
all class members. A claim may be submitted for reimbursement of
documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a
maximum of $1,500 per class member. Alternatively, a one-time cash
payment of $50 may be claimed. In addition, a claim may be
submitted for a 12- month membership to one of three credit
monitoring options: CyEx Medical Shield Complete, CyEx Identity
Defense Total, or CyEx Minor Defense Pro (for minors). The deadline
for objecting to the settlement and exclusion is April 8, 2026. The
claims deadline is April 23, 2026, and the final fairness hearing
has been scheduled for May 8, 2026. [GN]
HENRY INDUSTRIES: $300K Class Settlement in McEvoy Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE MCEVOY, et al., v.
HENRY INDUSTRIES, Case No. 2:22-cv-01678-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order as follows
1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement is
granted;
2. The Class and Collective as defined in the Settlement are
certified for settlement purposes;
3. The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Class Members
was reasonable, was the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and was valid, due, and sufficient notice to
Class Members in full compliance with the requirements of
applicable law;
4. The Court finds the Settlement in the Gross Settlement Amount
of $300,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the result
of arm's length informed negotiations; thus the terms set
forth in the Settlement are approved. The Parties are ordered
to implement and comply with the terms of the Settlement;
5. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Christine McEvoy and Leng
Sam as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes
only, the Class Representatives are each awarded $2,500
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and for their
services as Class Representatives;
6. The Court appoints Harold Lichten and Matthew W. Thompson of
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.; Adam Rose of Law Office of
Robert Starr; and Jeff Vollmer of Goodwin & Goodwin, LLP, as
Class Counsel for settlement purposes only.
7. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees
and costs. Class Counsel is awarded attorney's fees in the
amount of $75,000 and costs in the amount of $10,645.
8. The Court approves $10,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount to
resolve PAGA claims with 75% of that portion ($7,500) to be
paid to the LWDA as their share of the settlement for the
civil penalties alleged and 25% ($2,500) to be distributed to
the PAGA Class Members as their statutory share of the PAGA
penalties.
Henry Industries is a nationwide third-party logistics,
warehousing, and distribution solutions provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Me6V0A at no extra
charge.[CC]
HESAI GROUP: Narrows Claims in "Wong" IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as KING HO WONG, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HESAI GROUP, YIFAN
LI, LOUIS T. HSIEH, KAI SUN, SHAOQING XIANG, CAILIAN YANG, COLLEEN
A. DEVRIES, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY ASIA
LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES
(USA), INC., COGENCY GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-876
(CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss this
putative class action filed under the Securities Act of 1933.The
Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff King Ho Wong brought this putative class action on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated against Hesai Group, a
NASDAQ-traded holding company incorporated in the Cayman Islands
and headquartered in Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Hesai is
a producer of three-dimensional light detection and ranging
technology for passenger and commercial vehicles. The Plaintiff
also named Hesai's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, directors, authorized U.S. representative, and the four
underwriters of Hesai's February 2023 initial public offering as
defendants.
The Plaintiff alleged that the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering
contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning two principal topics: (1) the impact of Hesai's shift
toward lower-margin advanced driver assistance systems LiDAR
products on its gross margins; and (2) the risk that Hesai could be
designated by the United States Department of Defense as a Chinese
military company under Section 1260H of the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
and placed on the 1260H List.
The Offering Documents boasted that Hesai had earned gross margins
of over 50% in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The Plaintiff alleged that
these outstanding margins in prior years were based almost
exclusively on sales of Hesai's Autonomous Mobility products, and
that Hesai only began shipping its advanced driver assistance
systems products at commercial volumes in July 2022. According to
the complaint, the Offering Documents did not provide pricing,
cost, or margin information about these new products despite the
fact that Hesai planned to continue significantly ramping up their
production.
The Plaintiff further alleged that on March 16, 2023, just five
weeks after Hesai's initial public offering, Hesai's Chief
Financial Officer disclosed during an earnings call that Autonomous
Mobility products had a gross margin over 50% in 2022, while
advanced driver assistance systems products had a gross margin less
than 5% in 2022. Following these disclosures, Hesai's American
depositary share price fell $1.55, approximately 10.2%, that same
day.
Upon careful examination, the Court found that the Plaintiff
plausibly alleged that the Prospectus failed to disclose facts
necessary to appreciate the magnitude of the margin risk associated
with Hesai's shift toward LiDAR products. Although the Offering
Documents disclosed declining historical gross margins and an
expected further decline tied to product mix shifts, the Court
found that describing advanced driver assistance systems products
as having lower margins, without conveying the magnitude of that
difference, could plausibly be viewed as materially incomplete. The
Court noted that the bespeaks-caution doctrine provides no
protection to someone who warns his hiking companion to walk slowly
because there might be a ditch ahead when he knows with near
certainty that the Grand Canyon lies one foot away. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's Section 11 gross margin omission theory survived
dismissal.
Section 1260H Designation Risk - Time-Barred
The Plaintiff alleged that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose the material risk that Hesai could be named to a statutory
list of Chinese military companies by the U.S. Department of
Defense. On January 31, 2024, the Department of Defense published
the 1260H List and included Hesai on it. The Plaintiff alleged that
Hesai's American depositary share price fell $1.81, approximately
31%, on February 1, 2024.
The Plaintiff first asserted a Section 11 theory predicated on
alleged omissions concerning Section 1260H designation risk in the
amended complaint filed on November 11, 2025. The Court found that
by no later than July 17, 2024, the Plaintiff had access to a
written memorandum that identified the specific statutory prongs
applied against Hesai, articulated detailed entity-specific factual
findings supporting the military-civil fusion determination, tied
those findings to pre-initial public offering affiliations and
activities, and concluded that Hesai met the statutory definition
under Section 1260H. The one-year limitations period therefore
began to run no later than July 17, 2024, and expired on July 17,
2025. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Section 1260H
designation risk theory as time-barred under Section 13 of the
Securities Act.
The Court also rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the untimely
Section 11 theory related back to the initial complaint filed on
April 7, 2023. The original complaint focused exclusively on gross
margins related to product mix and undisclosed fourth-quarter
results and did not mention Section 1260H, the Department of
Defense, any risk of designation as a Chinese military company,
military-civil fusion enterprise zones, or any risk that Hesai
could lose its largest customer as a consequence of such a
designation. Therefore, the amended theory did not arise out of the
same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original complaint
and did not relate back.
Section 12(a)(2) Standing
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claim for lack
of statutory standing. The complaint alleged only that the
Plaintiff purchased Hesai American depositary shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents. The Court found that
the pleading contained no allegation as to the date, price, or
counterparty of the Plaintiff's purchase and no allegation that he
purchased directly in the initial public offering. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff lacked statutory standing to pursue a claim under Section
12(a)(2).
Section 15 Control-Person Liability
Having found a plausible primary violation under Section 11, the
Court found that the Plaintiff adequately pleaded control-person
liability under Section 15 against the individual defendants. The
Plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants were Hesai's
senior executives and directors at the time of the initial public
offering, reviewed and contributed to the drafting of the
registration statement, and signed it. Therefore, the Section 15
claim survived to the extent it was predicated on the surviving
Section 11 gross margin theory.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JqFHdf from PacerMonitor.com
Defendants Louis T. Hsieh, Cailian Yang, Shaoqing Xiang, Kai Sun,
Morgan Stanley Asia Limited, Yifan Li, Huatai Securities (USA),
Inc., Goldman Sachs (ASIA) L.L.C., and Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) L.L.C. are represented by:
Abby Faith Rudzin
Jonathan Rosenberg
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Email: arudzin@omm.com
Defendants Hesai Group, Colleen A. De Vries, and COGENCY GLOBAL
INC. are represented by:
Michael Charles Griffin
Scott D. Musoff
Robert Alexander Fumerton
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Email: michael.griffin@skadden.com
Movant Michael Dee is represented by:
Jeremy Alan Lieberman
Pomerantz LLP
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
Movant King Ho Wong and Plaintiff Alan Pacella are represented by:
Phillip C. Kim
Jing Chen
The Rosen Law Firm
Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com
HILL-ROM GROUP: Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
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 September 12, 2025
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice a June
20, 2024 putative class action complaint filed against Hill-Rom
Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc.
by Reading Hospital. The latter filed a Notice of Appeal of the
dismissal on October 9, 2025, and briefing is underway.
The complaint alleges that Hillrom violated Sections 1 and 2 of The
Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act by allegedly
engaging in anti-competitive conduct in alleged markets for
standard, ICU and birthing beds. The plaintiff filed the action on
behalf of itself and all "direct purchasers of Standard Hospital
Beds, ICU Beds, and/or Birthing Beds from Hill-Rom during a period
beginning at least as early as June 20, 2020” and continuing past
the date of filing.
On September 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. On November 8, 2024, Hillrom filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Briefing was completed in January
2025, and the court held a hearing on the motion on March 25,
2025.
Baxter International Inc. is a healthcare company based in
Illinois. It acquired Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. on December 13,
2021.
INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independence Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a Sherman Act-related class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
Starting around November 2022, putative class action
representatives began filing complaints in various United States
District Courts across the country naming as defendants RealPage,
Inc. ("RealPage"), a seller of revenue management products, and
approximately 50 defendants who own and/or manage multifamily
residential rental housing, alleging that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rent prices in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Some of the complaints, including one
filed on November 14, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, named the Company as one of the
defendants, and others did not.
Discovery is ongoing. It is not possible for the Company to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, which may be associated with
an adverse decision in this matter.
The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intend to
defend against these claims vigorously.
Independence Realty Trust, Inc., owns well-located apartment
properties in geographic submarkets that support strong occupancy
and have the potential for growth in rental rates.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Epperson Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE EPPERSON, V.INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., Case No.
2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Whitehurst entered
a fourth amended scheduling order for class certification hearing.
Motion for extension of a deadline in any matter pending before the
undersigned shall be filed at least two (2) business days prior to
the deadline.
The moving party shall provide the undersigned the specific reasons
justifying the extension, even if the motion is unopposed. No
request for extension filed in violation of this order will be
granted absent a showing of good cause.
The scope of Phase I discovery shall be limited to matters
necessary for Plaintiff to fashion a class and file a motion for
class certification.
Although the court sets no specific deadline for completion of
discovery, the parties will note that Phase I Motions to Compel
must be filed no later than April 20, 2026, absent leave of court.
A two-day Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of International Paper Company
shall take place by March 9, 2026.
Phase I motions to compel discovery shall be filed no later than
April 20, 2026.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no
later than July 1, 2026.
