260309.mbx

260309.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 9, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 48 Headlines ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Dismisses "Brown" for Lack of Jurisdiction AMERIGAS PROPANE: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ANGEION GROUP: Faces Coughlan Suit Over Undisclosed Kickbacks BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Tran" for Lack of Standing BINANCE: Court Holds "Anderson" Class Action Waiver Unenforceable BLADE HQ: Wood Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to Blind Users BLUEGROUND US: Website Illegally Collects User Data, Deol Says BRYAN COLLIER: Court Narrows Claims in Death Row Inmates Suit BURNTWOOD TAVERN: Court Narrows Claims in "Claridge" FLSA Suit C&A MARKETING: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CHISTI MANAGEMENT: Mortland Sues Over Property's Access Barriers CHOICE HOTELS: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Mahon Says CHOICE HOTELS: Sanchez Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE: Awaits Court Ruling on Post Trial Briefings DALSTRONG AMERICA: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DHARMA TRADING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says DRAPIFY HOME: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DREAME TECHNOLOGY: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EDWARD D. JONES: Shah Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS: Witness Disclosures in Allen Due April 27 EI DU PONT: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice EVERGREEN RECYCLING: Parker Balks at Layoffs Without Proper Notice FITJOY INC: Spreng Sues Over Pretzels' Deceptive Packaging FRANK STRADA: Montgomery Suit Seeks Class Certification GEICO: Class Cert. Discovery Closes May 18 in Cude Class Suit GEICO: Fischer Bid for Class Certification Tossed GOLDEN STATE WATER: To Get $6.5M Final Settlement Payment by 2033 GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Supplement GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: RICO Suit Ongoing in Arizona Court HARNEY & SONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Says HAWAIIAN HOST: Chocolate Confection Labels Deceptive, Aviles Says HILL PROPERTY: Bid for More Time to File Renewed Class Cert OK'd HIMS & HERS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. HYATT CORP: Bid for Class Certification in Ybarra Due August 31 INTEGER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend West Palm Class Suit in N.Y. IQVIA INC: Bid to File Opposition Under Seal OK'd J.E. DUNN: Faces Macey Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan JACKSON LABORATORY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30 JANUS HENDERSON: Continues to Defend Schissler Class Suit in Col. JUSTWATCH GMBH: Class Settlement in Fuhrhop Suit Gets Prelim Nod KRISTI NOEM: Gonzalez Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus MAESA LLC: McNair False Ad Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. MAGNOLIA BANK: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Castillo Suit Says MASIMO CORP: $33.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 5 MERCER ADVISORS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Berger Says MGP INGREDIENTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit MILLER FENCING: Martin FLSA Suit Removed to D. Ariz. MISSOURI VEGETABLE: Gandara-Cisneros Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT MOISES BECERRA: Hernandez Bid for TRO Tossed MONARCH CASINO: Fails to Accurately Pay Employees, Perdomo Alleges NATIONAL GRID: Constantine's Bid to Certify Class Granted NATIONAL RURAL: Bid to Set Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule OK'd NOVO NORDISK: Ahmed Hashim Appointed as Lead Plaintiff NTC MARKETING: Scheduling Order Entered in Seper Class Suit NVIDIA CORPORATION: Securities Suit Remanded to District Court O'REILLY AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Smith Due Jan. 29, 2027 OPENLOOP HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Allen Says OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES: Curry Bid for Protective Order OK'd in Part PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit in Del. PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Discovery in Gabelli Value Class Suit Ongoing PAYCOR INC: Bid to Alter Class Cert Definition Partly OK'd PORSCHE AG: Seeks to Amend Class Cert Briefing Sched in Stanley PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 20 PROJECT BOUND: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store RALPH LAUREN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Supplemental Memo REALNETWORKS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 22, 2027 REGUS MANAGEMENT: Standing Order Entered in Thomas Class Suit REVTRAK INC: Bradley Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Ill. RSCR CALIFORNIA: Barrajas Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. RUGSUSA LLC: McCarrell Suit Seeks to Certify UTPA Claims SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Ruiz from Detention SCOTT SEMPLE: Conn. Fed. Ct. Anticipates Bid to Certify Class SECURITY BENEFIT: Class Certification Oral Argument Sought SEDANO'S MARKET: Initial Case Order entered in Mahlberg Suit SHAKE SHACK: Iaulualo Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. SMARTMATCH INSURANCE: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed SNAPFISH LLC: Sued Over Fake Discounts and Deceptive Online Pricing SOUTHERN TIDE: Rushefsky Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STATE FARM: Ngethpharat Breach of Contract Claims Dismissed STS ELECTRONIC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Royal Suit Says SUNFLOWER LIMITED: Operates Illegal Gambling Platform, Suit Says SUNROOMS AND MORE: Bid to Dismiss EOC Suit Tossed SUNRUN INC: Class Cert Bid in Strickland Suit Due Sept. 28 SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Banks Due Oct. 19 SYNOPSYS INC: Continues to Defend Kim Shareholder Class Suit SYNOPSYS INC: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Class Suit SYNOPSYS INC: Continues to Defend Sterling Shareholder Suit TEXAS: Denies Early Sex Offender De-registration Process, Suit Says TKO GROUP: Trial in Cirkunovs Class Suit Not Yet Set TKO GROUP: Trial in Johnson Class Suit Not Yet Set UNITED LEGWEAR: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Babka Says UNITED STATES: Diego Seeks to Certify All Noncitizen Minor Class UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in Fla. WYNN RESORTS: Hunt Sues for Breach of Duty to Protect Personal Data ZANDER GROUP: Boldenguy Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages ZUFFA LLC: Constantino Alleges Pay-Per-View-Level Market Monopoly ********* ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Dismisses "Brown" for Lack of Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Colin Brown, suing individually on his own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Allstate Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-05096(KAM)(JAM) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its entirety . Plaintiff Colin Brown, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, asserted claims for (1) violations of New York's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act, New York Insurance Law Sections 5101 et seq., (2) breach of contract, and (3) violations of New York General Business Law Section 349 against Defendants Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The Defendants moved to dismiss on two bases: (i) Plaintiff's lack of standing against all Defendants except Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and (ii) Plaintiff's failure to meet the $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court found that Brown lacked standing to sue Allstate Insurance Company. Brown relied on two facts: (i) Allstate Fire's use of a form wage loss calculation worksheet developed by an Allstate Insurance employee, and (ii) Allstate Insurance adjusters performing wage loss calculations for Allstate Fire. The Court agreed with Magistrate Judge Marutollo's finding that these facts were not enough support for a determination that Allstate Fire's conduct was constrained or influenced by Allstate Insurance . Each First Party Benefit Claim is adjusted on an individualized basis under the specific policyholder's policy, and Allstate Fire adjusts claims pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policies it issued. The permissive language of the stipulation further undermined Plaintiff's argument. The Court found that the use of shared resources, through a shared worksheet or claims adjusters, was not sufficient, without more, to establish that Allstate Insurance's actions had a determinative and coercive effect on Allstate Fire. Brown's objection was overruled. The Court affirmed that the amount in controversy did not meet CAFA's $5,000,000 threshold. The Court held that the amount in controversy is established as of the date the complaint is filed, but a court may dismiss the case if it is later revealed that the required jurisdictional amount was not satisfied at that time. Brown's argument that the Report and Recommendation should have accounted for future damages was rejected. An insured who sues its insurer for failure to pay benefits may only recover benefits that have already accrued, making reliance on continuing damages improper. On attorneys' fees, the Court affirmed that fees may not properly be included in determining the jurisdictional amount unless they are recoverable as a matter of right. Discretionary attorneys' fees under General Business Law Section 349 were therefore excluded. Even accounting for such fees, the total amount in controversy would reach only $4,695,690, still short of the $5,000,000 CAFA threshold. Brown's individual damages of $1,707.99 plus attorneys' fees were well short of the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. His individual claim was therefore dismissed. The Court further affirmed that Brown lacked standing to sue Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, as Brown did not allege any injury caused by either entity or show that either played any role in Allstate Fire's disbursement of his claim. Accordingly, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Marutollo's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZQ6T3j from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Encompass Holdings LLC, The Allstate Corporation. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Esurance Insurance Company, Encompass Insurance Company, Encompass Indemnity Company, Deerbrook Insurance Company, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate New Jersey Property & Casualty Insurance Company Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company Represented By: Wendy Enerson Cozen O'Connor 312-382-3162 wenerson@cozen.com Peter J Valeta Cozen O'Connor 312-474-7895 pvaleta@cozen.com Anupama Prasad Cozen O'Connor 212-453-3859 aprasad@cozen.com Plaintiff Colin Brown Represented By: John K. Weston Sacks & Smith, LLC 215-925-8200 jweston@sackslaw.com Kevin P. Fitzpatrick Marschhausen & Fitzpatrick, P.C. 516-747-8000 kfitzpatrick@marschfitz.com AMERIGAS PROPANE: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ROBERTO NAVARRO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV484395, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01654 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for alleged improper wage and hour practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Amerigas Propane, Inc. provides gas distribution services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph D. Lee, Esq. Margaret G. Maraschino, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: joseph.lee@mto.com margaret.maraschino@mto.com ANGEION GROUP: Faces Coughlan Suit Over Undisclosed Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD COUGHLAN, MARISSA PORTER, SANDEEP TRISAL, and ALAN STARZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANGEION GROUP LLC, EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, KROLL SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION LLC, VERITA GLOBAL, LLC, ARCHER SYSTEMS, LLC, VERUS, LLC, CPT GROUP, INC., SIMPLURIS, INC., HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, and DOES 1- 20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02113 (D.N.J., February 27, 2026) is class action brought by the Plaintiffs against "Administrator Defendants", for engaging in a deceptive and anticompetitive scheme to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed kickbacks and compensation from "Bank Defendants", while increasing the costs and depressing the payouts on thousands of class actions. The Plaintiffs, individually, and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, bring this action against two groups of Defendants: (i) Angeion Group LLC, Epiq Systems, Inc., JND Legal Administration, Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, Verita Global, LLC, Archer Systems, LLC, Verus, LLC, CPT Group, Inc., and Simpluris, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Administrator Defendants"); and (ii) Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank (collectively the "Bank Defendants"). Some time on or about 2021 -- when the interest rates in the United States started rising -- Administrator Defendants entered into an ongoing agreement with each other to increase the cost and price of class administration services, including by having Bank Defendants pay them the interest and investments earned on class action settlement deposits that would have otherwise been distributed to class members and used to pay down the cost of class administration services. According to the complaint, to maintain their market power in the Settlement Deposit Market, the Bank Defendants agreed to work with the Administrator Defendants looking to increase the cost and price of class administration services and pay the Administrator Defendants the kickbacks. In exchange, the Administrator Defendants agreed to keep all of the settlement funds from the thousands of class actions with the Bank Defendants. The Bank Defendants thereby maintained their power in the Settlement Deposit Market, leading to steady profits and liquidity for the Bank Defendants. The Bank Defendants thereby conspired with the Administrator Defendants, and entered into these agreements deliberately, corruptly, and with intent to execute the kickback scheme, asserts the complaint. Angeion Group LLC is a class action administration company that maintains its principal executive offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Stone, Esq. Kenneth S. Levine, Esq. STONE & MAGNANINI LLP 400 Connell Drive, Suite 6200 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Telephone: (973) 218-1111 Facsimile: (973) 218-1106 E-mail: dstone@smcomplex.com klevine@smcomplex.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Tran" for Lack of Standing ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as MIKAELA TRAN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-1232-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety because Plaintiff lacked standing. The Court found itself without jurisdiction to consider Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Plaintiff initiated this class action complaint against Defendant on May 14, 2025. The State of California partnered with Defendant to electronically deliver benefit payments such as unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and family leave. These benefit payments, issued by the California Employment Development Department (EDD), were electronically deposited into individualized debit card accounts. Plaintiff enrolled in the EDD program in or around August 2023 and received a prepaid debit card issued by Defendant, linked to a designated deposit account administered by it. Over approximately six months, from September 2023 to February 2024, her benefit payments were electronically transferred into her account. Plaintiff alleged that the funds the EDD deposited into her account were special-purpose custodial holdings, and that Defendant leveraged these custodial accounts to generate significant investment returns, known as float income, during the time it held recipients' funds prior to withdrawal. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), conversion, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendant argued that Plaintiff lacked standing for two reasons: first, if the funds constituted special deposits, the EDD was the depositor, and any contract was between Defendant and the EDD, making Plaintiff a third party without standing to enforce it; and second, Plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury because, under California law, an accountholder is not entitled to interest earnings on funds held as special deposits. Upon careful examination, the Court found that Plaintiff had not alleged a concrete injury. The complaint did not allege that Plaintiff was ever entitled to those earnings, that she was denied access to any portion of her benefits, or that Defendant's conduct caused her to receive less money than she otherwise would have received. At most, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant earned money for itself while administering the account. The Court held that absent a legally cognizable entitlement to the alleged earnings, the claimed deprivation was speculative and insufficient to establish injury in fact for Article III standing. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) was granted. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The Court noted that while it appeared unlikely Plaintiff could allege a concrete injury through amendment, the Ninth Circuit has a liberal policy favoring amendments. