260311.mbx

260311.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 11, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 50 Headlines AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid in Cross Suit Amended to Nov. 19 ANGEL QUIROS: Baltas Bid for Class Certification Tossed APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to Submit Class Cert. Bid Response ARSH LANDMARK: Bid to Certify FSLA Collective Action Partly OK'd BOTTLES KINDRED: Acosta Seeks More Time to File Opposition Reply BRYN MAWR: De Camara Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order BRYN MAWR: De Camara's Bid to Amend Class Complaint Tossed CALIBRATED HEATLHCARE: $1.7MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in "Grimm" FLSA Suit CIRCLE K: Pilkington Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. CONCORA CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Seals Due July 17 DOLLAR TREE: April 2 Class Cert Hearing in Godines Vacated EIGHTFOLD AI: Kistler Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Grants Motion to Vacate Stay in "Young" GERARD VAN DE POL: Bid to Prohibit Class Cert Opposition Nixed GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Currencies-Related Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend F45 Training Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Figs Inc. Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Ibotta Securities Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend SVB Securities Class Suit HD SUPPLY: Perez Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Seeks to Certify Class HEATHER HILL: Hall Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification HUNTER WARFIELD: Bid to Certify Class in Blizzard Tossed as Moot JM SMUCKER: Ringler Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes KENVUE INC: Mitchell Class Action Tossed KETTLE AND FIRE: NY Court Grants Transfer of "Walker" to Florida KRISTI NOEM: Must Release Rodas from Detention KROGER CO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cherepennikova Says LOCKTON CO: Court Modifies Case Schedule MASCOT PECAN: Flores Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MENASHA GLOBAL: Rosas Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MIKE LEWIS: Must Release Hipolito from Detention PERFORMANCE GOLF: Carter Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal PORSCHE CARS: Bauser has Until March 13 to File Class Cert Reply PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Continues Class Cert Hearing SCOTT BESSENT: Court Dismisses "Tunsill" Suit SIX FLAGS: Plaintiff's Bid to File Sealed Docs Partly OK'd TEXTRON AVIATION: Toxic Spill Suit Referred to Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES: Mendoza Bid to Amend Judgment Tossed UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Court Tosses All State Law "Risley" Claims WESTHAB INC: Lowther Seek Conditional Cert of Collective Action WHITE CAP: Lobdell's Bid to Certify Class Tossed WHOOP INC: Court Seals Key Summary Judgment Docs in "Sanderson" WICKED TACO: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification WL GORE: Wolf Bid to File Third Amended Complaint Tossed X CORP: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint X CORP: Must Oppose White Coat Class Cert Bid by March 25 X CORP: White Coat Seeks to Certify Twitter Vendor Class X CORP: White Coat Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ********* AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid in Cross Suit Amended to Nov. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cross, et al v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02099 (D. Colo., Filed Aug. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang entered an order granting Second Stipulated Motion Amend the Case Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on Feb. 24, 2026. The Scheduling Order is amended as follows: -- Deadline for Service of Written Discovery: May 20, 2026 -- Fact Discovery cut-off: July 6, 2026 -- Affirmative Experts Disclosures: Aug. 14, 2026 -- Rebuttal Experts Disclosures: Sept. 15, 2026 -- Expert Discovery cut-off: Oct. 13, 2026 -- Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 19, 2026 The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products.[CC] ANGEL QUIROS: Baltas Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baltas, et al v. Angel Quiros, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01645 (D. Conn., Filed Oct. 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order denying motion to appoint counsel, denying motion to certify class, denying motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and granting motion to expedite. The Court grants the motion for an expedited ruling. Mr. Baltas argues that the Court should grant his renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he "has routinely been granted IFP," even when a court initially denied the motion, and because he "received funds from his family to repurchase items of personal property that are a necessity of life." Mr. Baltas, however, has not attached any new trust account statement. In the absence of new financial information, the renewed motion must be denied for the same reason as his prior motion. Accordingly, the Court denies the renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . Mr. Baltas has until March 27, 2026. to pay the filing fee, otherwise his case may be dismissed. The motion for class action certification is denied until the filing fee is paid. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to Submit Class Cert. Bid Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN LEBLOND, PATRICIA ORRIS, ANGELA STEVENS, JESSICA JACKSON, MELISSA OATMAN, JUSTIN REVELO, AND TAYLOR VALL on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for leave to submit a response to the Plaintiffs' supplemental authority regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because Zaluda dealt with different technology, none of these questions were before the court in that case, which cannot possibly resolve or even bear upon whether Plaintiffs here can satisfy predominance or any other Rule 23 factor required for certification. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5jlMfs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Purvi G. Patel, Esq. Emma Burgoon, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. Tiffani B. Figueroa, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 E-mail: PPatel@mofo.com EBurgoon@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com TFigueroa@mofo.com ARSH LANDMARK: Bid to Certify FSLA Collective Action Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL ZEPEDA SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. ARSH LANDMARK GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., GARIB TANEJA, and MUHAMMAD SABIR, Case No. 1:25-cv-00632-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order granting in part and denying in part as follows: (1) Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Court conditionally certifies this action as a collective action comprised of the Collective, i.e., all non-exempt employees, including all bricklayers, laborers, helpers, and other construction workers, whom Defendants employed on or after Jan. 22, 2022, to the present. (2) The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding Court-ordered changes to the Proposed Notice and by March 11, 2026, submit the Revised Notice for the Court's review and approval. (3) By March 11, 2026, Defendants shall produce the Contact Information for members of the Collective. (4) Sanchez's request for equitable tolling is denied without prejudice to any individual plaintiff's ability to request tolling on a showing that it applies to that plaintiff's particular circumstances. The Court finds that Sanchez has met his burden to show that he is similarly situated to other non-exempt employees, including bricklayers, laborers, helpers, and other construction workers, whom Defendants employed on or after Jan. 22, 2022 (the "Collective"), i.e., three years before the filing of the Complaint, a shorter period than the Proposed Collective. Therefore, conditional certification of this more limited Collective than the Proposed Collective is warranted. The Plaintiff Sanchez filed this putative class and collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), against his former employers. Arsh is a construction company that specializes in "building brick walls" at residential and commercial sites around New York City. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d19KwC at no extra charge.[CC] BOTTLES KINDRED: Acosta Seeks More Time to File Opposition Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR E. ROMERO-ACOSTA, v. BOTTLES, KINDRED SPIRITS INC., AND RICHARD GONSALVES, Case No. 3:23-cv-01163-JAG-GLS (D.P.R.