Motions to amend the pleadings must be filed no later than July 1,
2026.
Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and
26(a)(2), the Plaintiff shall serve disclosures related to class
certification on or before July 1, 2026.
International is an American pulp and paper company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LioKyI at no extra
charge.[CC]
J. STRICKLAND AND CO: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J. STRICKLAND AND CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01217 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
January 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Blue Magic Coconut
Oil from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate
pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken
links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.
J. Strickland and Co. operates the website that offers haircare
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN: Agrees to Settle Sex Trafficking Suit for $35MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for KSL.com, reports that Epstein's estate
agrees to a $35M settlement over sex trafficking lawsuit claims.
Jeffrey Epstein's estate has agreed to pay as much as $35 million
to resolve a class action lawsuit that accused two of the disgraced
financier's advisers of aiding and abetting his sex trafficking of
young women and teenage girls, according to a court filing on
Thursday, February 19.
Boies Schiller Flexner, a law firm representing Epstein victims,
announced the settlement in a brief filed in federal court in
Manhattan.
The deal, if approved by a judge, would bring an end to a 2024
lawsuit filed against Epstein's former personal lawyer Darren
Indyke and former accountant Richard Kahn, who are co-executors
of Epstein's estate.
Epstein's estate previously set up a restitution fund that paid out
$121 million to victims. The estate also paid out $49 million in
additional settlements to victims.
Neither Indyke nor Kahn "made any admission or concession of
misconduct" as part of the settlement made public on February 19,
their lawyer Daniel H. Weiner said in an emailed statement.
"Because they did nothing wrong, the co-executors were prepared to
fight the claims against them through to trial, but agreed to
mediate and settle this lawsuit in order to achieve finality as to
any potential claims against the Epstein Estate," Weiner said.
Weiner said the settlement would provide "a confidential avenue for
financial relief" for Epstein victims who have not already resolved
claims against the estate.
Epstein died in a New York jail in August 2019. His death was ruled
a suicide.
In the 2024 lawsuit, lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner said
Indyke and Kahn helped Epstein create a complex web of corporations
and bank accounts that let him hide his abuses and pay victims and
recruiters, while leaving them "richly compensated" for their
work.
The Boies law firm previously helped obtain $365 million of
settlements with JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank after accusing
them of missing red flags about Epstein, once a lucrative client.
[GN]
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised K-Cups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Bradley Davin filed a
class action lawsuit against Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.
Why: Davin claims Keurig falsely advertises its K-Cups as
recyclable when they are not.
Where: The Keurig class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal
court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges Keurig falsely advertises its
K-Cup single-use beverage pods as recyclable.
Plaintiff Bradley Davin filed the class action complaint against
Keurig Dr Pepper on Jan. 29 in Florida federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.
Davin says Keurig markets and sells plastic single-serve coffee
pods nationwide in retail and online stores, such as Amazon.
However, he claims the company deceptively labels and advertises
its K-Cup single-use beverage pods as "recyclable K-Cups" despite
the fact that a majority of consumers are unable to recycle
K-Cups.
Most recycling centers in the United States do not recycle K-Cups
due to their small size, irregular shape, multi-material
construction, frequent contamination issues and unfavorable
economic factors, the class action lawsuit says.
Davin's lawsuit alleges Keurig's misrepresentations concerning the
products are unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and have the tendency or
capacity to deceive or confuse reasonable consumers.
Class action claims Keurig violates state law with deceptive
marketing
Davin argues Keurig's practices violate Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Despite these facts, Keurig promotes its K-Cup pods as "recyclable"
because they are made from polypropylene #5 plastic, Davin claims.
However, the company relies on a purely theoretical definition of
recyclability that ignores the fundamental principles outlined in
the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides and does not align with
consumer understanding, he says.
This deceptive marketing strategy allows Keurig to exploit consumer
demand for environmentally responsible products, the lawsuit
alleges.
Davin says if he had known that the products were not recyclable,
he would not have purchased them and would have instead sought out
single-serve pods or other coffee products that are otherwise
compostable, recyclable or reusable.
At a minimum, Davin says he would not have paid as much as he did
if he had known the products could not be recycled.
Davin is looking to represent anyone who purchased Keurig Dr Pepper
single-use K-Cup products in Florida or any state with similar
laws, within the applicable statute of limitations, for personal
use and not for resale.
He is suing for violations of state and federal consumer laws and
fraud and is seeking certification of the class action, damages,
fees, costs and a jury trial.
In another class action, Keurig Dr Pepper and Keurig Green Mountain
are facing allegations they shortchanged consumers by starting the
warranty period on their coffee makers on the date of purchase
instead of the date of delivery.
The plaintiff is represented by William Wright of The Wright Law
Office.
The Keurig K-Cups class action lawsuit is Davin v. Keurig Dr Pepper
Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-20604, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. [GN]
KNOW INK: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Tooker Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JARED TOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNOW INK LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:26-cv-01267 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages for Plaintiff and others similarly
situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
support specialists do not receive overtime pay for hours worked
over 40 in each workweek. The Defendant also failed to keep
accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff and the Class
members.
As a result, Know Ink misclassified support specialists as exempt
employees under the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed as a technical service & support
specialist from October 3, 2019 to January 2, 2024. He was a remote
worker based out of his home in Dutchess County, New York.
Know Ink provides voter check-in and verification processes for
election authorities throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
KROGER CO: Certain Exhibits in Womick Suit Maintains Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
KROGER CO., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Rosenstengel entered an order maintaining Exhibits 2 and 11 under
seal.
The Court will revisit the propriety of maintaining the seal over
these documents at the conclusion of the case.
The Court has reviewed Exhibits 2 and 11 and finds that they are
entitled to confidential treatment.
Exhibits 2 and 11 appear to fit the bill under ITSA and the
Court’s protective order. They reflect nonpublic information
related to Kroger’s product labeling and the creation of such
labels. Kroger has taken steps to ensure their protection from
public disclosure because it derives economic value from their
confidential treatment and would conversely suffer economic harm if
they were publicly disclosed.
The Court therefore finds it appropriate to keep Exhibits 2 and 11
sealed.
Kroger is an American retail corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JM02U2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEVTOP INC: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. LEVTOP INC. and OSTERIA
VECCHIO PIEMONTE CORP D/B/A OSTERIA VECCHIO PIEMONTE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:26-cv-20985 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2026) is a class
action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA, uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He is limited
in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to
walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching.
The Defendant/landlord owns, operates and/or oversees a commercial
property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots
specific to the restaurant business operating within the property
and all other common areas open to the public located within the
property.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered architectural
barriers at the commercial property and restaurant business located
within the property. The barriers to access at Defendants'
commercial property and restaurant business have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public
accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the
ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury,
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated, adds the complaint.
Levtop Inc. owns, operates and oversees a restaurant within its
commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
mds@ajperezlawgroup.com
LIVE VENTURES INC: Faces Sieggreen Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2025, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2026, that it is
facing an August 13, 2021 class action complaint by a Daniel E.
Sieggreen for violation of federal securities laws in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the
company, Jon Isaac, the company's current President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Virland Johnson, the company's former Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.
The complaint seeks damages in connection with the purchases and
sales of the company's securities between December 28, 2016 and
August 3, 2021. As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a
stipulation to stay proceedings pending the resolutions of the
motions to dismiss in the SEC Complaint.
On February 1, 2023, the final motion to dismiss relating to the
SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the
Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on March 6, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was
heard on September 30, 2024. The court granted the motion with
leave to amend. The second amended complaint was recently filed.
The Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 31, 2024. The
company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
December 16, 2024 and the briefing is complete. On September 30,
2025, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The company filed its response on December 1, 2025, and
fact and expert discovery is scheduled to conclude by June 29,
2027.
Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a
strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic
middle-market companies.
LOWE'S HOME: Harmon Sues Over Deceptive Free Delivery Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
EMILEIGH HARMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:26-cv-00119 (W.D.N.C., February 13, 2026) is a proposed class
action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and
declaratory relief from Lowe's, arising from its misrepresentations
and material omissions regarding its deceptive mark-up of products
sold on its website Lowes.com
According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently advertises
that it provides "free" delivery on online orders meeting a certain
monetary threshold and that it determines delivery fees for all
other online orders based on shipping method and total order
weight. But, contrary to these promises, and unbeknownst to
consumers, the Defendant also furtively adds a separate,
unadvertised delivery fee to the total price of its online
products. In other words, the identical product costs more when
ordered through Lowes.com than it does when bought in the store
because of surreptitiously added costs associated with delivery.
The Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions are material to
consumers. The Defendant deceives Plaintiff and other consumers
into making online orders that they otherwise would not make and
has caused them to suffer monetary injury by paying more for items
than they otherwise would have had they purchased those same items
in-store, says the suit.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC retails home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
9 SW Pack Square, Suite 301
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 316-6902
E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
MARLBORO PLAZA: Court Grants Motion to Approve "Wilson" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Donald Wilson, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Marlboro Plaza, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
8:22-cv-01465-AAQ (D. Md.), Judge Ajmel A. Quereshi of the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland granted
Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Approval of Settlement pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Section 216.
This dispute concerned unpaid wages under FLSA. Plaintiff Donald
Wilson worked as a delivery driver at a Domino's store owned by
Defendant in Seat Pleasant, Maryland. On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleging that Defendant improperly reimbursed them for vehicle
expenses, such that their wages fell below the applicable minimum
wage. The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on April 27,
2023.
The parties participated in mediation on November 21, 2025, and on
December 19, 2025, filed a Notice of Settlement stating they had
reached an agreement in principle.
The Court found that a bona fide dispute existed, as Defendant and
Plaintiff disagreed as to whether Defendant properly paid Plaintiff
a minimum wage, and Defendant contested whether liquidated damages
were appropriate.
Upon evaluating the six fairness factors, the Court found the
Settlement Agreement fair and reasonable. The parties spent several
months negotiating and exchanging information prior to mediation.
The settlement was the product of arms-length negotiation involving
an experienced mediator, with no evidence of fraud or collusion.
Plaintiffs' counsel had served in dozens of wage-and-hour matters
on behalf of classes of pizza delivery drivers in federal courts
throughout the Fourth Circuit. Both counsel averred that a jury
would have had to decide multiple factual issues bearing on
Plaintiffs' ultimate recovery.
Plaintiff will recover 40% of their maximum recovery. The Court
noted that, had the case proceeded to trial, Plaintiff may have had
to rely on their own estimates of how much they drove to justify
their damages calculations.