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by no later than March 12, 2026. Defendant's responsive pleading must be filed by April 30, 2026. A copy of the Court's Order dated February 27 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijWlxE from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Bank of America, N.A. Represented By: Sabrina Rose-Smith Laura G. Brys Levi William Swank Goodwin Procter LLP srosesmith@goodwinlaw.com lbrys@goodwinlaw.com lswank@goodwinlaw.com Janice Patrice Brown Meyers Nave 619-330-1700 jbrown@meyersnave.com Plaintiff Mikaela Tran Represented By: Todd D. Carpenter Lynch Carpenter, LLP 619-762-1900 todd@lcllp.com Jae Kook Kim Lynch Carpenter, LLP 626-550-1250 ekim@lcllp.com Tiffine E. Malamphy Lynch Carpenter, LLP 213-723-0707 tiffine@lcllp.com BINANCE: Court Holds "Anderson" Class Action Waiver Unenforceable ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JD Anderson, Cory Hardin, David Muhammad, Ranjith Thiagarajan, and Chase Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Binance and Changpeng Zhao, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-cv-02803 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of claims predating February 20, 2019, and the class action waiver was held unenforceable in federal court for those claims. Defendants' motion to seal was granted. Defendant Binance is a cryptocurrency exchange that facilitates trades in digital assets on the platform Binance.com. Defendant Zhao founded Binance and served as its Chief Executive Officer from 2017 to November 2023. Plaintiffs are residents of California, Nevada, and Texas who purchased tokens on Binance and sought damages arising from Defendants' alleged illegal offering and sale of securities without a registration statement and without registering as a broker-dealer, in violation of federal and state securities laws. The parties agreed that Plaintiffs created their Binance accounts between September 27, 2017, and April 15, 2018. The operative terms at that time, the 2017 Terms of Use, did not contain an arbitration clause, a choice of law provision, or a class action waiver, though they did include a change-of-terms provision permitting Binance to amend its agreement by announcement on the website without individual notice. On February 20, 2019, Binance amended its Terms of Use to incorporate a binding arbitration clause requiring resolution of all claims through the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and a purported class action waiver. Applying the substantive laws of California, Nevada, and Texas, which the court found substantially similar on contract formation, the court held that Plaintiffs did not have constructive notice of the 2019 Terms of Use. Binance sent no contemporaneous individual communications and made no specific announcement of the amendment. The court noted that parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side. However, the court found that all Plaintiffs had actual notice of the arbitration provision through the litigation, at the latest by June 8, 2020, when they moved jointly to be appointed lead plaintiffs. On retroactivity, the court held that even assuming proper notice, the 2019 Terms of Use were silent as to the time period during which the modification would apply to known or accrued claims. Under California law, a unilateral modification provision silent as to whether changes apply to accrued or known claims is impliedly restricted by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing so that changes do not apply to such claims. Therefore, the arbitration provision could not reach claims that accrued before February 20, 2019. On the class action waiver, the court found the language in Section 14 of the 2019 Terms of Use unclear and ambiguous. The section advised users that it involves a waiver of certain rights to bring legal proceedings, including as a class action, but provided no further detail anywhere in the agreement. Interpreting the ambiguous contract against Defendants as the drafter, the court held that the reference to a class action waiver applied, at best, only to claims in arbitration, not to proceedings in federal court. Claims arising on or after February 20, 2019 had previously been dismissed by joint stipulation on November 25, 2025. A copy of the Court's OPINION AND ORDER dated February 26 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0GyUa3 from PacerMonitor.com BLADE HQ: Wood Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLADE HQ, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02112 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.bladehq.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Blade HQ, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law BLUEGROUND US: Website Illegally Collects User Data, Deol Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GURMIT DEOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEGROUND US, INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00447 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2026) arises from the Defendants' installation and use of invasive third party software without obtaining consent of Plaintiff and other website visitors in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has elected to turn ordinary browsing into a means to secretly extract data, by installing third party software on its website, https://theblueground.com to secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. In particular, the Defendant has partnered with ZoomInfo, a company that operates as a data broker, but is not registered under the state database, in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. The Defendant has done this by installing on the website software developed by ZoomInfo for this purpose. When a visitor device communicates with the website, the ZoomInfo code automatically captures and processes technical device, browser, and browser network data transmitted as part of that communication. These include browser type and version, information about the visitor's device and configurations thereof, referring and exit pages and URLs, page views, loads and clicks, and time and date of use, asserts the suit. Blueground US, Inc. is a New York corporation that provides apartments for rentals in major cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com BRYAN COLLIER: Court Narrows Claims in Death Row Inmates Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mark Robertson, George Curry, Tony Egbuna Ford, Rickey Cummings, and Lucky Ward, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin, Daniel Dickerson, Crystal Anthony, Does 1-10, and Ronald Ivey, Defendants, Case No. 9:23-CV-00023-MAC (E.D. Tex.), Judge Marcia A. Crone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in this class action brought on behalf of all death row inmates at the Allan B. Polunsky Unit. The Plaintiffs filed their Original Complaint on January 26, 2023, and an Amended Complaint on May 11, 2023, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Defendants' policy and practice of automatically placing all death row prisoners in unsafe and unhygienic conditions of permanent solitary confinement has deprived, and continues to deprive, Plaintiffs and Class Members of their constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn issued a report recommending partial dismissal on October 8, 2025. After a de novo review, the court overruled the Defendants' objections and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The court granted dismissal as to: (a) claims under the Texas Constitution; (b) Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel claims; and (c) First Amendment Retaliation claims. The court denied dismissal as to: (a) Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims of permanent solitary confinement in unsafe and unhygienic conditions; (b) inadequate access to medical care; and (c) Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. On the Eighth Amendment claims, the Defendants argued the magistrate judge improperly conflated the objective and subjective components and lumped disparate conditions together. The court disagreed. On the objective component, the court concluded that the alleged conditions, taken together, satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim because they deprive Plaintiffs of basic human needs, including safe and sanitary living conditions and adequate medical care. The magistrate judge recognized that indefinite solitary confinement, lack of recreation, and inadequate medical care, when considered with allegations of unhygienic exposure to mold and insects, rotten food, and lack of showers and mattresses, deny the Plaintiffs of safe, humane, and sanitary living conditions. On the subjective component, the court found that Plaintiffs adequately pled deliberate indifference by alleging that Defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Plaintiffs alleged that the unsafe and unhygienic conditions were evident to Defendants and to any reasonable person, and that Defendants had been put on notice through administrative grievances, written complaints, letters, national media attention, and discussions with Plaintiffs and Class Members. On the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, the Defendants contended that Plaintiffs may be housed in indefinite solitary confinement without due process protections because they have no liberty interest in being housed elsewhere, or that they received due process at sentencing. The court rejected both arguments, finding that a death sentence in Texas does not mandate indefinite solitary confinement. The court determined that Plaintiffs allege a liberty interest without meaningful review, with conditions resulting in constant social and sensory deprivation ranging from 5 to 26 years. The process afforded at sentencing does not address the later, indefinite imposition of solitary confinement or provide a constitutionally sufficient substitute for ongoing procedural protections. On qualified immunity, the court adopted the magistrate judge's finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on due process claims but not on conditions-of-confinement claims. The court declined to consider the Defendants' objection that the magistrate judge failed to conduct a defendant-by-defendant analysis, as this argument was raised for the first time in objections and not in the original Motion to Dismiss. Defendants may reassert qualified immunity on a defendant-by-defendant basis at summary judgment. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FPzd0U from PacerMonitor.com BURNTWOOD TAVERN: Court Narrows Claims in "Claridge" FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as William Claridge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Burntwood Tavern Holdings, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-02240 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, granted Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on liability, and denied Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2026. This is a collective action, not a class action, filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. On May 9, 2024, the parties stipulated to Court-Supervised Notice for all current and former servers and bartenders who worked for Defendant at one or more of its Ohio restaurant locations for at least one week between March 27, 2021, and the present. From June 6, 2022, to November 14, 2022, Plaintiff worked as a server at Defendant's Brecksville, Ohio location. Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated the FLSA by improperly taking a tip credit for tipped employees in two ways: (1) requiring tipped employees to perform work unrelated to their tipped occupation; and (2) requiring tipped employees to perform tip-supporting work in excess of 20% of the time and/or in excess of 30 continuous minutes. Employers may claim a tip credit allowing them to pay tipped employees $2.13 per hour under certain circumstances. In 1967, the Department of Labor (DOL) promulgated the dual jobs regulation, distinguishing between an employee who worked two distinct jobs and one who worked one job with overlapping duties. In 1988, the DOL issued guidance creating the 80/20 Rule, under which an employer may not claim a tip credit for duties performed more than 20% of an employee's working hours. In 2021, the DOL added a new 30-Minute Rule. The Fifth Circuit subsequently vacated the 2021 Final Rule, and the DOL rescinded it in December 2024, reinstating the regulatory text as it appeared prior to the 2021 rule. Upon careful examination, the Court found the 1967 dual jobs regulation entitled to Skidmore deference, noting it was promulgated after months of thorough consideration through the notice and comment process. The Court also found the 1988 Handbook and its 80/20 Rule to be persuasive authority, noting the DOL maintained a consistent position for several decades. Accordingly, the Court applied both to the issues in this case. As to the unrelated work claim, the Court found Plaintiff adequately stated a violation of the dual jobs regulation by alleging Defendant required tipped employees to clean ledges, the kitchen, walls, windows, bathrooms, and to wash trays, appliances, silverware, dishes, and glasses while paid at the tip credit rate. Defendant's motion was therefore denied on this claim. As to the tip-supporting work claim, the Court found the 80/20 Rule long predated the 2021 rule and Plaintiff's claim survived under it. However, the Court granted Defendant's motion as to the 30-Minute Rule, finding it was new to the 2021 Final Rule and has no analog in the DOL's previous guidance. The 30-Minute Rule no longer exists, and Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim under it. Defendant owned and operated Burntwood Tavern restaurants at ten Ohio locations. All locations used the same employee handbook and procedural book, and all tipped employees were paid at one-half of the Ohio minimum wage. Tipped employees had designated side work before opening, during their shift, and after closing each day. On Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the unrelated work claim, the Court found no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant claimed a tip credit for time its tipped employees spent performing unrelated work, including washing dishes, taking out trash, cleaning the patio and restaurant, performing hosting duties, and cutting fruit. Plaintiff's motion was therefore granted as to liability. On Defendant's cross-motion, the Court found Defendant failed to support its arguments with Rule 56 evidence or legal authority showing the disputed tasks were related to the tipped occupation. Defendant's motion as to the unrelated work claim was accordingly denied. As to the tip-supporting work claim, the Court found Plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether tipped employees spent more than 20% of their time on tip-supporting duties while paid the tipped wage rate. Defendant is therefore not entitled to summary judgment on this claim. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zcesFA from PacerMonitor.com C&A MARKETING: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C&A Marketing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02256 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://powersystems.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 26, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching for fitness equipment for home use. She came across the Defendant's website and proceeded to explore it with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the website using screen reader software, she encountered several accessibility barriers. The accessible names of the navigation categories did not correspond to the visible labels of the elements, and necessary contextual information was missing. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. C&A Marketing, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of fitness and training products, including dumbbells, squat racks, barbells, and weight plates, along with functional and recovery tools such as resistance bands, kettlebells, battle ropes, plyo boxes, foam rollers, massage tools, and stretching aids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law CHISTI MANAGEMENT: Mortland Sues Over Property's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK MORTLAND, Plaintiff, v. CHISTI MANAGEMENT LLC., an Ohio limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00213-JPH (S.D. Ohio, February 27, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated, against the Defendant pursuant to the enforcement provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Morland is an individual diagnosed with spinal paralysis and permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility. As such, Plaintiff is substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including but not limited to, standing and walking, as defined by the ADA and its regulations. On May 13-14, 2024, the Plaintiff was an overnight guest at the Defendant's hotel as a bona fide guest while on business in the area. He has encountered architectural barriers at the subject property. The barriers to access at the property have endangered his safety and protected access to Defendant's place of public accommodation. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts that he and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA. Chisti Management LLC. owns and/or operates a hotel located in Cincinnati, Ohio known as Comfort Inn & Suites Cincinnati Eastgate in Clermont County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com CHOICE HOTELS: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Mahon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE MAHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00828-PX (D. Md., February 27, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff, current and former franchisees of Defendant and their customers, and other individuals who entrusted Defendant with their PII. The complaint states that as a condition of becoming Defendant's franchisee and/or the franchise's customer, Defendant required that all franchisees and customers, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, provide Defendant with their Private Information, including at least the following: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and other sensitive information. The Defendant stored this Private Information in its information technology computer systems and servers. The Plaintiff and the Class Members, as current or former customers of Defendant's franchisees, relied on the Defendant's promises and on this sophisticated business entity to keep their sensitive Private Information confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information. On February 19, 2026, the Defendant disclosed that it was subject to a cyberattack. In its report to the Office of The Maine Attorney General, Defendant states that an unknown actor gained access on January 14, 2026, to an application that contained records regarding franchisees and franchise applicants. Defendant's letter states that the Private Information included at least names, contact information, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and inactions, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered anxiety, emotional distress, and loss of privacy, and are at an increased risk of future harm, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Plaintiff Catherine Mahon is a citizen of Arizona, residing in the city of Glendale. Defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc. is one of the world's largest lodging franchisors. It currently franchises more than 7,000 hotels across 40 countries and territories and 50 states in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane O. King, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DUANE O. KING 803 W. Broad St. Suite 210 Falls Church, VA 22046 Telephone: (202)331-1963 Facsimile: (202)449-8365 E-mail: dking@dkinglaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com CHOICE HOTELS: Sanchez Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAROL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00781-TDC (D. Md., February 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on January 14, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Choice Hotels International, Inc. is a hotel franchising company based in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE: Awaits Court Ruling on Post Trial Briefings ------------------------------------------------------------------- CNO Financial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 24, 2026, that its subsidiary, Conseco Life Insurance, is awaiting court ruling on the post-trial briefings on an insurance dispute alter ego trial. On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp commenced an action entitled "Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co." against, among others, CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a putative class of former interest-sensitive whole life insurance policyholders who surrendered their policies or let them lapse. Plaintiffs' first mended complaint alleges that the CNO Entities are liable under an alter ego theory for Conseco Life Insurance Company's purported breach of the optional premium payment provision and other provisions of plaintiffs' insurance policies. In January 2018, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On August 17, 2020, the court denied the CNO Entities' motions to dismiss. On January 13, 2021, granted final approval of a class action settlement between plaintiffs and co-defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company (now Wilco Life Insurance Company), a CNO wholly owned subsidiary. On March 25, 2022, the court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of under 2,000 policyholders who invoked the policy's Optional Premium Payment prior to October 2008 and who surrendered their policies between October 7, 2008 and September 1, 2011. The court's certification order acknowledged the existence of individualized issues of causation and damages, which it stated could be addressed in individualized proceedings following a class trial on the alter ego allegations and the meaning of the subject insurance policy language. A three-day jury trial on causation and damages as to the two class representatives commenced on June 16, 2025, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the class representatives on June 18, 2025 for approximately $0.2 million collectively. This verdict is notional and contingent and has no preclusive effect on any follow-on trials by absent class members in terms of causation and damages. The class representatives' ability to collect any damages from the CNO Entities will depend on the outcome of the bench trial on alter ego liability. The bench trial on alter ego liability was held between August 26 to September 2, 2025, but no ruling has been made yet. The parties prepared post-trial briefing, which was completed at the end of December 2025. CNO Financial Group, Inc., is a holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the United States that develop, market and administer health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. It focuses on serving middle-income pre-retiree and retired U.S. citizens. DALSTRONG AMERICA: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dalstrong America Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04053-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.dalstrong.