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting him a ten-day extension of time to reply to the Defendants' opposition to class certification. The plaintiffs request that this Court grant the requested extension of time from the present due date (February 27th) until March 9, 2026, to present the Reply to defendants' opposition to class certification. This extension is needed to attend to certain health matters which were put off in the last month, due to excessive work on this case. The undersigned has several health matters to attend to in the next week, which will not permit her to engage in substantial further efforts with respect to the instant case. Bottles refers to an upscale restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VThRTf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Judith Berkan, Esq. BERKAN/MENDEZ O'Neill St. G-11 San Juan, PR 00918-2301 Telephone: (787) 764-0814 Facsimile: (787) 250-0986 E-mail: berkanmendez@gmail.com berkanj@microjuris.com BRYN MAWR: De Camara Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN DE CAMARA, ESENIA BAÑUELOS, and HOPE RICHARDS-CORDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRYN MAWR COLLEGE and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, Case No. 2:25-cv-02287-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Scheduling Order entered Oct. 15, 2025. The Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the scheduling order as follows (a) extend the deadline for completion of all expert and factual discovery to July 25, 2026; (b) set a deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion of March 31, 2026; (c) establish a schedule for expert reports and rebuttal reports; (d) set a new trial date of Oct.5, 2026; and (e) adjust all dependent deadlines accordingly. Bryn Mawr is a long-standing institution of post-secondary school education. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGW3L1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eden P. Quainton, Esq. QUAINTON LAW, PLLC 2 Park Ave., 20th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 419-0575 E-mail: eden.quainton@quaintonlaw.net - and - Samantha F. Green, Esq. SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C. 1101 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 574-0600 Facsimile: (215) 574-0310 E-mail: sgreen@sidkoffpincusgreen.com BRYN MAWR: De Camara's Bid to Amend Class Complaint Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN DE CAMARA, ESÉNIA BAÑUELOS, HOPE RICHARDS CORDELL v. BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, Case No. 2:25-cv-02287-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order as follows: 1. Denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint as noncompliant with the Policies requiring they attach a redlined and clean versions of their proposed latest amended Complaint; and 2. Granting the Defendants leave to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to modify by no later than Feb. 26, 2026. Bryn Mawr is a private women's liberal arts college in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZabjHJ at no extra charge.[CC] CALIBRATED HEATLHCARE: $1.7MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI ADAMS, and TREVOR HOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CALIBRATED HEATLHCARE SYSTEMS, LLC, a California limited liability company, and CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE, LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No. 8:24-cv-01754-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted. 2. The settlement agreement is preliminarily approved. 3. The following class is certified for settlement purposes only: "The approximately 34,562 persons identified on the Settlement Class List, including the Plaintiffs, whose confidential information may have been compromised as a result of the Data Breach." Excluded from the Settlement Classes are: (1) the Judges presiding over the Action, members of their families, and staff; (2) the Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, and directors; (3) individuals who properly execute and submit a procedurally proper and timely Request for Exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Breach, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 4. The Plaintiffs Brandi Adams and Travor Holden are appointed as class representatives for the settlement class. 5. Attorney Daniel S. Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. and attorney Todd S. Garber of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. 6. A final approval hearing is set for Aug. 13, 2026. 7. The Status Conference currently set for Feb. 27, 2026, is vacated. The Court finds that costs, risks, and delays of continuing litigations favor settlement. Even though Plaintiffs believe that their position is strong, class action litigation is expensive and complex, and there are still many underlying uncertainties. The Plaintiffs and Class Counsel’s current estimation, which is not opposed by Defendants, of the total value of the settlement benefits offered to the Settlement Class is $27,184,332.60. Settlement Value includes the $1,750,000.00 Settlement Fund; $24,804,832.60 in value for the provided Medical Monitoring service (after deducting the cost of providing that benefit); and $630,000.00 in remedial measures by Defendants. Calibrated is a healthcare administrative and management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUWtaV at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in "Grimm" FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DANIELLE GRIMM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00603 (AMN/PJE) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Defendant's partial motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, an Inbound Sales Supervisor at Charter's Albany office since 2013, alleged Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Plaintiff brought a collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA on behalf of salaried call center supervisors, facilitators, and representatives employed by Defendant on or after May 13, 2022. Defendant moved to dismiss on three grounds: (i) failure to identify similarly situated employees; (ii) insufficient collective action allegations; and (iii) failure to identify a specific workweek exceeding forty hours. Defendant also sought to limit the statute of limitations to two years, arguing Plaintiff failed to plead willful violations. The Court denied the motion. Defendant's arguments regarding the collective action were premature at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiff adequately identified the group of employees, the relevant time period, and the common policy prohibiting reporting of actual hours on timesheets. On the overtime claim, Plaintiff plausibly alleged working more than forty hours per week based on five nine-hour shifts plus five to twenty additional weekly hours. On willfulness, the Court found Plaintiff's bare allegations insufficient. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days to plead additional facts regarding willfulness. A copy of the Court's Decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GclXUk from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Charter Communications, LLC Represented By: Scott Budow Laura M. Jordan Thompson Coburn LLP ljordan@thompsoncoburn.com Plaintiff Danielle Grimm Represented By: Daniel M. Kirschenbaum Leah Seliger Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP leah@jk-llp.com CIRCLE K: Pilkington Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as SAVANA PILKINGTON, SYLVIA HERNANDEZ, CINDY CUNNINGHAM, and MARILYN RYCHART, individuals and in their capacity as the State of California's designated proxies under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and on behalf of others, Plaintiffs v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC.; a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU058108C, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01327-RBM-SBC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for failure to pay state minimum/regular/local wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; failure to provide meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Circle K Stores, Inc. owns and operates convenience stores. DOES 1 through 10 are defendants with fictitious names.[BN] Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc. is represented by: Maria C. Rodriguez, Esq. Elvira R. Kras, Esq. Alexander Randolph, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: (310) 277-4110 E-mail: mcrodriguez@mcdermottlaw.com ekras@mcdermottlaw.com arandolph@mcdermottlaw.com CONCORA CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Seals Due July 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS SEALS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CONCORA CREDIT INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN (D. Or.