The Settlement Agreement awarded $64,287.29 in attorneys' fees and
costs, with $50,000 allocated to fees. Plaintiffs' counsel
determined a lodestar of $68,175.00 and reduced that figure by
$18,175.00 as part of the settlement compromise. Counsel devoted
more than 90 hours to the case at a billing rate of $750 per hour.
The Court found the fees reasonable and accordingly granted the
Motion for Approval of Settlement, directing that the case be
closed.
A Copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UDq8EW from PacerMonitor.com
Defendant
Malcolm Carter
Represented By
William Carroll Johnson, Jr
The Johnson Law Group, LLC
202-525-2958
wcjjatty@yahoo.com
Defendant
Marlboro Pizza, LLC
Represented By
William Carroll Johnson, Jr
The Johnson Law Group, LLC
202-525-2958
wcjjatty@yahoo.com
Plaintiff
Donald Wilson
Represented By
David M Haynie
Forester Haynie
matthew@foresterhaynie.com
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Judge Curbs Claims in Mustard Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Black Chronicle News Service reports that a federal judge has put
the squeeze on the majority of a class action accusing the makers
of French's mustard of improperly marketing its condiment as
"American Flavor in a Bottle" despite using Canadian-grown mustard
seed as a key ingredient.
Darnell McCoy sued McCormick & Company for allegedly violating
California consumer protection laws, and other common law claims,
basing his complaint on an April 2023 online shopping experience
while living in Manteca. He said he was reviewing details on
French's Dijon Mustard and noted product packaging promoting the
mustard was "Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO, USA" in
addition to the principal display panel on the front. He said he
paid $3.42 for the bottle from Walmart, claiming that his prior
purchases of other French's mustards relied on presentation of the
products as domestically sourced and created.
McCoy's complaint is rooted in a claim that most, if not all, of
the mustard seed French's uses comes from Canada, while certain
products, like yellow mustard, include imported turmeric.
In April 2025, McCormick moved to dismiss the initial complaint.
That July, a court issued findings and recommended a federal
district judge grant the motion based on determining McCoy's claims
failed to allege the product ingredients exceeded the law's "safe
harbor" provision under which raw materials don't trigger the same
labeling requirements as manufactured components.
In August, the district judge adopted those findings but also
expressing it is improper to equate a California law's reference to
"wholesale value" with how the Federal Trade Commission uses the
word "cost." McCoy filed an amended complaint in September and
McCormick moved to dismiss a few weeks later. That request landed
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone, of the Eastern District
of California, who issued a ruling Feb. 9.
McCormick argued that even if McCoy successfully pleaded the safe
harbor provision is inapplicable, there still is no violation
because ingredients from other countries are "raw materials," while
further challenging the allegation the labels would deceive a
reasonable consumer.
Boone said he agreed McCoy's allegations were sufficient to show
the safe harbor provision doesn't apply but rejected the contention
"the cultivation of mustard is synonymous with manufacturing a
product" and also agreed with McCormick's stance on whether the
labels were deceptive.
Although the complaint detailed the cultivation process, Boone
wrote, McCoy still "has not alleged that mustard is manufactured or
produced, as defined by the California Court of Appeal," and his
complaint doesn't "describe how mustard grown in Canada is
'transformed' into a new and different article, product or
commodity, having a distinctive name, character or use. Rather,
(McCoy) merely describes the act of growing a plant from seed to
seed. And while (McCoy) attempts to separate mustard into its
district parts (i.e., the mustard plant from the mustard seed),
this logic defies commonsense."
Boone said the complaint doesn't allege McCormick uses seeds
processed outside the United States and further agreed with the
company that its label statements aren't deceptive. Use of the word
"crafted," the company said, doesn't imply all the ingredients were
grown and harvested in Missouri and the "American Flavor" message
isn't a claim about the product's origin. Boone agreed, further
noting the analysis might be different had the bottle used language
such as "Made in the USA," which is subject to heightened scrutiny
under California law.
McCormick didn't dispute it uses Canadian-grown mustard seed, but
did argue McCoy didn't sufficiently allege "the mustard seed
constitutes five or more percent of the final wholesale value" of
its products, Boone wrote, explaining both sides seemingly
consented the law doesn't define the concept of final value. As
such, McCormick wanted to import a definition from another state
law regarding "Made in California" labeling -- Boone said that law
covers "direct and indirect material and labor costs of a product
or a component" -- while McCoy pointed to the earlier distinction
including "consideration of consumer preferences in a manner
consistent with the FTC's standard."
Boone rejected McCormick's argument and said McCoy "sufficiently
pleaded, under the circumstances of this case, that the wholesale
value of mustard seed in mustard products exceeds five percent,"
meaning he wouldn't recommend dismissing the complaint on those
grounds. He likewise said McCoy had sufficient allegations under
California's unfair competition, false advertising and consumers'
legal remedies laws.
Finally, although Boone agreed McCoy did show he had the standing
to pursue an injunction, he agreed with McCormick that it is proper
to dismiss the request for equitable relief and that McCoy can't be
allowed to expand his class action to cover products he never
bought.
Based on which arguments remain underdeveloped, Boone said, he
recommended allowing McCoy the chance to amend his complaint
relative to express warranty, negligent misrepresentation and
intentional misrepresentation.
McCoy is represented by attorney Pamela Prescott, of the Kazerouni
Law Group, of Costa Mesa.
McCormick is represented by attorney Amit Rana and others with the
firm of Amit Rana Venable LLP, of San Francisco. [GN]
NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neogenomics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Goldenberg shareholder class
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
On December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action
captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort,
Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers as defendants ("the Goldenberg Matter"). This lawsuit was
filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges
that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
Company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with
health care laws and regulations. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Goldenberg Matter on February 5, 2024 and the plaintiff
filed its opposition to the motion on March 21, 2024.
The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to
dismiss. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees and expert fees. The court in this case stayed the
proceedings pending the outcome of the Goldenberg Matter.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims
alleged in the lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail. As of the filing of this report with the SEC, the
outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable.
NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer reference laboratory that provides
cancer testing and partnership programs to pathologists and
oncologists.[BN]
NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Cookers' Defective Coating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Crock-Pot faces a
proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the nonstick Teflon
coating in the company's Easy-to-Clean line of slow cookers is
prone to detach, bubble, flake, chip and peel off into food,
rendering the product impossible to clean, ineffective for cooking,
and wholly unfit for its intended use.
According to the 58-page class action lawsuit, expert microscopy
testing commissioned by the plaintiff has revealed that the
nonstick coating used in the Crock-Pot 7-Quart Easy-to-Clean Cook
and Carry Slow Cooker in black stainless steel and the Crock-Pot
One Touch Control 6-Quart Easy-to-Clean Slow Cooker in stainless
steel was produced with an "excess amount" of mica in the Teflon.
Per the case, this material defect creates separation between the
Teflon and ceramic materials, essentially preventing the Teflon
from properly adhering to the ceramic materials and causing the
non-stick coating to "flake, bubble, chip, and peel" off the
surface during everyday use.
The lawsuit emphasizes that ingesting the nonstick coating poses a
significant health risk to consumers. Per the complaint, the Teflon
with which the nonstick coating is made contains synthetic
chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) --
forever chemicals -- which can be harmful to human health.
The case says Crock-Pot deliberately represents on the slow
cookers' packaging that they have an "Easy to Clean Non-Stick
PFOA-Free Coating." However, the suit contends that Crock-Pot
"knows or should have known" that reasonable consumers would
understand that to mean the coating contains no PFAS at all, or
"any other chemicals which could be harmful to human health if
ingested."
The filing alleges that the nonstick Teflon coating, in fact,
contains polytetrafluoroethylene (PFTE), a plastic coating in the
PFAS family. When the Teflon coating inevitably fails and begins
migrating into consumers' food, the case says, the food is not safe
to be eaten.
The filing goes on to say that Crock-Pot "fails to acknowledge the
defect or otherwise advise consumers about . . . the safety risks
from Teflon ingestion."
In addition to the considerable health risks of ingesting
potentially toxic substances, the Teflon problem apparently
plaguing the slow cookers also renders them "difficult or
impossible to clean properly," which contradicts the product's
"Easy-Clean" representations.
Moreover, the filing claims that Crock-Pot has breached the
warranty on its slow cookers, which state that the products are
"free from defects in material and workmanship" and are valid for
one year after purchase. However, the warranty "excludes coverage
for normal wear and tear," and the lawsuit notes that consumers may
interpret this to mean that Teflon failure is not covered because
it typically occurs during foreseeable, reasonable use.
The filing alleges that the Crock-Pot defect is latent and that
consumers cannot reasonably foresee that regular use of the product
would cause it to fail. The lawsuit points out that the defective
Crock-Pots at issue were no longer available for purchase on the
Crock-Pot website as of November 1, 2025.
"The defect renders the products unsuitable for their intended
purpose of cooking food and being Easy-to-Clean, as the failure of
the nonstick coating can contaminate food; makes the products
difficult or impossible to clean properly; and ultimately unfit for
use for any purpose," the filing summarizes.
The plaintiff purchased a Crock-Pot slow cooker in 2023 from Target
for everyday household use, the case says. When making the
purchase, the plaintiff believed Crock-Pot's representations about
the "performance, quality, and use of the slow cookers." Per the
complaint, the coating on the plaintiff's slow cooker began to fail
and flake off within one year of purchase.
The Crock-Pot false advertising class action lawsuit seeks to cover
all United States residents who either purchased a new Crock-Pot
slow cooker manufactured at the earliest time permitted by the
statute of limitations, or received as a gift, from a donor meeting
those requirements, a new slow cooker not used by the donor or by
anyone else after the donor gave the slow cooker to the class
member. [GN]
NEWREZ LLC: Wins Bid to Toss "Tuttle"
-------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Gregory Tuttle, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and Sarah Tuttle, Plaintiffs, v.
NewRez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, and Terwin
Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL, by U.S. Bank National Association as
Trustee, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:25CV223 (M.D.N.C.), Judge
Thomas D. Schroeder of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety.
Gregory and Sarah Tuttle built their home in Yadkinville, North
Carolina, in 1999. In 2005, they refinanced with an 80/20 mortgage
structure. The Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
September 2006. Mr. Tuttle's personal obligation under the second
loan was discharged in January 2007. He subsequently defaulted, and
the servicer charged off the second mortgage in April 2009.