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 3, 2025, while browsing social media, Plaintiff Cole came across many recommended posts about Dalstrong kitchen knives. While navigating Defendant's website, he also became interested in the Meat Cleaver 9 with stand. However, as he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his progress. He encountered sub menu drop-down elements were not accessible by keyboard. He attempted to navigate using the tab and arrow keys but was unable to access them. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Dalstrong America Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of kitchen knives, cleavers, and knife sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law DHARMA TRADING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dharma Trading Co., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04052-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.dharmatrading.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff Cole was searching for dyeable clothing and discovered the Defendant's website. While exploring the website, Cole decided to purchase the Handwoven Plain Twill Rayon Challis Scarf, a flat piece described as easy to dye. However, while browsing the website, he encountered multiple accessibility issues that hindered his ability to navigate and complete the purchase. The website did not provide a "Skip to Content" link, preventing him from bypassing repetitive navigation elements. As a result, Plaintiff Cole was unable to review selected items or proceed to checkout, preventing him from completing the purchase. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Dharma Trading Co. operates the website that offers dyes and materials for fiber arts and tie-dye.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law DRAPIFY HOME: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Drapify Home, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02116 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.twopagescurtains.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff Davis was searching for custom curtains and decided to explore the available options. During her search, she came across Defendant's website. While navigating using her screen reader software, the Plaintiff encountered several accessibility barriers. The navigation menu included drop down menus that were not accessible via keyboard and did not announce their expanded or collapsed state to assistive technologies. As a result, Davis experienced difficulty browsing the navigation section and was unable to determine that certain links were being skipped. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Davis seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Drapify Home, Inc. operates the website that offers window coverings, including curtains, drapes, shades, and blinds, along with related hardware such as curtain rods and tracks, rings, hooks, holdbacks, pull wands, and measuring tools for installation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law DREAME TECHNOLOGY: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dreame Technology USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02122 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.dreametech.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 12, 2025, while searching online for an air purifier, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website. Interested in purchasing an air purifier, the Plaintiff accessed the website to explore its available options and complete a purchase. However, while navigating the website, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The navigation sub-menus automatically expanded when they received keyboard focus and could not be manually expanded or collapsed, forcing her to tab through all submenu items. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to complete her purchase. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Dreame Technology USA Inc. operates the website that offers smart home appliances, such as robot vacuums, wet dry vacuums, air purifiers, hair care and yard care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law EDWARD D. JONES: Shah Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. d/b/a EDWARD JONES, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01750 (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The complaint relates that in order to be matched with a financial advisor through the Website, www.edwardjones.com applicants must share confidential information, including their income, amount of investments, employment status, and protected characteristics like sexual orientation. When consumers provide this information on their applications, they expect that such confidential information and activity will be protected and not disclosed to unknown third parties. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, Defendant disclosed information provided by consumers on its financial advisor matching pages to LinkedIn Corporation ("LinkedIn"). These disclosures include communications that contain sensitive and confidential information -- i.e., nonpublic personal information. The Defendant violated the ECPA and the CIPA by disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent, asserts the complaint. In addition, as a result of its activities and operation of the LinkedIn Insight Tag, LinkedIn is able to make extremely personal inferences about individuals' demographics, intent, behavior, engagement, interests, buying decisions, and more. The personal information and communications obtained by LinkedIn are used to fuel various services offered via LinkedIn's Marketing Solutions including Ad Targeting, Matched Audiences, Audience Expansion, and LinkedIn Audience Network. The Plaintiff and California Subclass members have been injured by Defendant's violations, and each seeks statutory damages. Plaintiff Vishal Shah is a citizen of California, residing in Buena Park, California. In October 2025, Plaintiff sought to be matched to a financial advisor on the Website. By answering the questions in the associated quiz, Plaintiff provided information related to his financial condition, private investments, employment status, and other elements of his private affairs. Defendant Edward D. Jones & Co, L.P. offers financial advising services and matches customers with financial advisors through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jwilner@bursor.com EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS: Witness Disclosures in Allen Due April 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.A. by next friend SHANTELL ALLEN, et al., v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00359 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Abizer Zanzi entered an order granting he oral motion to modify schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by April 27, 2026; the Defendants' expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by June 8, 2026; the Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by July 13, 2026; and the close of expert discovery is Aug. 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file any motion to enforce any third-party subpoenas is March 16, 2026. -- The deadline to complete mediation is extended to May 29, 2026. Regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in S.A., Case No. 2:22-cv 359, the Court clarifies any misstatement on the record regarding the Court's Order at DE 137. The Plaintiffs must re-file their Amended Motion for Class Certification, Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification, and any supporting exhibits which were previously filed. The Defendants' response brief remains due March 13, 2026, and Plaintiffs' reply brief remains due April 3, 2026. The Court will continue to hold regular joint status conferences in these cases, with the next one scheduled for June 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time. By June 9, 2026, the parties must file joint status reports concerning the status of specific discovery in each of the cases since the last status conference. DuPont is a major American chemical and science-based products company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ajtrbU at no extra charge.[CC] EI DU PONT: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.A. by next friend SHANTELL ALLEN, et al., v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip Simon entered an order On Aug. 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On Oct. 15, 2025, the parties submitted a joint proposal for class certification briefing and related discovery. On Dec. 15, 2025, the parties had a status hearing with Magistrate Judge Abizer Zanzi where they discussed the case's timeline. Judge Zanzi ordered that Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be due by March 13, 2026, and Plaintiffs’ reply will be due by April 3, 2026. Due to the delay between the filing of the motion and the close of briefing on the motion, and to clear up the docket, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice, to be refiled instanter. The briefing deadlines set by Judge Zanzi remain in effect. DuPont is an American chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sYhtTu at no extra charge.[CC] EVERGREEN RECYCLING: Parker Balks at Layoffs Without Proper Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ BONNIE PARKER and PARKER BLOOM, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVERGREEN RECYCLING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00500 (N.D. Ohio, February 27, 2026) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Ohio Mini-WARN Act by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other similarly-situated persons against Defendant, their employer, for WARN Act purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant abruptly terminated, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, at least 165 employees including Plaintiffs, which represents 33% of active full-time employees at the facility. The Plaintiffs were terminated on February 25, 2026, as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing without notice. They bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around February 25, 2026, and within 90 days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act and Ohio WARN Act. Evergreen Recycling LLC owns and operates an office located at 202 Watertower Drive, Clyde, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com FITJOY INC: Spreng Sues Over Pretzels' Deceptive Packaging ---------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN SPRENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITJOY, INC. d/b/a FITJOY FOODS, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-01622 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising of pretzels. According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively sells the product in oversized packaging to increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition. As a result of the Defendant's unfair trade practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. FitJoy, Inc., doing business as FitJoy Foods, is a food product manufacturer based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, APC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com FRANK STRADA: Montgomery Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gart Montgomery, et al., v. Frank Strada, et al., Case No. 3:26-mc-00012-CEA-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L9xeMF at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] GEICO: Class Cert. Discovery Closes May 18 in Cude Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CUDE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 3:25-cv-00475-N (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 70-day (10-week) extension of the remaining class certification deadlines as follows: The Plaintiffs designate rebuttal May 1, 2026 experts, if any: Class certification discovery closes: May 18, 2026 The Defendant serves (but does not June 3, 2026 file) response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, including all supporting evidence and supporting brief: The Plaintiffs serve on the Defendant July 1, 2026 (but do not file) their reply to the Defendant's response, including rebuttal evidence, if any, and supporting brief: Submission Date: July 16, 2026 GEICO is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=puNwYf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Austin P. Smith, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com austin@stecklerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Brett Johnson, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 N. Pearl St., 9th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 453-6500 E-mail: mbjohnson@winston.com GEICO: Fischer Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH FISCHER, MICHAEL O'SULLIVAN, JOHN MOESER, LOUIS PIA, THOMAS BARDEN, CONSTANCE MANGAN, and CHARISE JONES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, doing business as GEICO, Case No. 2:23-cv-02848-SJB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Bulsara entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. GEICO's motion to exclude O'Neil's testimony is granted and its motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. The Court finds Dr. O'Neil's opinion unreliable for determining whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23. Therefore, the abundance of individualized questions as to liability, combined with a lack of a Daubert-proof class-wide damages theory, defeat a finding of predominance, and as such class certification here is improper. The Plaintiffs seek class action certification for their claims against GEICO for failing to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint revising the scope of the class to New York Investigators and defining the FLSA Collective as: "All current and former non-exempt classified employees of GEICO who worked as Special Investigators (including comparable roles with different titles) in New York during the time period from three years prior to the filing of the complaint until resolution of this action." On June 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of: "All current and former Investigators in Region 2 from April 17, 2017 who worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not paid for all hours." GEICO is an auto insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uAVupA at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDEN STATE WATER: To Get $6.5M Final Settlement Payment by 2033 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Golden State Water Company (GSWC) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2026, that it is has been a plaintiff in class action lawsuits (against 3M Company, DuPont, and others) related to perfluoroalkyl contamination affecting public water systems. It is currently settled and is receiving settlement payments based on respective class agreements. The class settlement agreement among the 3M Company and the class of eligible public water systems was entered into on June 22, 2023 and resolved any claims for PFAS contamination with 3M Company. The class settlement agreement between the parties was approved by an order issued by the Federal District Court of South Carolina on March 29, 2024. As a result of the settlement, GSWC was notified in the second quarter of 2025 that it will receive from 3M Company approximately $19.0 million, net of legal fees. In June 2025, 3M Company paid a portion of this amount into a qualified settlement fund totaling approximately $12.5 million to be administered by a custodian for the benefit of GSWC. GSWC received the first payment of approximately $3.8 million into this settlement fund in August, and the remainder of the $12.5 million was received in October 2025. GSWC expects to be paid the remaining settlement payments totaling approximately $6.5 million during 2026–2033. During the fourth quarter, GSWC received class settlement payments of $2.2 million and $0.3 million, net of legal and other costs, respectively, from DuPont pursuant to respective class settlement agreements. GSWC is a public water and wastewater utility engaged in the purchase, production, distribution and sale of water in 11 counties in the state of California and provides wastewater collection and treatment services in some areas. GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Supplement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting the filing of a supplemental submission in support of their Motion for Class Certification. This submission is to advise the Court that for purposes of the Motion, Ms. Weaver and her litigation team are now affiliated with Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, as set forth in the attached Proposed Supplemental Submission. Google is an American multinational technology corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mgG4Ih at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (341) 217-0550 E-mail: lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com jsamra@stranchlaw.com gmullens@stranchlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. Alexander Y. Zeng, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com lkessler@saverilawfirm.com azeng@saverilawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowo@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: RICO Suit Ongoing in Arizona Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon Education, 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 18, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action captioned "Smith and Wang v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc.," filed in June 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and asserts claims under the federal RICO statute as well as various claims for violations of state law consumer protection statutes related to Grand Canyon University (GCU) Graduate Program disclosures. It is a party to several matters alleging that, in the performance of its marketing services provided on behalf of GCU, it made false or misleading representations regarding the time to complete and the costs associated with and/or accreditation issues related to certain GCU graduate programs. On September 20, 2024, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on November 4, 2024, the company moved to dismiss the case. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court dismissed one of the plaintiff's RICO counts but allowed the other RICO count and the consumer protection claims to proceed to discovery. Discovery is ongoing, and there is currently no trial date scheduled in this matter. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. HARNEY & SONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harney & Sons Tea Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02129 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.harney.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Echols and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 24, 2025, Plaintiff Echols was looking for tea products and discovered the Defendant's website. The Plaintiff proceeded to browse the website with the intention of making a purchase and became interested in purchasing a teapot. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader software, she encountered several accessibility barriers. Specifically, navigation menus with drop-down options expanded automatically when they received keyboard focus and could not be closed using the Escape key. As a result, the Plaintiff was required to tab through each element within the submenu, including items she did not intend to access, making navigation inefficient and time-consuming, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Harney & Sons Tea Corp. operates the website that offers teas and tea-related items, including loose-leaf and teabag varieties of black, green, white, herbal, matcha, and classic blends, as well as collectible sachet tins, teaware, and gift bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law HAWAIIAN HOST: Chocolate Confection Labels Deceptive, Aviles Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EILEEN AVILES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAIIAN HOST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00600-JDP (E.D. Cal., February 26, 2026) is a consumer protection class action against the Defendant to remedy a systematic and fraudulent scheme involving the deceptive marketing and sale of chocolate-covered macadamia nut confections in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant capitalizes on the global reputation by adorning the packaging of its Hawaiian Host brand Products with iconic Hawaiian landscapes, cultural symbols, and affirmative geographic slogans -- such as "Genuine," "Original," and "Made with Aloha," -- to create the unambiguous impression that the primary ingredient is sourced from Hawai'i. In reality, the Defendant's products sold on the "mainland," including in California, are comprised of cheaper, foreign-grown macadamia nuts imported for pennies on the dollar from regions such as South Africa and Australia. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class sought to purchase authentic Hawaiian confections but were instead misled by Defendant's deceptive branding into subsidizing a global supply chain of foreign nuts while paying Hawai'i-level prices, says the suit. Hawaiian Host, LLC manufactures chocolate and cocoa products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com HILL PROPERTY: Bid for More Time to File Renewed Class Cert OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE HALL, v. HEATHER HILL PROPERTY COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam B. Abelson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file her renewed motion for class certification. The Court further orders that the Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or before Feb. 25, 2026. Heather operates Heather Hill Apartments. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DglJO2 at no extra charge.[CC] HIMS & HERS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hims & Hers Health 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 23, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 25, 2025, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives, and were later consolidated by the court as In re Hims & Hers Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 25-cv-05315 (the "Securities Action"). The amended consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2026 on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock and a proposed class of purchasers of derivative securities referencing the Company's Class A common stock between April 29, 2025 and June 22, 2025, and alleges violations of securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and in particular, with respect to the business relationship between the Company and Novo Nordisk. The Securities Action seeks an unspecified amount of damages as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company does not currently consider a loss on this lawsuit to be probable. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] HYATT CORP: Bid for Class Certification in Ybarra Due August 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD ANTHONY YBARRA, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-04101-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting the joint stipulation to extend briefing schedule pursuant to Court Order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures deadline is June 5, 2026. 2. The Defendant's expert disclosures deadline is July 31, 2026. 3. Deadline for motion for class certification is Aug. 31, 2026. 4. Opposition to motion for class certification is Oct. 12, 2026. 5. Reply to motion for class certification is Nov. 9, 2026. Hyatt is an American global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m3Rpsd at no extra charge.[CC] INTEGER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend West Palm Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Integer Holdings 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 23, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 10, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Integer and certain of its executives, captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Integer Holdings Corporation, et al. (the "Securities Action"). The complaint in the lawsuit alleges violations of the securities laws in the company's public disclosures. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and attorney's fees, and other unspecified relief. Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint is currently stayed pending the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Integer denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims in the Securities Action. Integer Holdings Corporation is a global medical device contract manufacturer, with its principal executive offices in Plano, Texas. [BN] IQVIA INC: Bid to File Opposition Under Seal OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza Quiñones Alejandro entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to file under seal: (1) certain portions of IQVIAs opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment; (2) certain portions of IQVIAs opposition to plaintiffs renewed motion for class certification; and (3) certain exhibits to the declaration of Tiffany Cheung. IQVIA operates as a healthcare information technology and pharma clinical research company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JqredM at no extra charge.[CC] J.E. DUNN: Faces Macey Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP MACEY, individually and on behalf of the Dunn 401(k) Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. J.E. DUNN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DUNN 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries and members of the Committee, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00173-JAM (W.D. Mo., February 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of their fiduciary duties by selecting and continuing to retain a severely underperforming the American Century One Choice target date fund series across all metrics instead of removing it in favor of better and available options. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Dunn 401(k) Retirement Plan, the Plaintiff and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries suffered financial losses. J.E. Dunn Construction Company is a construction firm based in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. McSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com JACKSON LABORATORY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMALIE SEIJAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. THE JACKSON LABORATORY, an unknown business entity; THE JACKSON LABORATORY, WEST, a Maine corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03423-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Calabretta entered an order granting stipulated request to amend scheduling order and attend mediation. The Court shall amend the Scheduling Order as follows: Filing of Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 30, 2026 Completion of fact discovery: May 1, 2027 Expert disclosures: June 1, 2027 Disclosure of rebuttal experts: July 1, 2027 Completion of expert discovery: Aug. 15, 2027 Filing of dispositive motions: Sept. 15, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Jan. 27, 2028 Jury Trial: Mar. 27, 2028 Jackson is an independent, non-profit biomedical research institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zk9E4b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com jwatson@schneiderwallace.com - and - Arby Aiwazian, Esq. Arman Marukyan, Esq. Dominic Scarangella, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: aa@calljustice.com arman@calljustice.com d.scarangella@calljustice.com JANUS HENDERSON: Continues to Defend Schissler Class Suit in Col. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janus Henderson disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Schissler class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 9, 2022, a class action complaint, captioned Schissler v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Named as defendants are Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc. (Janus US Holdings) and the Advisory Committee to the Janus 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan that invested in Janus Henderson funds on or after September 9, 2016. On January 10, 2023, an amended complaint was filed against the same defendants, naming two additional plaintiffs, Karly Sissel and Derrick Hittson. As amended, the complaint alleges that for the period September 9, 2016, among other things, the defendants breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by (i) selecting higher-cost Janus Henderson funds over less expensive investment options, (ii) retaining Janus Henderson funds despite their alleged underperformance and (iii) failing to consider actively managed funds outside of Janus Henderson to add as investment options. The amended complaint also alleges that Janus US Holdings failed to monitor the Advisory Committee with respect to the foregoing. The amended complaint seeks various declaratory, equitable and monetary relief in unspecified amounts. On January 22, 2024, the district court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Janus US Holdings' motion to dismiss. The parties thereafter conducted fact and expert discovery, which was completed on May 27, 2025. Janus Henderson operates as an investment management company. JUSTWATCH GMBH: Class Settlement in Fuhrhop Suit Gets Prelim Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY FUHRHOP and ANGELA MORRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JUSTWATCH, GMBH, Case No. 1:23-cv-12923-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Cabell entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement . -- The Court preliminarily certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the following Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who have a JustWatch account." -- The Court appoints Corey Fuhrhop and Angela Morrell as Representative Plaintiffs. -- The Court preliminarily appoints Eric S. Dwoskin of Dwoskin Wasdin LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- A hearing will be held by this Court in the Courtroom of The Honorable George A. O'Toole, Jr., at 2:00 p.m. on May 21, 2026. The Defendant is a media company built for modern-day entertainment. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jbr2PS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 849-8060 E-mail: edwoskin@dwowas.com - and - Raymond P. Ausrotas, Esq. William F. McGonigle, Esq. ARROWOOD LLP 10 Post Office Square, 7th Floor South Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 849-6200 Facsimile: (617) 849-6201 E-mail: rausrotas@arrowoodllp.com wmcgonigle@arrowoodllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles Sipos, Esq. Lauren J. Tsuji, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-3983 Facsimile: (206) 359-4983 E-mail: csipos@perkinscoie.com ltsuji@perkinscoie.com - and - Melanie Woodward NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP Seaport West, 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-2000 Facsimile: (617) 310-9000 E-mail: MWoodward@nutter.com KRISTI NOEM: Gonzalez Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL ANTONIO REYES GONZALEZ, v. TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Los Angeles Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; and CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden of California City Corrections Center, Case No. 1:26-cv-00772-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting petition for writ of habeas corpus, terminating the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, and directing respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing order directing the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor of petitioner. 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. 2. The motion for temporary restraining order is terminated as moot. 3. Respondents are ordered to provide the Petitioner, within seven (7) days, an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a). 4. In the event Respondents do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within the allotted time, the Respondents shall release Petitioner forthwith. 5. Respondents shall file a notice with the court within ten (10) days certifying compliance with this order and setting out the date and outcome of any bond hearing or, in the alternative, the date of Petitioner's release. 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and against Respondents. Following the filing of Respondents’ notice, the Court may direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. Consistent with the judgment entered in favor of the Bond Eligible Class in Maldonado Bautista, the court finds Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a). The Petitioner asserts that he is a member of the "Bond Eligible Class" certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal. 2025), and requests that the court order Respondents to release him or provide a bond hearing. The Maldonado Bautista petitioners moved for class certification, seeking declaratory relief that they were entitled to bond hearings. The court found certification was appropriate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certified a "Bond Eligible Class" defined as: "All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination. Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador. He "entered the United States without inspection over 12 years ago" and "was not apprehended upon arrival." Petitioner has "resided continuously in the United States" since 2013. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FG2TwB at no extra charge.[CC] MAESA LLC: McNair False Ad Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Chirron McNair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maesa LLC doing business as Niches & Nooks, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV02367, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02036 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges the Defendants' violation of the California Business & Professions Code for false and misleading advertising. Maesa LLC, doing business as Niches & Nooks, manufactures fragrance. The Company offers personal care and cosmetics products such as nail polishes, lipstick, foundations, eyeshadow, mascara, primer, and makeup kit, as well as perfumes and home fragrance. Maesa serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William F. Tarantino, Esq. Alberto J. Corona, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: WTarantino@mofo.com ACorona@mofo.com MAGNOLIA BANK: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Castillo Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Nikolai Castillo, an Arizona resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Magnolia Bank, Incorporated, a Kentucky corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01390-CDB (D. Ariz., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful failure to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members' overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 hours in a given work week but was not paid appropriate overtime. The Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, overtime wages, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the FLSA. Plaintiff Castillo was a full-time employee of Defendant or an associated company of Defendant from February 2025 until September 2025. Magnolia Bank, Incorporated is a company authorized to do business in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone/Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com MASIMO CORP: $33.