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend class certification deadlines, requesting extensions of ten weeks as follows: Deadline Expert disclosures in support of class May 8, 2026 certification: Expert disclosures in opposition to June 5, 2026 class certification: Class certification motion filing: July 17, 2026 These extensions will allow the parties to attend mediation and work toward a resolution before devoting significant additional resources to expert discovery and complex motion practice, in terms of not only attorney hours but also related expert fees. The Plaintiff filed her class action complaint on May 1, 2025. The Defendant provides consumer financing solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7iTS9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq. DOBSON LAW OFFICE, LLC 324 S. Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97239 Telephone: (971) 717-6582 E-mail: kdobson@pdxlandlaw.com - and - Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert E. Sabido, Esq. SABIDO LAW, LLC 8215 SW Tualatin Sherwood Rd, Ste 218 Tualatin, OR 97062 Telephone: (971) 302-6236 Facsimile: (503) 974-1673 E-mail: robert@sabidolawllc.com - and - Genevieve Walser-Jolly, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 E-mail: Genevieve.Walser-Jolly@wbd-us.com DOLLAR TREE: April 2 Class Cert Hearing in Godines Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Godines v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01743 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order vacating hearing set for April 2, 2026. On the Court's own motion, the Defendant's motion to deny class certification is submitted without oral argument. If the Court determines oral argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date. The Defendant may still file a reply by March 13, 2026, in accordance with the Court's Order. The nature of suit states Labor Management. Dollar Tree is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[CC] EIGHTFOLD AI: Kistler Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ERIN KISTLER and SRUTI BHAUMIK, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. EIGHTFOLD AI INC., Defendant, Case No. C26-00214, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01768 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant uses hidden Artificial Intelligence ("AI") technology to collect sensitive and often inaccurate information about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on their supposed "likelihood of success" on the job, in violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Defendant Eightfold Inc. is a technology company that provides an AI-powered platform for talent acquisition and talent management to employers. Employers integrate the platform into their own HR infrastructure--much as they would any other enterprise software--to support hiring, internal mobility, workforce planning, and career-development.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 201 Clay Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-844-9944 E-mail: abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com - and - Nicholas Hoffman, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: 310-315-8200 E-mail: nhoffman@mcguirewoods.com - and - Jeffrey Paul Ehrlich, Esq. Jonathan Y. Ellis, Esq. Grace G. Simmons, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 888 16th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: 202-857-1700 E-mail: jehrlich@mcguirewoods.com jellis@mcguirewoods.com gsimmons@mcguirewoods.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Grants Motion to Vacate Stay in "Young" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Meghan Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,vs. Experian Information Solutions, INC., Civil Action No. 23-3312 (MAS)(RLS) Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court of New Jersey granted Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Stay and Reopen the Case. The Court ruled that the Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this Memorandum Order to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a Complaint against Defendant alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.section 1681 (the " FCRA"). In July 2023, Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay the action based on separate Credit Works Terms of Use Agreement between the parties, arguing that "(1) a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and (2) the arbitration agreement encompassed the claims at issue. On Oct 23, 2023, the Court denied Defendant's motion without prejudice and directed the parties to engage in discovery on the narrow issue of whether an agreement to arbitrate exists . Defendant appealed and the Third Circuit vacated this Court's decision and remanded. The Court subsequently issued an Order implementing the Third Circuit's judgment and granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the matter. The parties attended arbitration where the arbitrator found that the claim was not subject to arbitration and dismissed the arbitration. Plaintiff then filed the Motion to Vacate Stay and Repopen the Case. Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rS7pUw from PacerMonitor.com GERARD VAN DE POL: Bid to Prohibit Class Cert Opposition Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN VILLALOVOS-GUTIERREZ, et al., v. GERARD VAN DE POL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02305-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn K. Delaney entered an order denying without prejudice the request for an order prohibiting defendant from opposing Rule 23 class certification. The Denial of the request is without prejudice to plaintiffs filing a properly noticed motion should defendants continue to not meet their discovery obligations. 1. The Plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause why the defendant G& H Dairy should not be held in contempt is denied. 2. The undersigned reserves ruling on plaintiffs' request for attorney fees for their initial motion to compel, subject to the plaintiffs filing a properly noticed and supported motion within 30 days after receipt of complete discovery responses ordered in the Dec. 3, 2025 order. 3. Within 7 days of the date of this order, the defendant shall show cause in writing on the docket why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against the defendant and/or the defendant's counsel for repeated citation to fictitious or non-existent cases; in addition, the defendant shall respond to the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant has produced improperly redacted records and shall give the status of production of documents ordered produced in the court's Dec. 3, 2025 order, including what production defendant has made since the defendant's opposition filed on Feb. 4, 2026, and a timeline for complete production if complete production has not been made. The Plaintiffs do not propose any specific facts the court should order established. Their request for this relief is therefore insufficient and denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs are former dairy workers alleging violations of federal and state employment and housing laws. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hwd4ut at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Currencies-Related Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly 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 foreign currencies-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 4, 2021. The amended complaint, filed on January 6, 2022, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate auctions for foreign exchange transactions on an electronic trading platform, as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On May 18, 2023, the court dismissed certain state common law claims, but denied dismissal of the remaining claims. On July 8, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On November 18, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend F45 Training Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly 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 F45 Training Holdings Inc. securities class suit in the United States District Court of the Western District of Texas. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on May 19, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas relating to F45 Training Holdings Inc.'s (F45) approximately $350 million July 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include F45, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. acted as a qualified independent underwriter for the offering and underwrote 8,303,744 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $133 million. On January 25, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on February 21, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, denying dismissal of the claims for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act. On February 17, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement, which will not require a contribution from GS&Co. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Figs Inc. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly 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 Figs Inc. securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on December 8, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to FIGS, Inc.’s (FIGS) approximately $668 million May 2021 initial public offering and approximately $413 million September 2021 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FIGS, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 9,545,073 shares of common stock in the May 2021 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $210 million and 3,179,047 shares of common stock in the September 2021 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $128 million. On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and on January 17, 2024, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On March 19, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, and on January 10, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against the underwriter defendants, including GS&Co. On February 10, 2025, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Ibotta Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly 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 Ibotta Inc. securities class suit in the United States District Court of Colorado. Ibotta, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on April 17, 2025 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado relating to Ibotta, Inc.'s (Ibotta) approximately $664 million April 2024 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Ibotta and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 2,565,235 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $226 million. On October 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, and on December 15, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend SVB Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Silicon Valley Bank securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on April 7, 2023 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and an individual action filed on January 25, 2024 in the same court relating to SVB Financial Group's (SVBFG) January 2021 public offerings of $500 million principal amount of senior notes and $750 million of depositary shares representing interests in preferred stock, March 2021 public offering of approximately $1.2 billion of common stock, May 2021 public offerings of $1.0 billion of depositary shares representing interests in preferred stock and $500 million principal amount of senior notes, August 2021 public offering of approximately $1.3 billion of common stock, and April 2022 public offering of $800 million aggregate principal amount of senior notes, among other public offerings of securities. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain of SVBFG’s officers and directors and its auditor. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 831,250 depositary shares representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $831 million, an aggregate of 3,266,108 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.8 billion and senior notes representing an aggregate price to the public of approximately $727 million. The complaints generally assert claims under the federal securities laws and allege that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions. The complaints seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts. On March 17, 2023, SVBFG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the putative class action, and on June 13, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 9, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The firm is also cooperating with and providing information to various governmental bodies in connection with their investigations and inquiries regarding SVBFG and its affiliates (collectively SVB), including the firm's business with SVB in or around March 2023, when SVB engaged the firm to assist with a proposed capital raise and SVB sold the firm a portfolio of securities. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. HD SUPPLY: Perez Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as OSCAR PEREZ, Plaintiff v. HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a corporation and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV484488, was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01800 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had a policy or practice of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, and that Defendant "knowingly and intentionally" failed to pay overtime wages. HD Supply Management, LLC is a North American industrial distributor that provides a broad range of products and value-added services to approximately 250,000 professional customers in maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power and specialty construction sectors. DOES 1-100 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] Defendant HD Supply Management, LLC is represented by: Jessica A. Taylor, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: jataylor@fisherphillips.com HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and the MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the class proposed in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and further defined in the accompanying brief and appointing the Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel. This is a renewed, supplemental motion filed in accordance with this Court's Order of December 19, 2025. Opposing counsel have been contacted but have not yet responded. Based on prior conversations, however, the Plaintiffs are confident that the motion is opposed. The Defendant is a customer-owned health insurer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oCWpop at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John M. Morrison, Esq. Scott L. Peterson, Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON, & DEOLA, PLLP 401 N. Last Chance Gulch St. Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 442-3261 Facsimile: (406) 443-7294 E-maiL: john@mswdlaw.com speterson@mswdlaw.com HEATHER HILL: Hall Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class under Rule 23(b)(3), or in the alternative under Rule 23(c)(4): "All persons who resided at Heather Hill Apartments at any time from April 2022 through January 13, 2025, paid rent or other fees to the Defendants during periods when the property lacked required licensing, and suffered actual injury resulting from the Defendants' failure to maintain habitable living conditions at the property." Hall has satisfied each requirement of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). The proposed class is ascertainable, numerous, and cohesive. Common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, and a class action is the superior method for resolving this dispute. In the alternative, the Court should certify the common liability issues under Rule 23(c)(4), the suit says. The Defendants' systematic operation of Heather Hill Apartments without required licensing while failing to maintain habitable conditions and collecting rent from tenants who suffered real injuries as a result presents the kind of common, class-wide misconduct that Rule 23 was designed to address. Hall and her family suffered serious health issues linked to the mold in her unit, including respiratory problems, severe headaches, ear infections, chronic coughing, nasal and sinus congestion, body rashes, dizziness, and nosebleeds requiring specialized care from an otolaryngologist. Heather operates Heather Hill Apartments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OeyLtQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan D. Howlette, Esq. JUSTLY PRUDENT 1140 3rd St. NE, Suite 2180 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 921-6005 Facsimile: (202) 921-7102 E-mail: jordan@justlyprudent.