Following a 2018 regulatory update under the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA) requiring servicers to resume periodic statements to
post-bankruptcy consumers, Mr. Tuttle began receiving statements
reflecting retroactive interest and fees that added approximately
$20,000 to the $54,000 outstanding principal balance. In May 2023,
a notice of default was sent to Mr. Tuttle threatening foreclosure,
and foreclosure proceedings commenced in late 2023.
The Plaintiffs asserted claims under the North Carolina Debt
Collection Act (NCDCA), the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), a declaratory judgment claim, and a
breach of contract claim.
Upon careful examination of the NCDCA claims in Counts 1 through 4
and 7, the court found that the Plaintiffs failed to allege any
conduct that would violate the NCDCA independent of the Defendants'
putative TILA violations. Courts have consistently rejected
attempts to enforce TILA against non-creditors through the FDCPA,
the NCDCA's federal counterpart. Therefore, Counts 1 through 4 and
7 were dismissed.
According to the court, the UDTPA claim in Count 8 was similarly
predicated on nonactionable TILA violations and therefore failed as
a matter of law. Count 8 was dismissed.
On the breach of contract claim in Count 6, the court found that
the Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that
the default notice listed an incorrect amount, relying entirely on
Defendants' putative TILA violations. As to the failure to send a
default notice to Ms. Tuttle, the court found this did not
constitute a material breach, as the notice was delivered to her
husband and co-borrower at the same property address, and no
allegation was made that she was unaware of the impending
foreclosure. Count 6 was therefore dismissed.
Accordingly, because all substantive claims failed, the declaratory
judgment claim in Count 5 and all class allegations were also
dismissed. The court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the amended complaint in full.
A Copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A8n77w from PacerMonitor.com
Defendant
NEWREZ, LLC
Represented By
JASMINE KELLY GARDNER
Mcguirewoods LLP
704-343-2262
jgardner@mcguirewoods.com
Defendant
TERWIN MORTGAGE TRUST 2005-3SL
Represented By
JASMINE KELLY GARDNER
Mcguirewoods LLP
704-343-2262
jgardner@mcguirewoods.com
Plaintiff
GREGORY TUTTLE
Represented By
CASEY NASH
Kelly Guzzo, PLC
703-424-7571
casey@kellyguzzo.com
KRISTI CAHOON KELLY
Kelly Guzzo, PLC
703-424-7572
kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
NIKITA BAKER: Class Cert Hearing in D.N.N. Rescheduled to March 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.N.N., et al., v. Nikita
Baker, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01613 (D. Md., Filed May 20, 2025),
the Hon. Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion for amended scheduling order:
The hearing on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
and Preliminary Injunction is rescheduled to 10:00 a.m. on March 3,
2026, in Courtroom 3A.
The parties shall provide their joint report on witnesses, as well
as their hearing exhibit binders, in accordance with the order at
ECF No.145 by February 24, 2026, and February 26, 2026,
respectively.
The nature of suit states Judicial Review of Agency Action.[CC]
NORTH AMERICAN: Keohohou Sues Over Illegal Sports Gambling Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAMANA KEOHOHOU and NICHOLAS EVANS, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH AMERICAN
DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE, INC. D/B/A CRYPTO.COM, FORIS DAX, INC., and
DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20996 (S.D. Fla., February
13, 2026) alleges that Defendants' advertisements and website
representations induced Plaintiffs to wager significant amounts of
money via the gambling website, Crypto.com on the false pretense
that Defendants' sports betting platform was legal in California.
Defendant North American Derivatives Exchange launched its "Sports
Event Trading" service and allowed its users to place bets by
making "trade predictions" on the outcome of sporting events.
The complaint asserts that Crypto.com falsely represents to its
users that its services are legal and generally leaves reasonable
consumers with the impression they are using a legal and regulated
service. Based on Crypto.com's representations, Plaintiffs Kamana
Keohohou, Nicholas Evans, and the Classes specifically bargained
for entry into legal sports gambling contests. But all they
received from Crypto.com was entry into illegal sports gambling
contests. The Plaintiffs and the Classes did not receive the
benefit of the bargain, as the illegal entries had substantially
less (in fact zero) value than entry into legal contests, says the
suit.
North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., doing business as
Crypto.com | Derivatives North America, is a Delaware incorporated
derivatives exchange with its principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Vanessa A. Buchko, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
vbuchko@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Wesley M. Griffith, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (310) 896-5813
E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
David A. McGee, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
3133 Connecticut Ave Nw.
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 913-5681
E-mail: dmcgee@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
James Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 344-5461
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Michael Piggins, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC
3011 W. Grand Blvd., Fl. 24
Detroit, MI 48202
Telephone: (231) 366-3108
E-mail: mpiggins@weitzlux.com
- and -
Margot P. Cutter, Esq.
CUTTER LAW, P.C.
401 Watt Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 290-9400
E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com
cstevens@cutterlaw.com
- and -
F. Peter Silva II, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
333 H Street, Suite 5000
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Telephone: (510) 588-5299
E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com
- and -
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
Robert M. Devling, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
rdevling@tzlegal.com
OPENLOOP HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Cyberattack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman, writing for kcrg.com, reports that a Des Moines
company is facing a potential class action lawsuit over an alleged
cyberattack that may have exposed the health data of 1.6 million
people to unauthorized disclosure.
OpenLoop Health, a digital-health infrastructure company that
partners with various health care organizations in providing
telehealth services to patients, is being sued in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Kathy Morehart of Texas, allege
Morehart and others who are part of a potential class of victims
numbering in the thousands relied on OpenLoop to keep their private
health information confidential.
The lawsuit claims that on Jan. 7, 2026, a group of cybercriminals
known as "stuckin2019" claimed to have hacked into OpenLoop's
computer system and to have accessed a cache of highly sensitive
and private information. The lawsuit alleges that stuckin2019 is
claiming the information is linked to more than 1.6 million
patients in the United States.
The lawsuit also alleges OpenLoop has failed to notify patients of
the data breach and that the company had long been "on notice that
companies in the healthcare industry are susceptible targets for
data breaches," given highly publicized cyberattacks in the
industry and FBI warnings that date back to 2014.
The lawsuit claims OpenLoop's data breach "resulted from a
combination of insufficiencies that indicate (the company) failed
to comply with safeguards mandated by Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations and industry
standards."
The lawsuit seeks not only monetary relief for all potential
victims of the data breach, but a court injunction that will, in
theory, provide protection from any additional data breaches going
forward. The lawsuit also seeks an order instructing OpenLoop to
pay for lifetime credit monitoring and identity-theft insurance for
all class members.
One study cited in the lawsuit found that confirmed identity-theft
cases stemming from health care data breaches have cost individuals
an average of $20,000 -- often through out-of-pocket costs
associated with their health care coverage.
While credit card information can sell for as little as $1 to $2 on
the black market, protected health information can sell for as much
as $363, according to the lawsuit.
"Plaintiff and class members are at an increased risk of fraud and
identity theft, including medical identity theft, for many years
into the future," the lawsuit alleges. "(They) have no choice but
to vigilantly monitor their accounts for many years to come."
OpenLoop has yet to respond to the lawsuit.
Larry Trittschuh, chief information security officer for OpenLoop,
said Thursday, February 19, the company was "subject to a security
incident in January 2026. Upon learning of this, we acted quickly
to investigate, contain, and remediate the incident. We also
reached out to and coordinated with law enforcement. Now that our
investigation is complete, we are moving toward providing notice to
impacted individuals. At this time, we can confirm that no
financial information or Social Security numbers were
compromised."
Trittschuh said OpenLoop is "continuing to monitor our systems
closely to ensure the ongoing security of patient information.
Protecting customer data and the security and integrity of our
platform and services are responsibilities that we take
seriously."
Two of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case are J.
Barton Goplerud and Brian O. Marty of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud
& Weese in West Des Moines. [GN]
ORACLE CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against Oracle Corporation (NYSE: ORCL) (Oracle) on behalf
of investors who purchased or acquired Oracle common stock between
June 12, 2025, and December 16, 2025, inclusive (the Class Period).
This action, captioned Barrows v. Oracle Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:26-cv-00127-JLH, was filed on February 3, 2026, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware and is pending
before the Honorable Jennifer L. Hall.
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Oracle common stock during the Class Period may, no later
than April 6, 2026, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for
the class.
CONTACT KTMC TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:
If you purchased or acquired uniQure ordinary shares and
experienced losses, you are encouraged to contact KTMC attorney
Jonathan Naji, Esq. at: (484) 270-1453, info@ktmc.com
https://www.ktmc.com/orcl-oracle-corporation-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=NewMediaWire&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_campaign=orcl&mktm=PR
There is no cost or obligation to speak with an attorney.
ORACLE CORPORATIONCLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - COMPLAINT ALLEGATION
SUMMARY:
Oracle, a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
in Austin, Texas, is a technology company that provides, among
other things, infrastructure for operating artificial intelligence
(AI) programs. During the Class Period, Defendants misled
investors by touting the Oracle's contracts to develop data center
capabilities for AI infrastructure and falsely assuring investors
that the Company's significant capital expenditures (CapEx) would
quickly result in accelerated revenue growth.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, about Oracle's business
and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Oracle's AI infrastructure strategy
would result in massive increases in CapEx without equivalent,
near-term growth in revenue; (2) Oracle's substantially increased
spending created serious risks involving Oracle's debt and credit
rating, free cash flow, and ability to fund its projects, among
other concerns; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations
about Oracle's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT ORCL INVESTORS CAN DO NOW:
1. File to be lead plaintiff by April 6, 2026.
2. Contact KTMC for a free case evaluation.
3. Retain counsel of choice or take no action.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR ORACLE CORPORATION INVESTORS:
Oracle investors may, no later than April 6, 2026, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Oracle investors to
contact the firm for more information.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC):
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S.
plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions
and global investor protection. The firm represents individual
investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds,
asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of
the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been
recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades,
including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and
Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll
of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action
Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers,
and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates
globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. For more
information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit
www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Jonathan Naji, Esq..
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
OSTIN TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ostin
Technology Group Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: OST) ordinary shares between
May 11, 2025 and June 26, 2025. OST purports to be a manufacturer
of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display ("TFT-LCD") modules
and polarizers used in consumer electronics, commercial LCD
displays, and automotive displays.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. (OST) Engaged in a Pump-and-Dump
Scheme that Defrauded Investors
According to the complaint, on September 12, 2025, the U.S.