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SERGIO VAZQUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MASIMO CORPORATION, JOSEPH KIANI, MICAH YOUNG, BILAL MUHSIN, and ELI KAMMERMAN Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES To: all persons and entities who or that purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of Masimo Corporation ("Masimo") during the period from May 4, 2022 through August 8, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Masimo, Micah Young, Bilal Muhsin, and Eli Kammerman (collectively, "Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the class action (the "Action") in the amount of $33,750,000 (the "Settlement"). Settling Defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Daniel E. Butcher, either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on May 5, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) at the United States District Court, Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated August 14, 2025; (iii) for purposes of the Settlement only, finally certify the Settlement Class, finally certify Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and finally appoint the law firm of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (v) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and Claim Form by visiting the website, www.MasimoSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Masimo Securities Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170600 Milwaukee, WI 53217 www.MasimoSecuritiesSettlement.com info@MasimoSecuritiesSettlement.com (866) 830-0516 Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than April 28, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice available on the settlement website, and such request must be received no later than April 14, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Settling Parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice available on the website, such that they are received no later than April 14, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 3, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court Southern District of California MERCER ADVISORS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Berger Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL BERGER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCER ADVISORS, INC. and MERCER GLOBAL ADVISORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00842 (D. Colo., March 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information ("PII") and for its failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain and/or are utilized to transfer the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of its business, Mercer collects and maintains the PII of its current and former customers. On February 16, 2026, an extortion-oriented cybercrime group known as ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for an unauthorized intrusion into systems associated with Mercer, asserting that it had accessed and exfiltrated over 5 million records belonging to the firms' clients and internal operations. The group issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Mercer, threatening to leak the records it had stolen if Mercer refused to pay a ransom. When its demands were not met, ShinyHunters published the records to the dark web. According to independent reporting that analyzed the leaked datasets, the alleged breach involved approximately 5.7 million individual records containing names, contact information, full or partial Social Security numbers, emergency contact details, contract documents, legal documents, and other personally identifiable information that was routinely collected and maintained by Mercer. As a direct result of the unauthorized access and disclosure of Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal and financial information, those individuals are put at heightened risk of identity theft, financial fraud, phishing, and other harms, thereby causing substantial and ongoing damages, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract, seeking damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient data security practices to safeguard the PII in Mercer's possession in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future. Plaintiff Paul Berger is a citizen and resident of the District of Columbia. Defendant Mercer Advisors, Inc. operates as a national wealth management and investment advisory firm that collects, stores, and maintains highly sensitive personal and financial information from its clients as part of providing ongoing financial planning and advisory services. Defendant Mercer Global Advisors, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mercer Advisors, Inc. It is also a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware that maintains a principal place of business at 1200 17th Street, Suite 2000, Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric R. Olson, Esq. OLSON GRIMSLEY KAWANABE HINCHCLIFF & MURRAY LLC 1700 17th Street, Suite1600 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: 303-535-9151 E-mail: eric.olson@olsongrimsley.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq. Kira Hessekiel, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-540-7200 E-mail: jpizirusso@hausfeld.com E-mail: nmurphy@hausfeld.com E-mail: khessekiel@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com MGP INGREDIENTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- MGP Ingredients, 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the District Court for the District of Kansas. On December 16, 2024, a putative securities class action, captioned Operating Engineers Construction Industry Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. MGP Ingredients, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, two of its former Chief Executive Officers and its current Chief Financial Officer (the "Operating Engineers Action"). The Operating Engineers Action was brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded MGP common stock between May 4, 2023 and October 30, 2024. On February 13, 2025, a second putative securities class action, captioned Bronstein v. MGP Ingredients, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same defendants (the "Bronstein Action"). The Bronstein Action was brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded MGP securities between May 4, 2023 and October 30, 2024. Both actions assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements made in the Company's quarterly earnings releases and on earnings calls during the alleged class period. The Operating Engineers Action and Bronstein Action have been consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, now captioned In re MGPI Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on May 15, 2025, which Defendants moved to dismiss on July 15, 2025. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to the claims asserted and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. MGP Ingredients Inc. is a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages and food ingredients headquartered in Atchison, Kansas. [BN] MILLER FENCING: Martin FLSA Suit Removed to D. Ariz. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joshua Martin, a married man, and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Miller Fencing, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Shannon Miller and Chelsea Miller, husband and wife, Defendants, Case No. CV2026-000907, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in the County of Maricopa to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on February 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01335-MTL in the proceeding. The complaint alleges the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Miller Fencing, LLC is an American fence contractor.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alan M. Bayless Feldman, Esq. Danielle M. Huber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2111 East Highland Avenue, Suite B-250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 714-7044 Facsimile: (602) 714-7045 E-mail: alan.feldman@jacksonlewis.com danielle.huber@jacksonlewis.com MISSOURI VEGETABLE: Gandara-Cisneros Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE HUMBERTO GANDARA-CISNEROS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISSOURI VEGETABLE FARM, LLC; PROFFER WHOLESALE PRODUCE, INC.; and ROBERT PROFFER, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00286 (E.D. Mo., February 26, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri Overtime Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other H-2A visa holders regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other H-2A workers overtime premiums during those workweeks as required by the federal and state laws. The Plaintiff came to Missouri from Mexico as an H-2A worker in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 to work for the Defendants. Missouri Vegetable is a for-profit Missouri limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Dugan, Esq. Heather Schlozman, Esq. DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC 8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307 Overland Park, KS 66212 Telephone: (913) 322-3528 E-mail: heather@duganschlozman.com mark@duganschlozman.com - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. Elaine Woo, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com ewoo@radfordscott.com MOISES BECERRA: Hernandez Bid for TRO Tossed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diana Carolina Hernandez, v. Moises Becerra, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00001-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thurston entered an order: -- Converting the matter to a preliminary injunction and denying the preliminary injunction; and -- Referring the matter to the assigned magistrate. 1. The Petitioner's motions for a temporary restraining order is denied. 2. To preserve the Court's jurisdiction over the Petition, Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States or transfer him out of this District without a further order from this Court. 3. Respondents have indicated that they will not file a further brief in this matter. Even still, Petitioner may do so within 30 days or may alert the Court that no further briefing is needed. Should Petitioner file an additional brief, Respondents may file a responsive brief within 15 days thereafter and the Petitioner may file a reply within seven days after that. 4. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for consideration of the merits of the petition as quickly as possible. The Court is aware of no authority which would justify immediate release or indefinitely enjoining Petitioner's removal to a third country based on the facts in the record. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is not likely to succeed on the merits of her claim on this basis. Petitioner is a citizen and national of Venezuela and has been detained since September 2025, pursuant to an in absentia final order of removal from July 17, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UBW7i4 at no extra charge.[CC] MONARCH CASINO: Fails to Accurately Pay Employees, Perdomo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL PERDOMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MONARCH CASINO & RESORT, INC. and MONARCH BLACK HAWK, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00828 (D. Colo., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to accurately track the actual hours worked of their employees. According to the complaint, Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. and Monarch Black Hawk, Inc. (together, "Monarch") switched their employee timekeeping and payroll provider beginning December 2025. At that time, Monarch changed timekeeping and payroll functions from Infor to Workday. That changeover led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Monarch's organization. As a result, Monarch's employees--including those who were non-exempt under federal or Colorado law--were not paid their full and correct regular or overtime wages hours worked and/or were not paid minimum wages or full overtime premiums on time, if at all. According to the complaint, when Monarch used the Infor system, Monarch failed to pay Perdomo and other hourly workers like him for all hours worked each week. Instead of paying Perdomo and other hourly workers for all of their time, Monarch regularly rounded down the time they worked. Monarch's failure to pay wages, including minimum wages and proper overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Moreover, Monarch's failure to pay wages on time and in full for all hours worked to its workers in Colorado violates Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (collectively, "Colorado Wage-and-Hour Law"). This action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages Monarch owes Perdomo and all these workers under the law, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by federal and Colorado law. Plaintiff Daniel Perdomo is one such Monarch worker whose pay was disrupted by the changeover. Defendant Monarch Casino & Resorts, Inc. is a foreign corporation that provides the latest in gaming, dining and hospitality amenities. Defendant Monarch Black Hawk, Inc. is a domestic corporation that provides casino, resort, and spa services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 999 5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law NATIONAL GRID: Constantine's Bid to Certify Class Granted --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA CONSTANTINE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-10500-AK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered an order granting Constantine's motion to certify a class. The Plaintiff Laura Constantine alleges that National Grid violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Massachusetts Wage Act by failing to pay overtime, and violated the Wage Act by paying wages late and on a monthly basis. Constantine seeks to certify the following class: "All individuals currently or formerly employed by National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. in the past three (3) years who were subject to its monthly pay practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Monthly Pay Class")." The Defendant distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sPaEwt at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL RURAL: Bid to Set Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MULLINS, and THOMAS SUNDERLIN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 401(k) pension plan, v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00994-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order granting the joint motion to set summary judgment briefing schedule and reschedule final pretrial conference. The Court further entered an order that any motion for summary judgment shall be due on or before the later of March 13, 2026, or three days after the Court rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; oppositions shall be due fourteen days after the filing of summary judgment motions; and replies shall be due six days after the filing of opposition motions. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to counsel of record. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is the national trade association representing more than 900 local electric cooperatives. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QNREik at no extra charge.[CC] NOVO NORDISK: Ahmed Hashim Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC BARTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, MAZIAR MIKE DOUSTDAR, LARS FRUERGAARD JØRGENSEN, KARSTEN MUNK KNUDSEN, and DAVID S. MOORE, Case No. 3:25-cv-14045-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Day entered an order: -- Granting Hashim's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and denying the Fund's and Ivanov's motions to appoint lead plaintiff; -- Appointing Ahmed Hashim as lead plaintiff to represent all putative classes and sub-classes of the plaintiffs; and -- Appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead class counsel. The lead plaintiff shall be permitted to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of this Order. Here, Hashim's motion to serve as lead plaintiff is unopposed. Accordingly, in the absence of a challenge to his adequacy, Hashim remains the presumptive lead plaintiff and will be appointed as such. On Aug. 1, 2025, plaintiff Eric Barta brought a putative securities class action on behalf of: "All investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo") common stock between May 7, 2025 and July 28, 2025 against Novo and several of its current and former executives, seeking monetary damages pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5." The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning Novo's expected sales and revenue growth for the 2025 fiscal year, including statements concerning Novo's ability to grow GLP-1 sales, the overall potential of the GLP-1 market, and more. Novo is a Danish multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aY3VD2 at no extra charge.[CC] NTC MARKETING: Scheduling Order Entered in Seper Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE SEPER, v. NTC MARKETING INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02516-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Yandle entered a scheduling order. Having reviewed the Joint Report of the Parties and finding that the parties have substantially complied with the requirements of FED. R. CIR. P. 26(f) and SDIL-LR 16.2(a), the Court approves the attached Joint Report of the Parties as modified. The parties should note that they may, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 29, modify discovery dates set forth in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact the deadline for the completion of all discovery, the deadline for filing dispositive motions, or the date of any court appearance. Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless on order of the Court. Disclosures or discovery under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises over the disclosure or discovery. As initially set by the Court, this case is set for a Final Pretrial Conference on Oct. 28, 2027, at 9:30 a.m and Jury trial on Nov. 8, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in the Federal Courthouse, Benton, Illinois. All "Daubert" motions (seeking to exclude expert testimony/evidence) filed pursuant to Fed.R.Evid 702 and/or 703 must be filed by the dispositive motion deadline. NTC is a New York-based distributor of canned fruit products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwaJCK at no extra charge.[CC] NVIDIA CORPORATION: Securities Suit Remanded to District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Nvidia Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 25, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2025, that the Ninth Circuit remanded the securities class suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604. On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA's petition for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority decision to reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed on October 10, 2023. On December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to stay the mandate pending NVIDIA's petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court's final disposition of the matter. NVIDIA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted NVIDIA's petition for a writ of certiorari. After briefing and argument, the Supreme Court dismissed NVIDIA's writ of certiorari as improvidently granted on December 11, 2024, and issued judgment on January 13, 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit's judgment, entered August 25, 2023 and corrected August 28, 2023, took effect, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. O'REILLY AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Smith Due Jan. 29, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH and JAMES KEEFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-06037-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: The Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 29, 2027 certification due: The Defendants' opposition due: 28 days after service of motion The Plaintiffs' reply due: 14 days after service of opposition O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C8lbG1 at no extra charge.