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Bid to Certify Class in Blizzard Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BLIZZARD, et al, v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC, et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Abelson entered an order that the earlier-filed motion to certify the class is denied as moot in light of Plaintiffs' settlement with the remaining Defendant and the filing of the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Hunter provides debt collection and asset investigation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MdWCHr at no extra charge.[CC] JM SMUCKER: Ringler Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADINA RINGLER, KRISTA ROBLES, JAY SMITH, and JANA RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01138-AH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on May 27, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court for an order certifying the following two classes: The Plaintiffs Ringler, Robles, and Smith move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) certifying, with respect to their claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and breach of express and implied warranties, a California class defined as follows: "All persons who purchased the Products1 in California for personal and household use and not for resale between Feb. 10, 2021 and the date class notice is disseminated." The Plaintiff Rabinowitz moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) certifying her claims for violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, a New York class defined as follows: "All persons who purchased the Smucker's Natural Strawberry Fruit Spread product in New York for personal and household use and not for resale between Feb. 10, 2022 and the date class notice is disseminated. Excluded from the classes above are Defendant The J.M. Smucker Company's current and former officers and directors and their immediate family members; the Defendant's legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns; any entity in which the Defendant has or had a controlling interest during the Class Period; the judicial officers assigned to this action and their immediate family members; and any class members who received a full refund for all purchases of the Products. This false advertising class action challenges Smucker's uniform representations that its fruit spreads are "natural" and "made with ingredients from natural sources." The Defendant is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8EuwzX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com lilach@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com KENVUE INC: Mitchell Class Action Tossed ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETHEL MITCHELL et al., v. KENVUE, INC., and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-04109-GC-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Castner entered a judgment granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims for monetary damages and restitution but not injunctive or declaratory relief. But Plaintiffs nowhere plead what testing mechanisms Defendants undertook; they simply point to the third-party testing results. As several courts have found, this is insufficient. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims brought under the adulteration theory. The Court finds that, even if not preempted, Plaintiffs cGMP claims fail for two reasons. First, plaintiffs do not adequately allege parallelism. While Plaintiffs do allege many state statutes are parallel to the cGMPs,20 Plaintiffs do not "make the[] direct connections," Therefore, the Plaintiffs' adulterated theory claims cannot move forward at this time. Second, even if the connections were clear, the Court—like the majority of those before it—finds the allegations too conclusory to state a claim. Like in Navarro, Plaintiffs recite a long list of cGMPs Defendants have allegedly violated. For the vast majority of these, Plaintiffs provide no further elaboration. These recitations are therefore just legal conclusions, and "legal conclusions do not plausibly show liability." The Defendant sells benzoyl peroxide (BPO) acne treatment products under the brand names Clean & Clear and Neutrogena. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EBRmiM at no extra charge.[CC] KETTLE AND FIRE: NY Court Grants Transfer of "Walker" to Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lauren Walker, individually and on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kettle and Fire Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-6568 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida and denied Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal in the transferee court. This is one of several putative class actions challenging as misleading Defendant's representation of the protein content of its food products. On October 22, 2025, Keirsted v. Kettle and Fire Inc. was filed in the Middle District of Florida, alleging a Nationwide Class and a Florida Sub-Class, along with violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed this case, alleging a Nationwide Class and a New York Class, along with violations of the New York General Business Law, Sections 349 and 350. Both cases allege a misleading representation of protein and the percent daily value of protein on the label of Defendant's products. The Court applied the first-filed rule, under which, as a general rule, where there are two competing lawsuits, the first suit should have priority. The Court found that Keirsted and Walker are competing lawsuits, that Keirsted was the first-filed action, and that neither exception to the first-filed rule warranted departing from it. On the balance of convenience, the Court found that only Plaintiff's choice of forum counseled against transfer. The litigation would continue in Florida regardless, and allowing the case to proceed on parallel tracks would unjustifiably depart from the first-filed rule. On special circumstances, the Court found that no manipulative or deceptive behavior was alleged. Plaintiff pointed only to the fact that the Keirsted plaintiff amended her complaint after Plaintiff filed Walker II, but those circumstances alone did not warrant departing from the first-filed rule. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to transfer and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ug4tPB from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Kettle and Fire Inc. Represented By Troy Stram Alston & Bird LLP 404-881-7256 troy.stram@alston.com Alan Pryor Alston & Bird LLP 404-881-7000 alan.pryor@alston.com Sharon Steinerman Alston & Bird 212-210-9400 sharon.steinerman@alston.com Intervenor Plaintiff Wendy Keirsted Represented By Will Wright The Wright Law Office, P.A. 561-514-0904 willwright@wrightlawoffice.com Plaintiff Lauren Walker Represented By Ryan Thomas Gott Pearson Warshaw, LLP 612-389-0600 rgott@pwfirm.com Melissa S. Weiner Pearson Warshaw, LLP 612-389-0600 mweiner@pwfirm.com Russell Busch Bryson Harris Suciu & Demay PLLC 919-926-7948 rbusch@brysonpllc.com KRISTI NOEM: Must Release Rodas from Detention ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIELKA DE JESUS DUARTES RODAS, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00078-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Rodas's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as follows: -- The United States is directed to release Petitioner Rodas 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. 26, 2026. The Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Rodas. The current detention of Rodas is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. Petitioner Rodas is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. Rodas has been present in the United States since September 15, 2021. Rodas entered the United States without inspection. Although she entered without inspection, Rodas was interviewed by Border Patrol shortly after her arrival into the United States. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kfmJYG at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cherepennikova Says ------------------------------------------------------------- YULIA CHEREPENNIKOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. THE KROGER CO. and QUALITY FOOD CENTERS, INC. (a subsidiary of THE KROGER CO.), Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00724 (W.D. Wash., March 2, 2026) is a collective and class action seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by Kroger to its workers, along with the penalties, interest, and other remedies provided by federal and Washington law. The Kroger Co. operates grocery stores throughout the United States including in the state of Washington. Quality Food Centers, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Kroger Co. Yulia Cherepennikova worked for Kroger in Washington as an e-commerce manager from February 2022 to October 2024. The primary duties of Plaintiff and other e-commerce managers are: to fill orders received from customers on Kroger's e-commerce website platform and prepare those orders for customers, which are non-exempt duties. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was not paid any overtime premium wages when she worked more than 40 hours during workweeks. Even though Plaintiff and other "e-commerce managers" were ostensibly "supervisors", their primary job duties were non-exempt and overtime pay eligible duties, the complaint adds. The complaint alleges that Kroger misclassifies the e-commerce position as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Washington state wage and hour laws. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiff and other e-commerce managers in each of the Kroger stores have not been paid overtime premium compensation for the overtime hours worked by them, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington wage and hour laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Kroger to Plainyiff and other e-commerce managers who worked for Kroger in its Washington stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristopher Bonham, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 506 2nd Ave Suite 1513 Seattle, Washington 98104 & 1700 Palm Beach Lakes, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 812-1547 Facsimile: (561) 812-1571 E-mail: kbonham@forthepeople.com - and - Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: 407-237-2281 E-mail: KimD@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: 407-418-2069 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: 954-WORKERS E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com LOCKTON CO: Court Modifies Case Schedule ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as De Large v. Lockton Companies, LLC et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01056 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Modify the Case Schedule. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by April 21, 2026. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by June 22, 2026. All other provisions and deadlines set forth in the Court's Amended Scheduling Order remain in effect. The nature of suit states Labor Management Lockton is an American company that provides insurance, risk management, and employee benefits.[CC] MASCOT PECAN: Flores Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Andrew Flores, et al., v. MASCOT PECAN COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00757-CCC-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CepHGJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MENASHA GLOBAL: Rosas Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOSE ROSAS and MARCO ANTONIO CASILLAS, individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MENASHA GLOBAL LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company; LAUREN HERNANDEZ, and individual; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2516473, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00987 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges nine class claim, including: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to indemnify; violation of quota laws; and unfair competition. Menasha Global LLC operates as a holding company. Menasha Packaging Company offers custom shipping boxes, displays and packs. Lauren Hernandez is a human resources employee at Menasha Packaging Company. DOES 1 through 100 are the defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ivo Labar, Esq. Rebecca Maclaren, Esq. SAWYER & LABAR LLP 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.262.3820 E-mail: labar@sawyerlabar.com maclaren@sawyerlabar.com MIKE LEWIS: Must Release Hipolito from Detention ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLAS RIVERA HIPOLITO, v. MIKE LEWIS, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00076-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Hipolito's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and orders the following: -- The United States is directed to release Petitioner Hipolito immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of his due process rights. -- The United States must provide him 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. 25, 2026/ Accordingly, the Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Hipolito. The current detention of Hipolito is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. Petitioner Hipolito is a native and citizen of Mexico. Hipolito has been present in the United States since 2011. Hipolito entered the United States without inspection. Since his arrival, Hipolito has either lived in either Pennsylvania or, more recently, Indiana. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DGnIV3 at no extra charge.[CC] PERFORMANCE GOLF: Carter Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETER CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFORMANCE GOLF PRODUCTS, LLC and BLACK FISH MEDIA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01784 (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for misleading customers about the nature of their purchases, failing to make customers aware of their enrollment into an automatically renewing subscription or the recurring charges associated therewith, and failing to obtain their informed consent before charging them. The complaint relates that the Defendants own and operate a golf instruction company that primarily provides online golf training and instruction products and/or services. On its website, Performance Golf markets an array of instructional services and training programs for golfers of all abilities. Further, it enables customers to purchase its services and programs on its online portal, which is accessible through its website. In addition to its instructional services and training programs such as the One Shot Slice Fix which are single training programs, Performance Golf offers a comprehensive digital subscription-based training program called "Scratch Club" that includes, among other features, access to video lessons, personalized practice plans, and swing analysis. Performance Golf's surreptitious inclusion of Scratch Club into the purchase of the One Shot Slice Fix coercively imposes ongoing costs of $29 per month onto customers indefinitely. In March 2022, Plaintiff, an amateur golfer determined to improve his game before a tournament, purchased Performance Golf's "One Shot Slice Fix," which he believed to be a tutorial program subject to a one-time charge. However, unbeknownst to him, his purchase caused him to be enrolled in Defendants' automatically renewing Scratch Club subscription. As a result, Plaintiff was charged $19 every month when the subscription automatically renewed. These charges totaled $817 on his credit card by November 2025. Shocked and confused, he contacted Performance Golf to inquire about the unexpected and unexplained charges. Performance Golf agreed to cancel his Scratch Club subscription, but refused to provide a refund to him for all of recurring charges. The Defendants' conduct violates the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law; and has resulted in Defendants' unjust enrichment, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have been, and continue to be, injured as a direct and proximate result of Performance Golf's violations and are entitled to seek recovery, as well as to pursue costs and attorneys' fees, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Peter Carter is a resident of San Francisco, California. Defendant Performance Golf Products, LLC is a golf instruction company that sells instructional services and tutorial programs. Defendant Black Fish Media, LLC is a Florida company with headquarters in Fort Lauderdale and principal offices at 101 NE 3rd Ave #1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip M. Black, Esq. Samuel Coffin, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com scoffin@wolfpopper.com - and - Jared K. Carter, Esq. KINGSBURY LAW PLLC 70 S. Winooski Ave, #280 Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (207) 319-6050 E-mail: kingsburylawoffice@gmail.com PORSCHE CARS: Bauser has Until March 13 to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN BAUSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01054-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor L. Ross entered an order granting the joint motion to extend time. The Plaintiff shall have through and including March 13, 2026, to file his reply in further support of class certification and his oppositions to PCNA's Daubert motions, and the Defendant shall have through and including March 13, 2026, to file its reply brief in support of summary judgment and through and including March 27, 2206, to file its reply briefs in support of its Daubert motions. The Defendant is engaged in the retail sale of new and used automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aJpJNM at no extra charge.