Department of Justice unsealed a criminal indictment in the Eastern
District of Virginia charging defendants Lai Kui Sen, OST's
co-Chief Executive Officer, and Yan Zhao, a financial advisor, with
conspiracy to commit securities fraud under Title 18, and wire
fraud and securities fraud under Title 15. The indictment alleges
that the defendants, along with at least fifteen coconspirators,
orchestrated a scheme that netted over $110 million in illicit
proceeds.
Plaintiff alleges that beginning in April 2025, Lai Kui Sen and
co-conspirators engineered a fraudulent sequence of securities
offerings specifically designed to place the majority of OST shares
in the hands of at least fifteen co-conspirators for pennies per
share or, in many cases, for no consideration whatsoever. These
securities offerings were synchronized with a fraudulent campaign
to artificially inflate the price and trading volume of the OST
stock through social media and messaging service applications,
including paid promotions that impersonated actual investment
advisors and financial professionals.
During the class period, the fraudulent promotional campaign
artificially inflated the value of OST from an approximately $22
million company (based on a stock price of $0.78 on April 14, 2025)
into a greater than $1 billion company by market capitalization
(based on a peak stock price of $9.40 on June 26, 2025). As OST's
stock price rose, Yan Zhao and Lai Kui Sen facilitated the opening
of brokerage accounts on behalf of co-conspirators, which were used
to hold the millions of OST shares that were obtained through
non-bona fide securities offerings to the co-conspirators.
On June 26, 2025, OST investors suffered devastating losses when
the selloff destroyed over $950 million (representing over 94%) of
OST’s market capitalization in a single day. The stock plummeted
from an intraday high of $9.40 to a closing price of $0.55.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. Shareholders who wish to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to
the court by April 17, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.
To be notified if a class action against Ostin Technology Group
Co., Ltd. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
PACIFIC LIFE: Agrees to Settle Life Insurance Class Suit for $58.3M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Pacific Life agreed to a $58.3
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it used
misleading illustrations to sell indexed universal life insurance
policies.
The Pacific Life settlement benefits individuals who purchased a
Pacific Discovery Xelerator (PDX) indexed universal life insurance
policy in California between 2016 and 2019.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Pacific Life of
using misleading illustrations to sell PDX policies. These
illustrations allegedly showed inflated profitability, causing
policyholders to pay "hidden costs that essentially eliminate the
value in the PDX Policies," the class action lawsuit contends.
Pacific Life is a life insurance company that offers a variety of
products, including indexed universal life insurance policies.
Pacific Life has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $58.3
million class action settlement to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the Pacific Life settlement, class members with
in-force policies can receive a credit to their policy's
accumulated value. These credits will vary depending on the amount
each class member paid in premiums compared to the total amount
paid by all class members. The settlement administrator will use
this ratio to determine each class member's share of the net
settlement fund.
Class members with terminated policies can receive term life
insurance coverage for three years. They can receive up to $25
million in term life insurance relief. In addition, class members
can receive insurance coverage on the same person who was insured
under the eligible PDX policy.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 10, 2026.
The final approval hearing for the Pacific Life indexed universal
life insurance settlement is scheduled for May 7, 2026.
Class members who wish to receive term insurance relief must submit
a claim form by April 10, 2026.
Who's Eligible
Policyowners, including legal entities, who purchased a Pacific
Discovery Xelerator policy issued in California.
Potential Award
Varies.
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/10/2026
Case Name
Mamboleo v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, Case No.
30-2021-01208045-CU-BT-CXC, in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for Orange County
Final Hearing
05/07/2026
Settlement Website
IllustrationSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Illustration Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
(833) 754-9443
Class Counsel
Andrew S. Friedman
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT P.C.
Howard Bushman
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM PLLC
Steven G. Sklaver
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
Defense Counsel
Irma Solares
CARLTON FIELDS P.A. [GN]
PELICAN INVESTMENT: Amended Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELINA SHOWERS,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PELICAN
INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, DIMENSION SERVICE CORPORATION, and
SING FOR SERVICE, LLP, Case No. 3:23-cv-02864-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Rosenstengel entered a first amended scheduling and
discovery order.
1. Service of written discovery requests and/or supplemental
written discovery requests shall be completed on or before
March 6, 2026.
2. On or before April 17, 2026, the Defendants shall identify
the persons most qualified to testify on topics designated in
the Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices served on
the Defendants in July 2025.
3. Depositions of the Defendants' respective Rule 30(b)(6)
witnesses shall be completed on or before May 6, 2026.
4. All fact discovery, including the issuance of any third-party
subpoena(s) shall be completed by June 5, 2026.
5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and memorandum
in Support shall be filed on or before Dec. 30, 2026, and
shall not exceed 20 pages.
6. The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class
certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 29, 2027.
7. The Plaintiff's reply nemorandum, if any, must be filed by
Feb. 15, 2027.
8. All other dispositive motions must be filed by March 15,
2027.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=znoqfd at no extra
charge.[CC]
PETROLEX II: Class Certification Bids in Kelly Suit Due May 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v. Petrolex II, LLC
et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 12, 2023), the
Hon. Margaret R. Guzman Judge entered an order granting assented to
motion for extension of time to complete discovery.
The Court will adopt the parties' proposed new deadlines:
-- Defendants' Expert Designations are due March 20, 2026
-- Depositions of Defendants' Experts are due April 16, 2026
-- The Class Certification Motions are now due May 21, 2026
The nature of suit states Torts -- Diversity-Property Damage.
Petrolex is a provider of heating oil, propane, and HVAC
services.[CC]
PICARD MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Picard Medical, Inc.
("Picard" or the "Company") (NYSE American: PMI) and reminds
investors of the April 13, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with
offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since
its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) that
Picard was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme
involving social media-based misinformation and impersonated
financial professionals; (2) that insiders and/or affiliates used
offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping
of shares during a price inflation campaign; and (3) that Picard's
public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the
false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock
price.
On October 24, 2025, Picard Medical, Inc. (NYSE: PMI) shares closed
at $5.31, a steep decline from the prior trading session's close of
$13.20 on October 23, 2025. This represents a drop of $7.89 per
share, or approximately a 59.8% decrease in value in a single
session, marking one of the most significant one-day declines since
the company's recent IPO.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Picard Medical's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the Picard Medical class action, go to
www.faruqilaw.com/PMI or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
PINE HOSPITALITY: Bid to Certify Class in Desposati Due March 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Desposati v. Pine
Hospitality, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01896 (D. Conn., Filed
Nov. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply.
-- Motion to certify class until March 12, 2026.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Pine operates a multi-location restaurant group throughout
Connecticut and New York.[CC]
PINE HOSPITALITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DESPOSATI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PINE
HOSPITALITY, INC., d/b/a RACANELLI RESTAURANT GROUP, SPIGA NEW
CANAAN GROUP, INC, GENNARO RACANELLI, and ALEX RACANELLI, Case No.
3:25-cv-01896-KAD (D. Conn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting a 30-day extension of time, up to and including
March 20, 2026, to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and issuance of notice.
The Plaintiff's motion is extensive and fact-intensive, raising
numerous legal and factual issues, including payroll practices, tip
reporting, and conditional certification standards under the FLSA,
all of which require careful review and investigation.
In addition, the undersigned counsel has multiple preexisting
litigation deadlines during February and early March 2026,
including dispositive motion briefing and court appearances in
unrelated matters. Additional time is necessary to prepare a
complete and accurate response.
Pine operates a multi-location restaurant group throughout
Connecticut and New York.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6b1B5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kenneth A. Votre, Esq.
VOTRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
90 Grove Street, Suite 209
Ridgefield, CT 06877
Telephone: (203) 498-0065
Facsimile: (203) 821-3595
E-mail: votrelaw@votreandassociates.com
POMDOCTOR LTD: Louie Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNE LOUIE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
POMDOCTOR, LTD.; ZHENYANG SHI; LI XU; COGENCY GLOBAL, INC.; JOSEPH
STONE CAPITAL, LLC; MARCUM ASIA CPAS, LLP; Case No.
1:26-cv-01013-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Abrams entered an
order referring case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for the following
purpose:
General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement)
Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Any motion(s) to
appoint a lead plaintiff Any class certification motion(s)
Pomdoctor is an online medical services platform for chronic
diseases.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SYlmWP at no extra
charge.[CC]
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Cherkin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHERKIN, et al., v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02706-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs, on April 23, 2026, will move the Court for an Order
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3)
that grants the following relief:
Certifies a Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2)
for all causes of action seeking injunctive relief in Plaintiffs'
Complaint ("Complaint") defined as:
"All persons in the United States who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to
the present, attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool products:
1) PowerSchool Student Information Solutions ("PowerSchool
SIS")
2) Schoology Learning
3) Performance Matters
4) Naviance
5) MTSS
6) Behavior Support
7) Attendance Intervention
8) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
9) Connected Intelligence"
Certifies two nationwide classes for damages under Rule 23(b)(3),
the Student Data Warehouse Class and the Student Profiling and
Prediction Class, for all causes of action in the Complaint seeking
monetary relief defined as:
Student Data Warehouse Class
"All persons in the United States who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to
the present, attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Student Data Warehouse Products"), and PowerSchool hosts the
collected data for at least one product:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Connected Intelligence"
Student Profiling and Prediction Class
"All persons in the United States who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to
the present, attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Student Profiling and Prediction Products"), and PowerSchool
hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
2) Performance Matters
3) Behavior Support
4) Attendance Intervention
In the alternative, if the Court finds that a nationwide Class is
not certifiable, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify: two
state-only classes for California and Washington, which mirror the
proposed nationwide Class, for Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief:
1) California Injunctive Relief Class. and
2) Washington Injunctive Relief Class;
and four Rule 23(b)(3) state-only classes for damages that mirror
the nationwide 23(b)(3) Classes:
1) California Data Warehouse Class,
2) California Student Profiling and Prediction Class,
3) Washington Data Warehouse Class, and
4) Washington Student Profiling and Prediction Class.