[CC] OPENLOOP HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Allen Says --------------------------------------------------------- COLLENA ALLEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPENLOOP HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00097-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa, February 27, 2026) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and/or injunctive relief for the proposed Class. The complaint relates that in the course of its business, Defendant collects personal and health information from patients like Plaintiff. The Defendant must maintain medical records subject to the requirements and standards of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. However, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"), which was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Around January 7, 2026, hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The threat actor, "stuckin2019" claimed responsibility for targeting Defendant's systems and stealing Plaintiff's and Class Members' information. According to a post on a cybercrime forum, the exposed dataset contains records linked to more than 1.6 million OpenLoop customers in the United States. The data reportedly contains names, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, build (weight, height), medical information, biometrics, IP addresses, prescription information, and fed ex tracking numbers. As a result of Defendant's negligent failure to prevent the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injury, which includes, but is not limited to, exposure to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud, identity theft, and financial harm. Plaintiff and Class Members must monitor their financial accounts and credit histories more closely and frequently to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Plaintiff Collena Allen is a citizen and is domiciled in the state of California and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant OpenLoop Health, Inc. is a telehealth platform that provides solutions for provider staffing, technology platform, payer coverage and RCM, licensing and credentialing, diagnostic imaging, regulatory and legal services, and practice management to digital health companies, hospitals and health systems, retailers, and employers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, Iowa 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515)223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Ellen J Wen, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com ewen@cpmlegal.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES: Curry Bid for Protective Order OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Curry, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, v. Outsourced Associates & Staffing, LLC DBA NOW CFO, LLC and Does 1 to 100 inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00076-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Dustin Pead entered an order: -- granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for protective order and curative instruction; and -- granting the Defendants' motion for order prohibiting the Plaintiff from unauthorized communications to Putative Class Members. The fact that the survey sent to Defendants' current and former employees was approved by Defendants' counsel does not lessen this concern. Nor does it change the court's concern that these "surveys" may not be squarely characterized as releases. Defendants have made payments and communicated with putative class members without disclosing information about this action. That falls within the possible definition of abuse. Defendants seek to overcome this problem by noting that the “surveys, phone calls, and checks were not coercive; the communications did not reference this lawsuit or suggest that acceptance of a check barred any further recovery. The court will prohibit communications with former employees. Defendants are further ordered to stop communications with its current employees concerning money payments for time worked unless Defendants fully disclose the present case and provide contact information for Plaintiff's counsel to those contacted. Plaintiff's counsel is not to reach out to those employees unless they initiate contact first. Further, the court is persuaded by the court's approach in Nakamura. Once class certification is completed, the court will entertain applications to void any releases previously signed at that time. With this extra measure of protection, the court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to issue a curative instruction. NOW CFO offers accounting, controller, and consulting services. A copy of the Court's memorandum PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit in Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Baker class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In connection with the Transactions, in July 2024, Scott Baker, a purported holder of Paramount Global Class B Common Stock, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against NAI, Shari E. Redstone, Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Susan Schuman, Skydance and David Ellison (the Baker Action ). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Paramount Global Class B stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Transaction Agreement, among other claims, and seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. In November 2024, the Court granted the parties stipulation in the Baker Action to (i) postpone briefing on the motions to dismiss until the filing or designation of an operative complaint following resolution of the plaintiff s motion to appoint him and the Baerlocher Family Trust, a purported holder of Paramount Global Class B Common Stock, as co-lead plaintiffs and Berger Montague PC as interim class counsel (the Baker Leadership Motion), and (ii) stay discovery until resolution of any motion to dismiss an operative complaint following resolution of the Baker Leadership Motion. In October 2024, various purported stockholders filed motions to intervene to oppose the Baker Leadership Motion. In December 2024, the plaintiff, along with Mark Baerlocher, as trustee for the Baerlocher Family Trust, filed an amended complaint alleging the same breaches of fiduciary duties against the same defendants as in the original complaint. In June 2025, counsel for Mr. Baker informed the Court that the Baker Leadership Motion would be withdrawn without prejudice and that the group of purported stockholders seeking lead plaintiff status would meet and confer to propose a schedule for resolving lead plaintiff applications. Paramount Skydance Corporation operates as a mass media and entertainment company. The Company provides broadcast of content through studios, networks, streaming services, live events, and merchandise. [BN] PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: Discovery in Gabelli Value Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance 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 25, 2026, that the Gabelli Value class suit discovery is ongoing in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In August 2025, Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc. ("Gabelli") filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Susan Schuman, Harbor Lights (f/k/a National Amusements, Inc.) and Shari E. Redstone (the "NAI Defendants"), and Skydance Media, LLC and RB Tentpole LP (the "Skydance Defendants"), alleging breach of fiduciary duty against all defendants and unjust enrichment against the NAI Defendants. Gabelli seeks a declaratory judgment, damages, including rescissory damages and/or quasi-appraisal damages, disgorgement of NAI's profits, fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. In September 2025, the Skydance Defendants filed placeholder motions to dismiss, and Gabelli filed a motion to be appointed as interim lead plaintiff representing former minority holders of Paramount Global Class A Common Stock (the "Gabelli Class A Leadership Motion"). In October 2025, counsel for Gabelli filed a letter with the Court indicating that no competing motions or objections to the Gabelli Class A Leadership Motion were filed and proposed that the Court appoint Gabelli as lead plaintiff. In November 2025, the Court granted the Gabelli Class A Leadership Motion and appointed Gabelli as lead plaintiff to prosecute the claims on behalf of the Class A minority shareholders. Defendants moved to stay discovery pending resolution of any filed and forthcoming motions to dismiss, and this motion to stay is currently pending before the Court. Paramount Skydance Corporation operates as a mass media and entertainment company. The Company provides broadcast of content through studios, networks, streaming services, live events, and merchandise. [BN] PAYCOR INC: Bid to Alter Class Cert Definition Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Dugan entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to alter or amend the class definition. The definition of the previously certified class is altered and amended as follows: "All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints or other biometric data collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed by the Defendant's Perform Time biometric timekeeping system during the applicable statutory period." In sum, the case remains in the middle of discovery and, as reflected by the current state of the docket, the parties have proven incapable of proceeding through discovery without the intervention of the Court; therefore, when crafting an appropriate class definition, the Court still declines to accept the Defendant's invitation to resolve factual variances or delve into the merits of fact-intensive claims or defenses that are better left for summary judgment. Nearly one year ago, on March 28, 2025, the Court partially granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In doing so, the Court certified the following class: "All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints, hand geometry or other biometric data collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed by the Defendant's Perform Time biometric timekeeping system during the applicable statutory period." The Defendant operates as a software company. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Feb. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PC3ldc at no extra charge.[CC] PORSCHE AG: Seeks to Amend Class Cert Briefing Sched in Stanley --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAKE STANLEY, an Individual, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-05916-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on March 20, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and the Court's inherent authority, for an order amending the class certification briefing schedule. PCNA proposes that the Court amend the class certification schedule to mirror the timelines established in Klein. PCNA proposes as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's class certification motion May 20, 2026 and disclosure of supporting experts: The Defendant's opposition to class July 22, 2026 certification, disclosure of opposition experts, and the Defendant's Rule 702 motions related to the Plaintiff's certification experts: The Plaintiff's reply in support of class Sept. 23, 2026 certification, oppositions to the Defendant's Rule 702 motions, and the Plaintiff's Rule 702 motions: The Defendant's replies in support of its Oct. 28, 2026 Rule 702 motions and the Defendant's oppositions to the Plaintiff's Rule 702 motions: The Plaintiff's replies in support of Nov. 25, 2026 his Rule 702 motions: Porsche is a German manufacturer of luxury, high-performance sports cars, SUVs, and sedans. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lk2Acr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher M. Young, Esq. Nathan P. Heller, Esq. Timothy D. Gilbert, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: christopher.young@us.dlapiper.com nathan.heller@us.dlapiper.com timothy.gilbert@us.dlapiper.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shubkagel v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-02155 (D. Kan., Filed March 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend scheduling order and extending the deadlines as follows: The Plaintiff's deadlines to file his Motion for Class Certification and to disclose experts is extended up to and including March 20, 2026. The Defendant's deadlines to file its Opposition to Class Certification and to disclose its experts is extended up to and including March 22, 2026. The deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification is extended up to and including July 10, 2026. The discovery deadline remains as currently set. The Court relieves the parties of their obligation regarding a mediation notice and to complete mediation. Those deadlines will be reset at a Status Conference following decision on class certification. The nature of suit states insurance contract.[CC] Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. PROJECT BOUND: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECT BOUND INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01598 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://nisolo.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Project Bound Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RALPH LAUREN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Supplemental Memo -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant requests that the Court grant leave to file the supplemental briefing, attached as Exhibit D to the declaration of Michael J. Chilleen, on the foregoing issues. The Plaintiff has been lying to the Defendant and this Court. Evidence has come to light, as of Feb. 11, 2026, of falsehoods and lies that the Plaintiff has put forth that undermine his complaint and his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff cannot purport to represent a class of screen reader users, when he does not use a screen reader. Further, if this much examination went into a single class member, this goes directly to the predominance of individual issues in this case. The Defendant must address these issues, but, because the briefing has already concluded for Plaintiff's Motion, it cannot do so without supplemental briefing. Ultimately, the Defendant would be prejudiced if it were unable to brief the Court on these new facts. The Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2023, alleging that he, as a visually-impaired litigant, was unable to fully access or utilize the Defendant's website using his screen reading software, JAWS, because of alleged website barriers. Ralph is a publicly traded American fashion and lifestyle brand. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xNGeH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com REALNETWORKS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 22, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA STROUGO, v. REALNETWORKS INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00297-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered a case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Substantial completion of document production: Oct. 23, 2026 Fact discovery cutoff: Dec. 11, 2026 Last day to amend pleadings or add parties Dec. 18, 2026 without leave of Court: The Plaintiff's motion for class Jan. 22, 2027 certification due no later than: The Defendants' opposition to class Feb. 26, 2027 certification due no later than: The Plaintiff's reply in support of class March 19, 2027 certification due no later than: The remainder of the case schedule will be set after the Court’s resolution of the motion for class certification. RealNetworks develops and markets software products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r4xTdP at no extra charge.[CC] REGUS MANAGEMENT: Standing Order Entered in Thomas Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER THOMAS, v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01346-RGK-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered a standing order regarding newly assigned cases. The action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge R. Gary Klausner. The responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts falls not only upon the attorneys in the action, but upon the Court as well. The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule. Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with Local Rules. The attorney attending any proceeding before this Court, including all status and settlement conferences, must be the lead trial counsel. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to hear all discovery disputes. Regus provides flexible workspace solutions, including serviced offices, coworking spaces, and virtual offices. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Fw9hp at no extra charge.[CC] REVTRAK INC: Bradley Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KRYSTAL BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVTRAK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026MR3, was removed from the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on February 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03066-CRL-DJQ to the proceeding. The complaint asserts the Defendant's violations of the Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act, and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. RevTrak, Inc. operates as a provider of payment processing solutions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Binder, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 702-8733 E-mail: matt.binder@alston.com - and - Alexandra Peurach, Esq. David Carpenter, Esq. Kaylan Meaza, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7683 E-mail: alex.peurach@alston.com david.carpenter@alston.com kaylan.meaza@alston.com RSCR CALIFORNIA: Barrajas Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BEATRICE ANGELICA BARRAJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 26CV-0046, was removed rom the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02224 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges the following purported causes of action against Defendant: (1) failure to provide compliant meal periods; (2) failure to provide compliant rest periods; (3) failure to pay for all hours worked; (4) failure to pay all overtime owed; (5) wage statement penalties; (6) waiting time penalties; and (7) violation of unfair competition law. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC. operates as a licensed supervised residential living options for adults with developmental disabilities. DOES 1 through 100 are the defendants with fictitious names.[BN] Defendant RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC. is represented by: Alex M. Barfield TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 Flower Street Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 216-430-3400 Facsimile: 216-430-3409 E-mail: alex.barfield@tuckerellis.com RUGSUSA LLC: McCarrell Suit Seeks to Certify UTPA Claims -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEIRA MCCARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00454-AB (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying UTPA claims under O.R.S. sections646.608(1)(s), 646.608(1)(j), 646.608(1)(p), 646.608(1)(ee), 646.883, and 646.885, and breach of contract, express warranty, and unjust enrichment claims for the following class: "All persons who, while in the state of Oregon and within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased one or more Rugs USA Product advertised at a discount on the Defendant's website on or after Oct. 13, 2023." The Plaintiff also seeks her appointment as class representative and the appointment of Dovel & Luner, LLP and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel. Here, all factors support certification: (1) individual claims are small relative to the cost of individual litigation so there is little incentive for individual claims (the Plaintiff's rug cost under $100); (2) there is no other litigation against Rugs USA commenced by the Class; (3) it makes sense to concentrate the litigation here, as all class members are in Oregon; and (4) because common issues predominate, there are no management difficulties that would foreclose a class. A class action is superior. Customers are told that the regular price of a selected rug was, say, $73.99, but because of a sale or discount, they would pay only $39.95. These advertised discounts are deceptive because Rugs USA's purported regular prices are not really its regular prices. Instead, Rugs USA regularly sells its products at prices lower than its advertised list prices. The Defendant markets and sells rugs online through its website. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qgMpGe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Stephen Ferruolo, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com sferruolo@dovel.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7011 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Ruiz from Detention ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ROXANA LOPEZ RUIZ, v. SAMUEL OLSON, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00051-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Ruiz's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and orders the following: -- The United States is directed to release Petitioner Ruiz immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of her due process rights. -- The United States must provide her with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. -- The United States must certify compliance with the Court's order by a filing on the docket by Feb.21, 2026. The Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Ruiz. The current detention of Ruiz is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. Petitioner Maria Roxana Lopez Ruiz is a 54-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. Ruiz has been present in the United States since 2001. Ruiz entered the United States without inspection. Since her arrival, Ruiz has been living in Mundelein, Illinois. Ruiz has one U.S. citizen son. Ruiz has been in detention since Oct. 19, 2025. Ruiz was sitting inside her parked car when Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE) officers approached her and asked for documentation. After stating she did not have any, the officers "forcefully pulled [Ruiz] out of her vehicle" where she was "pushed by an officer" and arrested. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8RJHwO at no extra charge.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Conn. Fed. Ct. Anticipates Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zarrella v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00234 (D. Conn., Filed Feb. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order anticipating a motion to certify a class action. The court is aware that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. Once the court decides the motion to certify a class action, or if a class certification motion is not filed, Zarrella will be notified. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --Prison Condition.[CC] SECURITY BENEFIT: Class Certification Oral Argument Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLA CLINTON, a Florida resident, WILLIAM CARRICK, a Florida resident, HOWARD ROSEN, a California resident, TERRI L. STAUFFER-SCHMIDT, an Arizona resident, DONALD P. COX, and MARTHA E. MILLER COX, Arizona residents, WAI HEE YUEN, an Arizona resident, MICHAEL A. WEBBER, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Kansas corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-HLT-RES 5:20-cv-04038-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order setting oral argument on the following motions pending before the Court in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. Security Benefit's motion to exclude declaration and opinions of Craig J. McCann, Ph.D.; 3. Security Benefit's motion to exclude the expert declaration of Frederick N. Egler, Esq.; 4. Security Benefit's motion to strike and exclude "Rebuttal" expert declaration of Craig J. McCann, Ph.D.; and 5. Security Benefit's motion to strike and exclude "Rebuttal" expert declaration of James Rouse. Given the complex factual and legal issues relevant to class certification, Security Benefit believes that an oral hearing will assist the Court given the volume of the parties' respective written submissions, the issues to be resolved, and provide the Court with an opportunity to raise any questions it may have. The Plaintiffs have indicated they take no position on Security Benefit's request. The Defendant is a U.S.-based financial services company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mTejPw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Holly A. Dyer, Esq. Anthony F. Rupp, Esq. Jacob T. Schmidt, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 267-6371 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: hdyer@foulston.com trupp@foulston.com jschmidt@foulston.com - and - Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq. Samuel J. Park, Esq. Gillian H. Clow, Esq. Jonathan J. Kim, Esq. Kristin A. Shepard, Esq. Michael A. Valerio, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-1000 Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 E-mail: Bo.Phillips@alston.com Samuel.Park@alston.com Gillian.Clow@alston.com Jonathan.Kim@alston.com Kristin.shepard@alston.com Michael.valerio@alston.com SEDANO'S MARKET: Initial Case Order entered in Mahlberg Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG, v. SEDANO'S MARKET INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-00395-JSS-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an initial case order. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required under Local Rule 1.07(c). The court screens every case to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Accordingly, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file the attached Disclosure Statement and Certification as required under Local Rule 3.03. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W9gEGr at no extra charge.[CC] SHAKE SHACK: Iaulualo Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as KAREN IAULUALO, individually and on behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff v. SHAKE SHACK WASHINGTON LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26 2 03397 8 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on February 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00677 to the proceeding. The complaint sets forth these causes of action against Defendant: (1) failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) violations of RCW 49.46.210; and (5) violation of Seattle paid sick and safe time ordinance. Shake Shack Washington LLC is a Delaware company doing business in the State of Washington. The Company operates a comprehensive food service and hospitality business that provides modern roadside burger stand-style dining featuring burgers, hot dogs, frozen custard, shakes, beer, wine, and other menu offerings.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter H. Nohle, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 626-6436 E-mail: peter.nohle@jacksonlewis.com SMARTMATCH INSURANCE: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA COCCIOLILLO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SMARTMATCH INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00627-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Bough entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint and to strike class allegations. The Defendant's arguments are premature and declines to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. As explained by Plaintiff, the Court bifurcated discovery in this case. The first stage of discovery focused on Plaintiff's individual claims and that discovery closed on January 6, 2026. The Court rejects the Defendant's arguments that "Plaintiff's class definitions require individualized, merits-based determinations of liability and attribution and depend on improper aggregation of non-attributable calls. " The Defendant's motion to strike is therefore denied. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's unsolicited calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the TCPA's corresponding regulations. Plaintiff asserts three TCPA claims against the Defendant on behalf of herself on behalf of putative class members. SmartMatch specializes in providing guidance, solutions, and support for Medicare plans to help clients make informed decisions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vOwGfe at no extra charge.[CC] SNAPFISH LLC: Sued Over Fake Discounts and Deceptive Online Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN HARATYK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNAPFISH, LLC., and DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01753 (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2026) is a class action concerning deceptive representations and omissions made by Defendant through its misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its websites, which directly violate a California statute and deceive the reasonable consumer. The complaint states that the products at issue are all goods that have been offered at any time on Snapfish's website, at a sale or discounted price from a supposedly higher reference price. However, all or nearly all of the reference prices on the website are false and misleading. They are not former or prevailing market prices at which the products were offered on the websites during the previous three months, contends the complaint. The Plaintiff--like hundreds of thousands of other customers across the United States--fell prey to Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading discount scheme. As a result, Defendant has received millions of dollars selling products at misrepresented discounts that do not actually exist. The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate the California Unfair Competition Law; California's False Advertising Law; and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant's conduct also constitutes negligent misrepresentation, and has unjustly enriched Defendant by the sale of these Products, adds the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this civil action to put an end to Defendant's illegal conduct. Through this class action lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed Class. Plaintiff Sean Haratyk is a citizen and resident of San Deigo County, California. Defendant Snapfish, LLC sells and markets photos, cards, prints, and other home decor online through the Snapfish website, https://www.snapfish.com/. Defendants Does 1–10 were responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages caused to Plaintiff and the Class, but their identities and/or roles are not yet known.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501-255-8569) E-mail: tyler@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com SOUTHERN TIDE: Rushefsky Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN RUSHEFSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN TIDE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01629 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2026) is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from its failure to ensure that its ecommerce website, www.southerntide.com is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals. On multiple occasions in 2025 and 2026, Plaintiff Rushefsky visited the website using NVDA with the intent to browse and purchase specific men's apparel items, including the South Beach Coastal Breeze(R) Sport Shirt, the Sandy Cove Pique Quarter Zip, and the Jack Performance Pant-Sandstone Khaki. During each visit, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to remediate the website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the website is and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also brings claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. Southern Tide, LLC owns, operates, and controls the commercial retail website which offers men's and women's apparel, sportswear, accessories, and related lifestyle goods to consumers throughout the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com STATE FARM: Ngethpharat Breach of Contract Claims Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NYSA NGETHPHARAT, et al., v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00454-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order as follows: The Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims are dismissed. The Defendants' motions in limine and Plaintiffs' motions in limine are denied in part and granted in part. The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Diane Klund, which was filed as an LCR 37 submission, is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion to provisionally seal is granted, and Defendants' request to maintain the provisionally sealed records under seal is granted The case is a class action lawsuit challenging State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's methodology for determining the actual cash value (ACV) of an insured's total loss vehicle in Washington State. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUHYqy at no extra charge.[CC] STS ELECTRONIC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Royal Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ROYAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STS ELECTRONIC RECYCLING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02138 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://discountcomputerdepot.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. STS Electronic Recycling, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law SUNFLOWER LIMITED: Operates Illegal Gambling Platform, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS DROLLINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNFLOWER LIMITED and SUNFLOWER TECHNOLOGY INC., d/b/a CrownCoinsCasino.com, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00210 (S.D. Ohio, February 27, 2026) seeks damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually and on behalf the other Class members, each of whom are Ohio residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on CrownCoinsCasino.com. The complaint relates that Gambling is heavily regulated and mostly outlawed in Ohio. Yet Crown Coins Casino is accessible and operational in Ohio without receiving proper licenses, registrations, and approvals. On its website, users can play "top free-to-play casino style games," primarily slot games ("Chance Games"). Crown Coins Casino offers prizes, such as cash or cash-equivalent gift cards, to online participants who wage money to play the Chance Games. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff wagered and lost money on Defendants' illegal gambling. As a result, he suffered an injury in fact resulting in the loss of money and/or property that is recoverable in Ohio. The Plaintiff and Class members each paid money or other things of value to Crown Coins Casino to play the Chance Games for the sole purpose of winning a prize (gift cards or cryptocurrency). Moreover, Crown Coins Casino engaged in unconscionable, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in Ohio, including causing Plaintiff and Class members to believe Crown Coins Casino was approved and certified by the State of Ohio when in fact it is illegal gambling, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class members, hence, seek an order declaring that (1) CrownCoinsCasino.com is illegal gambling in Ohio and (2) any authority under which it purports to operate is unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction enjoining Crown Coins Casino from operating CrownCoinsCasino.com in Ohio, with disgorgement of profits. The Plaintiff and Class members also seek a speedy declaratory judgment hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Chris Drollinger is domiciled in Ohio and a resident of Addyston, Ohio. Plaintiff wagered and lost money on Defendants' illegal gambling platform. Defendant Crown Coins Casino owns and operates a popular, casino-oriented internet gaming website called www.crownoinscasino.com Defendant Sunflower Limited owns and operates CrownCoinsCasino.com. The sweepstakes promotions and prizes offered at CrownCoinsCasino.com are operated by Defendant Sunflower Limited. Defendant Sunflower Technology, Inc. is Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Arlington, VA. All payments on CrownCoinsCasino.com are processed by Sunflower Technology. Sunflower Technology may accept service via its registered agent McDermott Corporate Services LLC, 1000 North West St., Ste. 1400, Wilmington, DE 19801.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. Trial Attorney, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 600 Vine Street, Suite 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 FAX E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com Trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617-377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com SUNROOMS AND MORE: Bid to Dismiss EOC Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, LEISA SHANNON, v. SUNROOMS AND MORE DESIGN CENTER, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-01016-PRW (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Wyrick entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. Because Sunrooms fails to present any prior final judgment beyond mere speculation, the Court finds that the case is not currently barred by res judicata. However, if throughout the course of litigation, a past judgment is revealed, then Sunrooms may re-raise this argument. This is a Title VII sex discrimination case. The EEOC filed its Complaint on behalf of Leisa Shannon and other female employees of Sunrooms. According to the Complaint, since at least November 2021, Mr. Durrett subjected Ms. Shannon and other female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. Sunrooms is an Oklahoma design studio that installs sunrooms in residential and commercial spaces and is owned by Donald Durrett. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6dPIKc at no extra charge.[CC] SUNRUN INC: Class Cert Bid in Strickland Suit Due Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-05034-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order to amend scheduling order: Event Deadline Discovery cut-off: May 12, 2026 Last day to file dispositive motions: June 12, 2026 Deadline to conduct private mediation: June 29, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing: Sept. 10, 2026 at 2:00 pm Last day to file motion for class Sept. 28, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to class Oct. 19, 2026 certification: Last day to file reply in further support Nov. 9, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is a home solar panel and battery storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TdKjK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@brodericklaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. Emily E. Clark, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com eclark@kelleydrye.com SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Banks Due Oct. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEGGY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-07877-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order as follows: Event Deadline Discovery cut-off: May 12, 2026 Last day to file dispositive motions: June 12, 2026 Deadline to conduct private mediation: June 29, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing: Sept. 10, 2026 at 2:00 pm Last day to file motion for class Sept. 28, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to class Oct. 19, 2026 certification: Last day to file reply in further support Nov. 9, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is a home solar panel and battery storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lZJbjR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com SYNOPSYS INC: Continues to Defend Kim Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Synopsys, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kim shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 31, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Kim v. Synopsys, Inc., et al. (Case No. 25-cv-09410) against us and certain of our officers (the Kim Action). The complaint brings claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and alleges that certain material misstatements or omissions related to the performance of our Design IP segment were made in violation of federal securities laws. The Company believes these claims are without merit, and it intends to defend the matters vigorously. Mountain View, Calif.-based Synopsys, Inc. specializes in electronic design automation (EDA) software and related services for semiconductor design companies. SYNOPSYS INC: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Synopsys, 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the New England Teamster Pension Fund shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 25, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the same court captioned New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. Synopsys, Inc., et al. (Case No. 25-cv-10201) against us and certain of our directors and officers (the New England Teamsters Action). The complaint raises similar allegations to the Kim Action but also brings claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act) on behalf of stockholders who received our stock in exchange for their shares of common stock of Ansys, Inc. as part of our acquisition of that company. The Company believes these claims are without merit, and it intends to defend the matters vigorously. Mountain View, Calif.-based Synopsys, Inc. specializes in electronic design automation (EDA) software and related services for semiconductor design companies. SYNOPSYS INC: Continues to Defend Sterling Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Synopsys, 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 30, 2025, a shareholder class action was filed in the same court captioned City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Synopsys, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5:25-cv-11059) against us and certain of our directors and officers (the City of Sterling Heights Action and together with the Kim Action and New England Teamsters Action, the Class Actions). The complaint raises similar allegations to the Kim Action and the New England Teamsters Action and brings claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of stockholders who received our stock in exchange for their shares of common stock of Ansys, Inc. as part of its acquisition of that company. The plaintiffs in the Class Actions are seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees The Company believes these claims are without merit, and it intends to defend the matters vigorously. Mountain View, Calif.-based Synopsys, Inc. specializes in electronic design automation (EDA) software and related services for semiconductor design companies. TEXAS: Denies Early Sex Offender De-registration Process, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL BURTON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Colonel FREEMAN F. MARTIN, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; AARON P. PIERCE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Council on Sex Offender Treatment and LISA PEERS in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Council on Sex Offender Treatment, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00440 (W.D. Tex., February 25, 2026) alleges that Defendants misinterpreted and enforced Article 62.404 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in a manner that denies individuals convicted in federal court access to the deregistration process established by Texas law. Article 62.404 purports to provide a mechanism for early termination of sex-offender registration by allowing eligible registrants to file a motion for relief after completion of a minimum registration period and an individualized risk assessment conducted by the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment (CSOT). The statute further provides that an eligible person may file a motion for early termination with the trial court that sentenced the person. According to the complaint, for individuals convicted in federal court, that directive has been interpreted to create a legal impossibility. No Texas state court sentenced them, and CSOT has taken the position that Article 62.404 provides no forum for such motions. As a result, individuals convicted in federal court are categorically denied access to the deregistration process made available to all other similarly situated registrants, despite being subject to identical registration obligations under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, contends the suit. Plaintiff Burton is a resident of Texas who is required to register under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure based on a federal conviction that Texas has deemed substantially similar to a Texas reportable offense. Colonel Freeman F. Martin is sued in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety. The agency is responsible for statewide law enforcement and driver license administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larwence King, Esq. NARSOL P.O. Box 25423 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 480-2551, Ext. 702 E-mail: attorney@narsol.org - and - Courtney A. Vincent, Esq. VINCENT LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 940129 Houston, TX 77094 Telephone: (713) 223-9300 TKO GROUP: Trial in Cirkunovs Class Suit Not Yet Set ---------------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings, 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 25, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has not yet set trial date for Cirkunovs class suit. On May 23, 2025, Cirkunovs v. Zuffa, LLC et al., No. 2:25-cv-00914-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), was filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters who signed contracts with arbitration clauses and class action waiver agreements during the period July 1, 2017, to the present. The complaint in Cirkunovs contains nearly identical allegations to Johnson and further alleges that the arbitration clauses and class action waivers contained in the fighters’ contracts are unenforceable. The Cirkunovs complaint seeks injunctive relief invalidating these arbitration clauses and class action waivers, as well as treble damages under the antitrust laws and attorneys' fees and costs. Zuffa filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the Court has allowed Plaintiffs to seek discovery regarding the arbitration clause before ruling on Zuffa's motion. No trial date has been set in the Cirkunovs action. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TKO GROUP: Trial in Johnson Class Suit Not Yet Set -------------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings, 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 25, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has not yet set trial date for Johnson class suit. On June 24, 2021, another lawsuit, Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC et al., No. 2:21-cv-1189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Johnson" case), was filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters and covering the period from July 1, 2017, to the present. The Johnson case alleges substantially similar claims to the Le case and seeks injunctive relief. No trial date has been set in the Johnson action and the parties are in the midst of the discovery process. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. UNITED LEGWEAR: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Babka Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY BABKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED LEGWEAR COMPANY, LLC d/b/a UNITED LEGWEAR & APPAREL CO., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01702 (N.D. Cal., February 26, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated Defendant's website, www.stance.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc. and TikTok, Ltd. (collectively "Third Parties"). According to the complaint, when consumers enter the website, the Defendant warrants that the targeting cookies it utilizes for advertising purposes do not store directly personal information. Despite this promise, the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain personally identifiable information. By failing to procure consent before enabling Third Parties to intercept these communications, Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Constitution, says the suit. United Legwear Company, LLC, d/b/a United Legwear & Apparel Co., is an American sock, underwear, and t-shirt company founded in 2009. The Company sells and markets its products through the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com UNITED STATES: Diego Seeks to Certify All Noncitizen Minor Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO N., et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00577-UNA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) consisting of: "All noncitizen minors who are or will be in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and (1) who were previously in the Office of Refugee Resettlement's ("ORR") custody, (2) who were approved for release by ORR to a sponsor, (3) who have been or will be re-detained by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and re referred to ORR, and (4) whom ORR has not released to their previously approved sponsor pursuant to ORR's policy requiring the previously approved sponsor to submit a new sponsor application and obtain a new approval for release." On Feb. 23, 2026, the Plaintiffs' counsel will also provide them with a copy of the class certification motion. However, the Plaintiffs' counsel has not yet had an opportunity to confer with counsel for the Defendants because no such counsel has been identified at the time of filing this motion. The Department of Health and Human Services provides essential human services in areas such as funding medical studies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UM562n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Wolozin, Esq. Mishan Wroe, Esq. Diane de Gramont, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 818 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 425 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 868-4792 E-mail: bwolozin@youthlaw.org mwroe@youthlaw.org ddegramont@youthlaw.org - and - Anna Deffebach, Esq. Joel McElvain, Esq. Robin F. Thurston, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: adeffebach@democracyforward.org jmcelvain@democracyforward.org rthurston@democracyforward.org UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend RICO Class Suit in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Therapeutics 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a RICO class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, filed a class action complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that it violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a PAH fund so that those donations would go toward copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the Company. The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for its drugs. In April 2021, the court granted its motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In October 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen in the matter described above. The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. In December 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical. In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against the Company and Smiths Medical without prejudice. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states' laws to the claims previously asserted. The second amended complaint also named Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Holding Company (collectively, the Specialty Pharmacies), and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. In March 2023, it filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Specialty Pharmacies filed their own motion to dismiss, as did Smiths Medical. On March 22, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice, and for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the complaint. On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. On May 10, 2024, the Company filed a response to the plaintiffs' objection, as did the other defendants. If the district court judge adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismisses the case, the plaintiffs will have the right to appeal. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in this lawsuit. United Therapeutics Corp. develops and commercializes innovative products to address the unmet medical needs of patients with chronic and life-threatening conditions, with a particular focus on pulmonary arterial hypertension and other cardiopulmonary diseases. WYNN RESORTS: Hunt Sues for Breach of Duty to Protect Personal Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELA HUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00572 (D. Nev., February 27, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information) that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On February 20, 2026, the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters gained unauthorized access to Defendant's IT Network. ShinyHunters gained access to more than 800,000 records and threatened to leak the data "along with several annoying (digital) problems" on February 23, 2026, if Defendant failed to meet their demands. The complaint asserts that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information including their names, Social Security Numbers, phone numbers, positions, salaries, employment dates, dates of birth, and other sensitive personal information. The Defendant began providing notice to victims, like Plaintiff, on or around February 24, 2026 which provides little to no clarification or information about the Data Breach, and simply states that it occurred and a ransom was paid. As such, victims of the Data Breach have not been officially informed of key details about the Data Breach including, among others, the length of the Data Breach, details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertake to ensure such a breach does not occur again. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having her Private Information compromised as a result of the Data Breach including, but not limited to: (i) misuse of Private Information; (ii) spam calls and communications; (iii) invasion of privacy; (iv) theft of her Private Information; (v) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (vi) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (viii) statutory damages; (ix) nominal damages; and (x) the continued and certainly increased risk to her Private Information. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other members of the Class, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Daniela Hunt is a citizen and resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. She is a current employee of Defendant. Defendant Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC owns and operates casino gaming brands with resorts throughout the United States, which include dining, live entertainment, accommodations, meetings and conferences, shopping, and gaming, including the Wynn on the Las Vegas Strip.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com ZANDER GROUP: Boldenguy Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ AUDREY BOLDENGUY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A ZANDER INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02117 (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2026) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The suit arises from the Defendant's transmission of prerecorded voice messages to cellular telephones, and violations of the National Do Not Call Registry, of Plaintiff and others, without regard to consumers' consent or privacy rights. 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 herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Zander Group Holdings, Inc. is an insurance agency and marketing company engaged in the sale of insurance services and products, to consumers throughout the United States, including the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com ZUFFA LLC: Constantino Alleges Pay-Per-View-Level Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alana Costantino and Kyle Nicholson, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Zuffa LLC, TKO Group Holdings, Inc., TKO Operating Company, LLC, and Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00539-JCM-EJY (D. Nev., February 26, 2026) alleges that Defendants have utilized a monopsony on the market of Top-Ranked Fighters to monopolize the market for pay-per-view-level offerings of mixed martial arts events. According to the complaint, the Defendants have forced Plaintiffs and Class Members to pay inflated prices in order to view pay-per-view-level offerings of mixed martial arts events, and more recently, to subscribe to the streaming service Paramount+. The case seeks to allow consumers to be able to watch PPV-Level MMA Cards, and to subscribe to a streaming service, without paying the artificially inflated prices that result from the UFC's monopoly. It also seeks damages and other relief stemming from the inflated prices caused by the UFC's monopoly. The UFC has spent roughly two decades monopsonizing, monopolizing, and maintaining the market as a profit center for the UFC and the UFC alone. Ending the UFC's control will provide more competition for Top-Ranked Fighters and for MMA Promotions looking to present PPV-Level MMA Cards. In turn, that competition will provide MMA fans with more viewing options and force MMA Promotions, including the UFC, to compete on quality and price, contends the suit. Plaintiff Constantino purchased UFC PPV events in the last four years in New Jersey, which were at an artificially inflated price due to Defendants' alleged conduct described in this complaint. The Plaintiff also is a subscriber to Paramount+. Zuffa, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company founded by Frank Fertitta III and Lorenzo Fertitta around December 2000 or January 2001 and headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Zuffa was founded to be the parent company for the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and Zuffa wholly owned the Ultimate Fighting Championship trademark.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Will Lemkul, Esq. Christopher Turtzo, Esq. MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 405-8100 Facsimile: (702) 405-8101 E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com turtzo@morrissullivanlaw.com - and - Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq. Carol O'Keefe, Esq. Devin Dippold, Esq. Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: gbroshuis@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com ddippold@koreintillery.com - and - Pamela Yaacoub, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: pyaacoub@koreintillery.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***