[CC] PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Continues Class Cert Hearing -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM MATTHEWS, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00497-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Selna entered an order: -- granting the motion to continue the Court's hearing on class certification and permit further briefing and -- denying with leave to renew Matthews's pending Motion for class certification. The parties will follow the new briefing schedule outlined herein. Matthews has not submitted evidence undermining Prudential's sworn claim that it cannot get the data Matthews seeks without individualized file review. If Matthews sought to prove that the burden of individualized file review was outweighed by its benefit to the litigation, she should have attempted to do so with the Magistrate Judge before she filed her Motion for class certification. She did not. Thus, the parties' dispute over the AWS Data Lake does not provide good cause to continue the class certification motion. Thus, the breadth of Prudential’s search parameters also do not establish good cause for a continuance For more than 16 months, Matthews has sought discovery to support her allegation that the following is a certifiable class under Rule 23: "All individuals who have or had Prudential long-term care insurance policies ("LTC policies"), resided in California while receiving benefits under their LTC policies during the Class Period, and experienced a reduction in their benefits (including, but not limited to, lifetime maximum benefits or "LMB") due to Prudential's erroneous application of Inflation Offers during the Class Period." Prudential operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Kwkcb at no extra charge.[CC] SCOTT BESSENT: Court Dismisses "Tunsill" Suit --------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KAFIL TUNSILL, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT BESSENT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Treasury, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01556-RCL (D.D.C.), Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint as futile. Plaintiff Kafil Tunsill, appearing pro se, filed a complaint as Trustee of the Serving Humanity Trust, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated citizens who had demanded redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in lawful money. The Trust was described as existing under the exclusive jurisdiction of Allah, governed by the Quran alone. Plaintiff alleged that the Treasury failed to honor redemption demands backed by instruments including International Bills of Exchange, Affidavits of Suretyship, and digital currency units called Serving Humanity Coin on the XRP Ledger. Plaintiff brought three claims: (A) violation of 12 U.S.C. Section 411; (B) Fifth Amendment due process; and (C) a Bivens claim against Secretary Bessent in his individual capacity. Upon careful examination, the Court found all claims frivolous. As to Section 411, the Court held that Federal Reserve Notes are themselves lawful money, and the statute carries no promise of convertibility into any other form of money. The Court further held that Section 411 confers no private right of action. Additionally, because the complaint was brought on behalf of a trust, it could not proceed without licensed counsel under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654. The Fifth Amendment and Bivens claims were dismissed as wholly without merit, as both were predicated on rights Plaintiff did not possess under Section 411. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was denied as futile, and Plaintiff's motion for joinder was denied as moot. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to file his opposition out of time, nunc pro tunc. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S1vpt8 from PacerMonitor.com SIX FLAGS: Plaintiff's Bid to File Sealed Docs Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.L. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' request to file sealed documents is granted in part. 2. The Defendants request to redact documents is granted in part. 3. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiffs shall: a. File an unredacted copy of the motion for class certification; b. File a redacted copy of Exhibit 5, narrowly tailored to remove only the personal identifying information of the Plaintiff C.T.; and c. Submit a copy of this order, the request for sealing, and the documents to be sealed (Exhibits 4, 5, 39, and 40) by email to the Operations Section of the Clerk of the Court: ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov 4. Within 10 days, Plaintiffs SHALL file a request to seal certain exhibits (Doc. 71-1 Exhibits 12, 18, 21, 23, 25 at 108-110, 271-273, 323-326, 332-334, 341, 346-347) any identified therein any proposed redactions, or, alternatively, a notice of non-opposition to the unredacted filing of said exhibits on the public docket, excluding the portions of Exhibit 25 found appropriately redacted above (id., Ex. 25 at 342-345). In any such filing, Plaintiffs SHALL lodge with the Court said exhibits consistent with Local Rule 141. Six Flags was an American amusement park corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zqwc1g at no extra charge.[CC] TEXTRON AVIATION: Toxic Spill Suit Referred to Bankruptcy Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Warren Denning, Dominic Valle, and Kimberly Valle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Textron Aviation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-1110-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas ordered the Clerk of Court to close the civil case and refer it to the bankruptcy court. The court did not reach defendant's Motion to Dismiss or plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, leaving both for the bankruptcy court to resolve in the first instance. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action -- not yet certified -- in Kansas state court, asserting a variety of state-law claims against Textron Aviation. Defendant removed the case to federal court, relying primarily on federal jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b). Defendant is the successor in interest to Beechcraft Corporation, which previously filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11. As part of the confirmation order in those proceedings, Beechcraft secured a discharge injunction discharging debts arising before the 2013 confirmation date. Defendant contended that plaintiffs' claims are subject to this discharge provision. Plaintiffs alleged that the landowners -- currently defendant and previously Beechcraft and Beechcraft's predecessor -- spilled toxic chemicals into the area around an aircraft-manufacturing site. The court found that plaintiffs' claims have the requisite close nexus to Beechcraft's bankruptcy proceedings. For plaintiffs to succeed on their claims over defendant's discharge defense, a court must interpret the scope and effect of the confirmation plan from Beechcraft's bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiffs' lawsuit is related to a case under Title 11 and must be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 83.8.5(a). The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the case must remain in district court. Plaintiffs posited that they have a right to a jury trial and would not consent to a bankruptcy judge conducting that trial. The court noted that if the case progresses to trial and plaintiffs indeed have a jury trial right, they may move at that time to transfer the case back to the district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(d). A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 3, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9AQtTq from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Textron Aviation, Inc. Represented By Brian C. Fries Lathrop Gpm, Llp - Kansas City 816-292-2000 brian.fries@lathropgpm.com Erika E. Mortensen Lathrop Gpm LLP 612-632-3000 erika.mortensen@lathropgpm.com William F. Ford, Jr. Lathrop Gpm, Llp - Kansas City 816-460-5817 bill.ford@lathropgpm.com Brody Sabor Lathrop Gpm, Llp - Kansas City 816-460-5858 brody.sabor@lathropgpm.com Plaintiff Warren Denning Represented By Jerry D. Bogle Young, Bogle, Wells & Blanchard, PA 316-265-7841 