The alternative state-only classes are defined as follows:
California Injunctive Relief Class
"All persons in California who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present who attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool products:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Schoology Learning
3) Performance Matters
4) Naviance
5) MTSS
6) Behavior Support
7) Attendance Intervention
8) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
9) Connected Intelligence
California Student Data Warehouse Class
"All persons in California who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"California Student Data Warehouse Products"), and PowerSchool
hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Connected Intelligence"
California Student Profiling and Prediction Class
"All persons in California who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"California Student Profiling and Prediction Products"), and
PowerSchool hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
2) Performance Matters
3) Behavior Support
4) Attendance Intervention"
Washington Injunctive Relief Class
"All persons in Washington who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool products:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Schoology Learning
3) Performance Matters
4) Naviance
5) MTSS
6) Behavior Support
7) Attendance Intervention
8) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
9) Connected Intelligence"
Washington Student Data Warehouse Class
"All persons in Washington who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Washington Student Data Warehouse Products"), and PowerSchool
hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Connected Intelligence"
Washington Student Profiling and Prediction Class
"All persons in the Washington who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Washington Student Profiling and Prediction Products"), and
PowerSchool hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
2) Performance Matters
3) Behavior Support
4) Attendance Intervention"
Nationwide Class Representative and Counsel:
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint (1)
Plaintiffs S.G., by and through her mother Emily Cherkin, and
M.M.C. and L.M.C., by and through their father, David Concepcion,
as the Class Representatives for the nationwide damages class; and
(2) Plaintiffs S.G., by and through her mother Emily Cherkin, and
M.M.C. and L.M.C., by and through their father, David Concepcion,
as the Class Representatives for the nationwide injunctive relief
class; and (3) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and EdTech Law
Center PLLC as Class Counsel for each class.
State-Only Class Representative and Counsel:
In the alternative, if the court determines that a nationwide class
in not appropriate, Plaintiffs further request that the Court
appoint (1) Plaintiffs M.M.C., and L.M.C., by and through their
father, David Concepcion, as the Class Representatives for each
California-only class, (2) Plaintiff S.G., by and through her
mother Emily Cherkin, as the Class Representative for the
Washington-only classes; and (3) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
and EdTech Law Center PLLC as Class Counsel for each state-only
class.
PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dwCpdv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
E. Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
leonard@hbsslaw.com
toryb@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Julie Liddell, Esq.
Andrew Liddell, Esq.
EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC
Austin, TX 78705
Telephone: (737) 351-5855
E-mail: julie.liddell@edtech.law
andrew.liddell@edtech.law
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Cherkin Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHERKIN, et al., v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02706-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs, on April 23, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., will move the
Court for an Order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) that grants the following relief:
Certifies a Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2)
for all causes of action seeking injunctive relief in Plaintiffs’
Complaint ("Complaint") defined as:
"All persons in the United States who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to
the present, attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool products:
1) PowerSchool Student Information Solutions ("PowerSchool
SIS")
2) Schoology Learning
3) Performance Matters
4) Naviance
5) MTSS
6) Behavior Support
7) Attendance Intervention
8) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
9) Connected Intelligence"
Certifies two nationwide classes for damages under Rule 23(b)(3),
the Student Data Warehouse Class and the Student Profiling and
Prediction Class, for all causes of action in the Complaint seeking
monetary relief defined as:
Student Data Warehouse Class
"All persons in the United States who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to
the present, attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Student Data Warehouse Products"), and PowerSchool hosts the
collected data for at least one product:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Connected Intelligence"
Student Profiling and Prediction Class
"All persons in the United States who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to
the present, attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Student Profiling and Prediction Products"), and PowerSchool
hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
2) Performance Matters
3) Behavior Support
4) Attendance Intervention
In the alternative, if the Court finds that a nationwide Class is
not certifiable, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify: two
state-only classes for California and Washington, which mirror the
proposed nationwide Class, for Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief:
1) California Injunctive Relief Class. and
2) Washington Injunctive Relief Class;
and four Rule 23(b)(3) state-only classes for damages that mirror
the nationwide 23(b)(3) Classes:
1) California Data Warehouse Class,
2) California Student Profiling and Prediction Class,
3) Washington Data Warehouse Class, and
4) Washington Student Profiling and Prediction Class.
The alternative state-only classes are defined as follows:
California Injunctive Relief Class
"All persons in California who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present who attended a K-12 school or school district that
used any of the following PowerSchool products:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Schoology Learning
3) Performance Matters
4) Naviance
5) MTSS
6) Behavior Support
7) Attendance Intervention
8) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
9) Connected Intelligence
California Student Data Warehouse Class
"All persons in California who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"California Student Data Warehouse Products"), and PowerSchool
hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Connected Intelligence"
California Student Profiling and Prediction Class
"All persons in California who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"California Student Profiling and Prediction Products"), and
PowerSchool hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
2) Performance Matters
3) Behavior Support
4) Attendance Intervention"
Washington Injunctive Relief Class
"All persons in Washington who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool products:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Schoology Learning
3) Performance Matters
4) Naviance
5) MTSS
6) Behavior Support
7) Attendance Intervention
8) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
9) Connected Intelligence"
Washington Student Data Warehouse Class
"All persons in Washington who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Washington Student Data Warehouse Products"), and PowerSchool
hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) PowerSchool SIS
2) Connected Intelligence"
Washington Student Profiling and Prediction Class
"All persons in the Washington who, from Oct. 29, 2020, to the
present, attended a K-12 school or school district that used
any of the following PowerSchool Products (collectively
"Washington Student Profiling and Prediction Products"), and
PowerSchool hosts the collected data for at least one product:
1) Data, Analytics and Insights f/k/a Unified Insights
2) Performance Matters
3) Behavior Support
4) Attendance Intervention"
Nationwide Class Representative and Counsel:
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint (1)
Plaintiffs S.G., by and through her mother Emily Cherkin, and
M.M.C. and L.M.C., by and through their father, David Concepcion,
as the Class Representatives for the nationwide damages class; and
(2) Plaintiffs S.G., by and through her mother Emily Cherkin, and
M.M.C. and L.M.C., by and through their father, David Concepcion,
as the Class Representatives for the nationwide injunctive relief
class; and (3) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and EdTech Law
Center PLLC as Class Counsel for each class.
State-Only Class Representative and Counsel:
In the alternative, if the court determines that a nationwide class
in not appropriate, Plaintiffs further request that the Court
appoint (1) Plaintiffs M.M.C., and L.M.C., by and through their
father, David Concepcion, as the Class Representatives for each
California-only class, (2) Plaintiff S.G., by and through her
mother Emily Cherkin, as the Class Representative for the
Washington-only classes; and (3) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
and EdTech Law Center PLLC as Class Counsel for each state-only
class.
PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K1HM8Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
E. Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
leonard@hbsslaw.com
toryb@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Julie Liddell, Esq.
Andrew Liddell, Esq.
EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC
Austin, TX 78705
Telephone: (737) 351-5855
E-mail: julie.liddell@edtech.law
andrew.liddell@edtech.law
PRUDENTRX LLC: Court OKs Discovery Bid in "Gluesing"
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Sheila Gluesing, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prudentrx
LLC and Caremark RX, LLC, Defendants, No. 24-cv-549-JJM-AEM
(D.R.I.), Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island sustained the
Plaintiff's objection to a Magistrate Judge's order and granted the
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, along with CVS Specialty
Pharmacy, engaged in a scheme to overcharge individuals for
prescription medications, in violation of ERISA and RICO. The
Defendant moved to compel arbitration, contending the Plaintiff had
entered into CVS Specialty Pharmacy's Terms of Use requiring
arbitration of all related disputes. The Plaintiff opposed,
asserting she was under economic duress when she entered into that
agreement.
On June 17, 2025, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration without prejudice and ordered limited discovery on the
issue of economic duress. The Plaintiff thereafter moved to compel
production of materials concerning: (1) whether the PrudentRx
Program required the Plaintiff and targeted patients to use CVS
Specialty exclusively; (2) whether cost penalties for refusing to
use CVS Specialty precluded any other economically feasible
pharmacy choice; and (3) whether the Defendant knew its
requirements would force patients to forfeit their right to sue by
accepting CVS Specialty's Terms of Use.
Magistrate Judge Amy E. Moses denied the motion on December 29,
2025, finding the Plaintiff sought discovery beyond the Court's
limited scope order. The Plaintiff objected.
The Court sustained the objection, clarifying that its earlier
order was not limited to economic duress personally experienced by
the Plaintiff. The Court found the claim includes the structural
aspects of the PrudentRx Program designed to coerce arbitration
through economic duress, and that others may also have been subject
to such duress.
Accordingly, the Court vacated the Magistrate Judge's text order,
granted the motion to compel, and directed the Defendant to fully
respond to the three document requests within 20 days. The
Defendant may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration within 30
days after production.
A Copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IdQo8f from PacerMonitor.com
Defendant
Caremark Rx LLC
Represented By
David J. Wenthold
Foley & Lardner LLP
414-297-4985
dwenthold@foley.com
Rebecca F. Briggs
Hinckley Allen
401-274-2000
rbriggs@hinckleyallen.com
Michael Leffel
Foley & Lardner LLP
608-258-4258
mleffel@foley.com
Frank E. Pasquesi
Foley & Lardner, LLP
312-832-5176
fpasquesi@foley.com
Gerald S. Kerska
Foley & Lardner LLP
414-297-5150
gkerska@foley.com
Defendant
Prudentrx LLC
Represented By
John A. Caletri
Mcangus Goudelock & Courie, LLC
401-600-2828
john.caletri@mgclaw.com
Plaintiff
Sheila Gluesing
Represented By
Kristie A. LaSalle
Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp
617-535-3763
kalasalle@locklaw.com
Brian D. Clark
Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp
612-339-6900
bdclark@locklaw.com
Stephen J. Teti
Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp
612-339-6900
sjteti@locklaw.com
Stephen M. Prignano
Mcintyre Tate LLP
401-351-7700
sprignano@mcintyretate.com
SALESFORCE INC: Young Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG and LANAE
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SALESFORCE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them
to file under seal documents containing information or references
to information that they designated as either "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the
Protective Order.
The present motion only seeks consideration of documents designated
as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only"
by Plaintiffs, or references thereto by the Plaintiffs' experts or
by Plaintiffs in their Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification or in Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendant's
Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of David A. Hoffman, J.D.
Salesforce is an American cloud-based software company specializing
in customer relationship management (CRM) and related
applications.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FYwb8D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Daniel S. Guerra, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Ira Rosenberg, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
dguerra@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
irosenberg@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
SAPP BROS: Amended Complaint Filing in Loebach Due March 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD LOEBACH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
SAPP BROS., INC., Case No. 8:25CV646 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Ryan
C. Carson entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases and to appoint
Interim Co-Lead Counsel (Filing No. 12 in 25cv3222) is
granted.
2. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The court
designates Case No. 4:25-cv-3222, as the "Lead Case" and Case
Nos 4:25cv3224 and 8:25cv646, as "Member Cases." The Lead
Case will proceed under the new title "In Re Sapp Bros. Inc.
Data Privacy Litigation."
3. The plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in
the Lead Case on or before March 23, 2026.
Sapp is a family-owned, Nebraska-based company, specializing in
operating 18 full-service travel centers and, as a premier
petroleum wholesale distributor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I4g4WT at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAPP BROS: Filing of Consolidated Amended Complaint Due March 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEN ANDERSEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. SAPP BROS.,
INC., Case No. 4:25CV3222 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Ryan C. Carson
entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases and to appoint
Interim Co-Lead Counsel (Filing No. 12 in 25cv3222) is
granted.
2. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The court
designates Case No. 4:25-cv-3222, as the "Lead Case" and Case
Nos 4:25cv3224 and 8:25cv646, as "Member Cases." The Lead
Case will proceed under the new title "In Re Sapp Bros. Inc.
Data Privacy Litigation."
3. The plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in
the Lead Case on or before March 23, 2026.
Sapp is a family-owned, Nebraska-based company, specializing in
operating 18 full-service travel centers and, as a premier
petroleum wholesale distributor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2ckBT at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAPP BROS: Noel Consolidated Amended Complaint Filing Due March 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUY NOEL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAPP BROS., INC.,
Case No. 4:25CV3224 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Ryan C. Carson
entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases and to appoint
Interim Co-Lead Counsel (Filing No. 12 in 25cv3222) is
granted.
2. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The court
designates Case No. 4:25-cv-3222, as the "Lead Case" and Case
Nos 4:25cv3224 and 8:25cv646, as "Member Cases." The Lead
Case will proceed under the new title "In Re Sapp Bros. Inc.
Data Privacy Litigation."
3. The plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in
the Lead Case on or before March 23, 2026.
Sapp is a family-owned, Nebraska-based company, specializing in
operating 18 full-service travel centers and, as a premier
petroleum wholesale distributor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tFpKOp at no extra
charge.[CC]
STAFF SUPPORT: Settlement Agreement in Vasquez Gets Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL VASQUEZ, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STAFF SUPPORT TEAM, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03468-PCG (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Cross-Goldenberg entered an order granting the
parties' motion to approve the settlement agreement.
Specifically, the Court entered an order:
Approving the settlement and Agreement as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and binding on all Class Members who have not timely
opted out of the settlement;
Directing the Administrator to distribute Settlement Checks;
Directing that attorneys' fees of $416,250 and costs of $22,000 to
be paid to Class Counsel out of the Settlement Amount;
Directing that the Administrator's fees and expenses to be paid out
of the Settlement Amount;
Directing that the Service Awards be paid out of the Settlement
Amount;
Dismissing with prejudice of all State Law Claims by all Class
Members who did not opt-out as well as Named Plaintiffs; and
Dismissing of Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims for all Class
Members who submitted opt-in/Claim forms.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aAIpzK at no extra
charge.[CC]
STARBUCKS CORP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Brazil Forced Labor Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Doe I, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Starbucks
Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-1261 (BAH) (D.D.C.),
Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs are eight residents of Brazil who alleged they were
recruited by Brazilian labor traffickers and forced to work on
coffee farms in Brazil between 2022 and 2024. Upon arrival at the
farms, Plaintiffs were forced to harvest coffee under extremely
degrading conditions, threats of bodily harm, and debt-bondage
tactics, for periods ranging from several days to over a month.
Each Plaintiff was later rescued by Brazilian officials. The
Brazilian government subsequently placed at least six of the eight
farms on the "Dirty List," a list maintained by the Brazilian
government of employers known to use slave labor.
Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Defendant, a
coffee company headquartered and incorporated in the State of
Washington, asserting claims under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1595 et
seq., Brazilian law, and common law doctrines of unjust enrichment
and negligent supervision. During briefing, Plaintiffs agreed to
dismissal of Count III (Aiding and Abetting TVPRA violations) and
Count VII (intentional infliction of emotional distress), leaving
only Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs also elected not to
pursue injunctive relief, leaving only their damages request.
The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to establish specific
personal jurisdiction over Defendant. All the conduct giving rise
to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Brazil. Plaintiffs are not
District residents, nor did they claim to have suffered harm in the
District. The only jurisdictional hook referenced was that
Defendant markets and sells coffee in the District -- coffee
allegedly purchased from a Brazil-based supplier working with over
18,000 member farms, which at one point included the farms where
Plaintiffs were forced to work. The Court held these allegations
fell short, as controlling Supreme Court precedent has made clear
that the mere fact that a corporation conducts regularly occurring
sales of a product in a State cannot confer specific jurisdiction
over a claim unrelated to those sales.
The Court further denied Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional
discovery, finding it constituted nothing more than an
impermissible fishing expedition, as Plaintiffs failed to describe
any specific ways to supplement their allegations. Accordingly, the
Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BoYRQP from PacerMonitor.com
Defendant Starbucks Corporation is represented by:
Danielle Desaulniers Stempel, Esq.
David Martin Foster, Esq.
Carolyn A. DeLone, Esq.
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Email: danielle.stempel@hoganlovells.com
david.foster@hoganlovells.com
carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq.
International Rights Advocates
Email: tc@iradvocates.org
STEPHEN JAMES: Best Wins Unopposed Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BEST, ET AL. v.
STEPHEN C. JAMES, ET AL., Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-RGJ-RSE (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order as
follows:
(1) The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class certification is
granted;
(2) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), the Court certifies a
class action for all purposes;
(3) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court defines a
class as:
"All persons who were participants in the ISCO ESOP when it
sold its ISCO shares effective Feb. 14, 2018 and/or
beneficiaries of those participants."
Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the individual
Defendants and their immediate families, current directors
of ISCO and their immediate families, and these individuals'
legal representatives, successors, heirs, and assigns.
(4) The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Nathan Best, Matthew
Chmieleski, and Jay Hicks as class representatives.
(5) The Court appoints the law firm Kaplan Johnson as class
counsel.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4qEEhs
at no extra charge.[CC]
TAK BROADBAND: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the TAK Broadband
data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the TAK Broadband data breach or otherwise
believe they are affected.
TAK Broadband Security Incident: What Happened?
TAK Broadband LLC, an end-to-end U.S. fiber broadband network
construction contractor operating across 42 states, has announced a
data breach that may involve the personal information of certain
individuals. On August 11, 2025, TAK identified suspicious activity
within its network, affecting specific systems. Following this
discovery, the company secured its network and launched an
investigation with external experts. It was determined that an
unauthorized third party accessed TAK systems from August 2 to
August 12, 2025 and extracted certain files.
A review, completed on January 14, 2026 found that affected files
contained varying personal information, which could include names,
Social Security numbers, state ID/driver's license numbers,
passport numbers, biometric data, birth dates, payment card
details, financial account information, medical data, and health
insurance information. TAK Broadband is taking steps to inform
potentially impacted individuals.
According to a report submitted to the Maine Attorney General's
Office, the TAK Broadband data breach impacted 20,648 individuals.
What You Can Do After the TAK Broadband Data Breach
If your information was exposed in the TAK Broadband data breach,
attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class
action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time
spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force TAK Broadband to ensure they
take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted
with.
An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.
Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]
TEMPUS AI: Discloses Genetic Info to Third Parties, Nash Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER NASH and minor child E.S., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEMPUS AI, INC., a
Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01688 (N.D. Ill.,
February 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the
Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act by compelling Ambry
Genetics Corporation to disclose Plaintiffs' and members of the
proposed Classes' genetic information to Tempus AI and by
disclosing their genetic information to third parties without
Plaintiffs' and members of the proposed Classes' authorization.
In 2024, Tempus AI sought to acquire clinical genetic testing
laboratory company Ambry Genetics' massive database of genetic
information to train its artificial intelligence algorithm and to
ensure, through Ambry Genetics' genetic testing laboratory, that
Tempus AI would have a continual feed of new genetic information.
After months of due diligence, Tempus AI announced on February 3,
2025, that it had acquired Ambry Genetics for $375 million in cash
and $225 million in shares.
Immediately after the acquisition, Tempus AI further disclosed the
genetic information obtained from Ambry Genetics to third parties
without the knowledge or written consent of the individuals whose
genetic information had been collected, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Tempus AI from further
violating the privacy rights of members of the proposed Classes and
to recover damages for Tempus AI's violation of their privacy
rights.
Tempus AI is a technology health data company that uses artificial
intelligence in connection with health data generated in its labs
and acquired from other sources.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush Esq.
Fatima Z. Ladha, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
fladha@girardsharp.com
TESLA INC: Hyde Sues Over Vehicles' Material Safety Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Hyde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tesla, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-00942-BJC-MMP (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2026) concerns a
material safety defect in tens of thousands of Tesla Model S
vehicles manufactured by the Defendant from the 2023 model year to
the present, all of which contain issues that are twofold.
According to the complaint, the vehicle was designed with
electrically actuated, flush-mounted exterior door handles that
require electronic extension and latch actuation in order to permit
opening from the outside. Further, the interior door handles also
require electronic extension and latch actuation in order to permit
opening from the interior. Tesla's design renders the vehicle not
reasonably escapable and not reasonably rescuable following
foreseeable collisions involving loss of low-voltage power, fire,
or emergency system shutdown, especially for drivers and passengers
attempting to exit from the rear of the vehicle.
Despite complaints from customers, and numerous instances of the
public being locked and trapped inside the Vehicles, the Defendant
has not taken action to prevent or rectify this material safety
defects, says the suit.
Tesla Inc. operates as a multinational automotive and clean energy
company. The Company designs and manufactures electric vehicles,
battery energy storage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mike Kazerouni, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mike@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Class Cert Opposition in Phan Due April 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
entered an order resetting briefing schedule for motion for class
certification as follows:
April 2, 2026 - last day for Defendant to file opposition to motion
for class certification
May 7, 2026 - last day for Plaintiff to file reply in support of
motion for class certification.
The hearing date remains the same, May 28, 2026.
Transamerica specializes in life insurance, annuities, and
supplemental health plans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=60Bz2R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 721-9597
Facsimile: (818) 721-9670
E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
- and -
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4378
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: VOrlando@maynardnexsen.com
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Must File Class Cert Opposition by April 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order resetting the dates for the filing of
the opposition and reply briefs in connection with the motion for
class certification as follows:
April 9, 2026: Last day for the Defendant to file opposition
to motion for class certification
May 14, 2026: Last day for the Plaintiff to file reply in
support of motion for class certification.
The hearing date remains the same, May 28, 2026.
Transamerica specializes in life insurance, annuities, and
supplemental health plans.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B2Vg5g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 721-9597
Facsimile: (818) 721-9670
E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
- and -
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4378
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: VOrlando@maynardnexsen.com
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Baker class suit in the
federal court of the Eastern District of Washington.
In July 2023, Baker v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (DE) and United
Parcel Service, Inc. (OH) was certified as a class action in
federal court in the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiff
in this matter alleges that UPS violated the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
The Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter and
believes that it has a number of meritorious defenses, and there
are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to
the ultimate resolution of this matter.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American package delivery
company. The Company does business in the industry of personal
delivery services and the supply chain industry.[BN]
UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Malone Labor Class Suit in Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Malone labor class suit
in the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In December 2025, Malone et al. v. United Parcel Service Inc. (OH)
was certified as a class action in federal court in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs filed this action alleging
entitlement to overtime under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
seeking allegedly unpaid wages.
The Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter. It
believes that it has meritorious defenses, and there are unresolved
questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate
resolution of this matter.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American package delivery
company. The Company does business in the industry of personal
delivery services and the supply chain industry.[BN]
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: ClassAction.org Investigates Cyberattack
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the University of
Mississippi Medical Center cyberattack.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who may have had their information exposed in the incident,
including patients of the facility.
University of Mississippi Medical Center Security Incident: What
Happened?
On February 19, 2026, the University of Mississippi Medical Center
(UMMC) was reportedly hit by a cyberattack affecting many of its IT
systems, including its electronic medical records system. According
to a local news report, the disruption led to the closure of all 35
UMMC clinics across the state and the cancellation of outpatient
and ambulatory surgeries, procedures and imaging appointments.
Jackson-based UMMC, which is the health sciences campus of the
University of Mississippi and reportedly serves more than 70,000
patients each year through its network of hospitals and clinics,
stated that the attackers have made contact and that it is
collaborating with authorities on appropriate actions.
No details have been released on what information may have been
compromised in the potential University of Mississippi Medical
Center data breach.
What You Can Do After the Potential University of Mississippi
Medical Center Data Breach
If you believe your information may have been exposed in the
University of Mississippi Medical Center cyberattack, attorneys
want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action
lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent
dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force University of Mississippi
Medical Center to ensure they take proper steps to protect the
information they were entrusted with.
An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.
Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court Certifies Three Classes in Ford Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER FORD, ERIC BEARD,
and BRIAN OTTERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles
entered an order that:
1. The attached notices are approved, with dates and other
blanks to be filled in consistent with this order.
2. Guardian shall provide class data within five business days
of this order.
3. The notice administrator shall send the approved email
notices as quickly as possible and no later than March 19,
2026.
4. The notice administrator shall send postcard backup notice
within five days of receiving an undeliverable email notice.
5. The notice administrator shall maintain a public website
where this Order, the Class Certification Order, the approved
Notice, and all other substantive orders shall be posted.
Class counsel shall keep the notice administrator informed of
such developments.
6. No later than April 2, 2026, class counsel or the notice
administrator shall file a report showing that the notices
were emailed and, where necessary, mailed via postcard and
that the website is available.
7. No later than May 22, 2026, class counsel or the notice
administrator shall file a report otherwise showing
compliance with this order and providing details on the
number of undeliverable notices and the number of class
members choosing to opt-out.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and certified three classes. The classes as certified consist of:
(1) UDTPA Initial Claim Class:
"All veterans who made their first payment to Veterans
Guardian in connection with an initial claim for VA
Disability Compensation under a consulting contract
substantially similar to Exhibit A to the Consolidated
Complaint between Aug. 23, 2019, and the date of this Court's
order approving class notice."
(2) UDTPA Non-Initial Claim Class:
"All veterans who made their first payment to Veterans
Guardian in connection with a non-initial claim for VA
Disability Compensation under a consulting contract
substantially similar to Exhibit A to the Consolidated
Complaint between Aug. 23, 2019, and the date of this Court's
order approving class notice."
(3) NCDCA Class:
"All veterans who, between Aug. 23, 2019, and the date of
this Court's order approving class notice, were sent an
invoice by Veterans Guardian in connection with a claim for
VA Disability Compensation in substantially the same form as
Exhibit B to the Consolidated Complaint and who made a
payment to Veterans Guardian."
Veterans is a pre-filing consulting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2HMxJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
VETERANS UNITED: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over RESPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amie Fisher, writing for Real Estate News, reports that the real
estate and lending industry is facing another class-action lawsuit
centered around steering and RESPA violations.
Hagens Berman, one of the law firms involved in the Moehrl
commissions lawsuit, announced on February 18 that it is
representing veteran homebuyers in a complaint against Veterans
United Home Loans.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri -- the site of the landmark Sitzer/Burnett
trial -- and claims that the private lender has misled consumers
"by falsely presenting itself as part of the VA," among other
allegations.
Who's involved in the case: The three plaintiffs -- Christian
Peyton of Tennessee, Salem Zahn of Texas and Ernest Easter of
Pennsylvania -- are U.S. military veterans who obtained a loan
through Veterans United to purchase a home between 2022 and 2025.
The class would include all buyers who received financing from
Veterans United since Jan. 1, 2020.
The filing names Home Loans; its parent company, Mortgage Research
Center, LLC; and Realty Search Solutions, LLC (d/b/a Veterans
United Realty) as defendants.
The plaintiffs are asking for actual damages, punitive damages and
attorney fees, in an amount to be determined at trial.
The allegations: The complaint claims that Veterans United has
"capitalized on and exploited the demand of military members and
Veterans" by falsely suggesting it's associated with the U.S.
Veterans Administration. The filing pointed to language on the
Veterans United website promoting itself as "The Nation's #1 VA
Lender."
Additionally, the lawsuit claims Veterans United utilizes a
referral network of real estate agents who are "required to steer
their clients to use Veterans United for their home loans. If the
agents do not do so, they stop receiving leads." The lender and its
agent network are thus "engaged in a perpetual loop of illegal
referrals and kickbacks," according to the filing.
Because the lender allegedly charges higher fees and rates, buyers
are further harmed.
"These mortgage companies should be ashamed of their underhanded
business tactics and are wholly unaffiliated with the military,"
Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman,
said in a news release. "No owner, co-owner or founder has served
in the military."
The complaint, which includes statements from six unnamed agents
and loan officers, asserts that Veterans United's business
practices violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and common law
unjust enrichment.
What Veterans United had to say: A spokesperson for the lender
said, "For 24 years we have been committed to serving Veterans and
military families with love, care and respect. We're aware of the
lawsuit that was filed. We deny the accusations and look forward to
disputing this through the legal process. Because this is pending
litigation, we can't comment further."
Related cases: If these allegations sound familiar, they are.
Hagens Berman is also behind the Taylor case -- a lawsuit filed
against Zillow in September (and amended in November to include
RICO claims) alleging that the search giant's home loans division
participates in illegal steering and deceptive practices. Another
plaintiff filed a similar suit against Zillow last fall that was
merged with Taylor in December. The Real Brokerage was subsequently
pulled into the case.
Since then, Zillow has been hit with another steering-related case
filed by an agent in Washington state, and in late January, Rocket
Mortgage was sued by homebuyers -- also represented by Hagens
Berman -- alleging steering and RESPA violations. [GN]
VISTA HM: Bid to Stay Scroggins Class Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scroggins v. VISTA HM,
LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03492 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 3, 2025), the
Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order that the
Defendant's motion to stay is granted in part.
Further, the Court entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a surreply is granted.
The Plaintiff is permitted to file a surreply of no more than five
(5) double-spaced pages on or before Feb. 17, 2026. The Scheduling
Conference will be reset at the court's discretion considering the
open briefing schedules relative to Defendant's motion to dismiss,
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, and Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Set for May 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hendrickson v. Wal-Mart
Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00110 (S.D. Cal., Filed
Jan. 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an
order setting briefing schedule:
-- Motion for summary judgment and motion to certify class:
Responses due on or before Feb. 23, 2026
-- Replies due on or before March 2, 2026.
-- No sur-replies will be accepted.
-- Motion Hearing set for May 21, 2026.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a subsidiary of Walmart Inc.. Based in
Bentonville, Arkansas, it serves as an entity for managing human
resources and personnel for the multinational retail giant, which
operates stores,, e-commerce platforms, and Sam's Club
locations.[CC]
WASHINGTON: C.F. Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.F. by and through his
parent, ERICA DRIGGERS, W.M. by and through his parent, DESIREE
PRESNELL, O.S. by and through his parent, LINDSEY TOPPING SCHUETZ,
J.P. by and through his parent, JESSICA MORROW, W.J. by and through
his parent, DESIREE PRESNELL, individually and on behalf of a
class, v. RYAN MORAN, in his official capacity as Director of the
Washington State Health Care Authority, Case No. 3:26-cv-05095-TMC
(W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their motion for class certification and certifying
proposed Class No. 1 and Class No. 2.
Class No. 1:
"All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the
State of Washington who now or in the future have been
approved for Private Duty Nursing (PDN) services by the
Defendant, but who are not receiving Private Duty Nursing
services at the level approved by the Defendant."
Class No. 2:
"All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the
State of Washington who now or in the future have been
approved for Personal Care (PC) services by the Defendant, but
who are not receiving Personal Care services at the level
approved by the Defendant."
In the instant case, the Defendant has acted or refused to act on
grounds generally applicable to the Classes, as it has failed to
arrange for the delivery of PDN and PC services at the level
approved by the Defendant in violation of the Medicaid Act, Early
and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT), Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule
23(b)(2).
Washington State is a government agency that oversees the state's
two top health care purchasers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=72nUWI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory Albert, Esq.
ALBERT LAW PLLC
3131 Western Ave., Suite 410
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206)-576-8044
E-mail: greg@albertlawpllc.com
- and -
Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq.
ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR., LTD.
1155 S. Washington Street
Naperville, IL 60540
Telephone: (630) 369-0103
E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the New England
Teamster securities class suit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On May 5, 2025, New England Teamsters Pension Fund filed a class
action against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the
Company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between February 16, 2023 and February 12,
2025.
On July 23, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs in the
action.
On October 15, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with 1) various
public statements made by the Company and certain current and
former officers regarding its business, operations and prospects
and 2) certain current and former officers' transactions in the
Company's stock. The action seeks unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.
On December 18, 2025, the defendants filed their first motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
The Company believes the claims in the amended complaint are
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against such
claims.
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. is a manufacturer of integrated
containment and delivery systems for injectable drugs and
healthcare products including a variety of primary proprietary
packaging, containment solutions, reconstitution and transfer
systems, and drug delivery systems, as well as contract
manufacturing, analytical lab services and integrated solutions.
Asbestos Litigation
*********
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 ***