jerry.bogle@youngboglelaw.com Jonathan Barry Nace Nidel & Nace, PLLC 202-780-5153 jon@nidellaw.com Plaintiff Dominic Valle Represented By Jerry D. Bogle Young, Bogle, Wells & Blanchard, PA 316-265-7841 jerry.bogle@youngboglelaw.com Jonathan Barry Nace Nidel & Nace, PLLC 202-780-5153 jon@nidellaw.com Plaintiff Kimberly Valle Represented By Jerry D. Bogle Young, Bogle, Wells & Blanchard, PA 316-265-7841 jerry.bogle@youngboglelaw.com Jonathan Barry Nace Nidel & Nace, PLLC 202-780-5153 jon@nidellaw.com UNITED STATES: Mendoza Bid to Amend Judgment Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Rodriguez Mendoza, et al., v. Kevin Raycraft, Director of the Detroit Field Office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-02183-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Barker entered an order denying the Petitioners' motion to alter, amend, or vacate judgment. Lastly, the Court is not persuaded that reconsideration is warranted to prevent a manifest injustice. As set forth above, if Petitioners believe that they are entitled to a bond hearing as a member of the Bond Eligible Class in Bautista III, they may seek relief in that court. Reconsideration of this Court's November 12, 2025, Memorandum Opinion & Order is not warranted. On Oct. 13, 2025, Petitioners filed a habeas petition with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. The Petitioners asserted that they are being unlawfully held without bond because ICE and the IJ have improperly determined that they are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than to discretionary bond determinations under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a). The Petitioners alleged that their continued detention "is plainly contrary to the statutory framework of the INA and contrary to both agency regulations and decades of consistent agency practice applying section 1226(a) to people like Petitioners." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7wqH0s at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Court Tosses All State Law "Risley" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nessa Risley, James Freeland, Robert Scott, Andrew Cardis, and Dean Meyers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Universal Navigation Inc., doing business as Uniswap Labs, and Hayden Z. Adams, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 2780 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in full and dismissed each of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Defendants created and developed the Protocol, a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange that replaces the traditional one-to-one matching of buyers and sellers on a centralized exchange with liquidity pools. One way investors access and trade on the Protocol is through a web interface controlled and hosted by Uniswap Labs. Plaintiffs -- residents of North Carolina, Idaho, New York, and Australia -- alleged that they used the Interface to access the Protocol and subsequently lost money investing in 38 scam tokens. The scams most commonly took the forms of rug pulls and pump and dumps. Plaintiffs' losses occurred from April 5, 2021, through April 4, 2022. The Second Amended Complaint sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons who purchased any tokens through the Interface between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022, and were harmed thereby. The Court did not reach the question of class certification, as all claims were dismissed on the pleadings. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim under the federal securities laws. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal securities claims and remanded the state-law claims for consideration. Upon remand, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, which withdrew the securities law claims, retained three state-law claims, and added claims for violations of New York, North Carolina, and Idaho consumer protection statutes. To establish liability for aiding and abetting fraud under New York law, Plaintiffs must show (i) the existence of a fraud, (ii) Defendants' knowledge of the fraud, and (iii) that Defendants provided substantial assistance to advance the fraud's commission. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actual knowledge. Emails sent by Plaintiffs to Uniswap Labs were submitted after they had already purchased the tokens and therefore could not have supplied Defendants with actual knowledge at the time the fraud was occurring. A March 2022 report finding that 97.7% of tokens launched on the Protocol were rug pulls or scams was issued one month before the end of the Class Period and said nothing specific about the 38 scam tokens discussed in the Second Amended Complaint. The Court further held that Plaintiffs failed to allege substantial assistance. Merely creating an environment where fraud could exist is not the same as affirmatively assisting in its perpetration. Simply providing the platform on which a fraud takes place is not the same as substantially assisting that fraud. The Court dismissed Count I. Because the Second Amended Complaint failed to sufficiently allege an aiding and abetting fraud claim, it also failed to sufficiently allege an aiding and abetting negligent misrepresentation claim. Defendants did not have actual knowledge of the issuers' negligent misrepresentations, nor did Defendants substantially assist those misrepresentations. The Court therefore dismissed Count II. Plaintiffs alleged violations of New York General Business Law Section 349, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. These claims failed because Plaintiffs did not adequately allege the necessary elements of (i) deception, (ii) causation, or (iii) unconscionability. The Second Amended Complaint did not allege any affirmative misstatements or adequately plead omissions on the part of Defendants. The information was not uniquely in Defendants' possession and was not reasonably obtainable by Plaintiffs. The Second Amended Complaint repeatedly tied Plaintiffs' injuries to the issuers' fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, not Defendants' acts. The Court dismissed Counts III, IV, and V. The Second Amended Complaint contained no allegations of a specific, direct benefit to Defendants. The Second Amended Complaint did not allege that Uniswap Labs ever received User Fees, and the interface fee was not implemented until October 2023, after the Class Period. The Court therefore dismissed Count VI- Unjust enrichment. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. The Court dismissed each of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Gp1En from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Paradigm Operations LP Represented By Alexander C Drylewski Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 212-735-2129 alexander.drylewski@skadden.com Tansy Woan Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 212-735-2472 tansy.woan@skadden.com Defendant Union Square Ventures, LLC Represented By Elliot Greenfield Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) egreenfield@debevoise.com Brandon Richard Fetzer Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) 212-909-6880 bfetzer@debevoise.com Maeve L. O'Connor Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) 212-909-6315 moconnor@debevoise.com Defendant AH Capital Management, L.L.C Represented By Benjamin Naftalis Latham & Watkins 212-906-1200 benjamin.naftalis@lw.com Julia Rose Miller Latham & Watkins LLP 212-906-1200 julia.miller@lw.com Susan Elisabeth Engel Latham & Watkins Llp (dc) 202-637-2200 susan.engel@lw.com Douglas Kent Yatter Latham & Watkins 212-906-1200 douglas.yatter@lw.com Defendant Hayden Z. Adams Represented By Elliot Greenfield Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) egreenfield@debevoise.com Brandon Richard Fetzer Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) 212-909-6880 bfetzer@debevoise.com Maeve L. O'Connor Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) 212-909-6315 moconnor@debevoise.com Defendant Universal Navigation Inc. Represented By Elliot Greenfield Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) egreenfield@debevoise.com Brandon Richard Fetzer Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) 212-909-6880 bfetzer@debevoise.com Maeve L. O'Connor Debevoise & Plimpton, Llp (nyc) 212-909-6315 moconnor@debevoise.com Defendant Uniswap Foundation 1201 North Market Street PO Box 1347, DE 19801 Lead Plaintiff Andrew Cardis Represented By James Rocco Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 212-960-8345 jserritella@kandslaw.com Lead Plaintiff James Freeland Represented By James Rocco Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 212-960-8345 jserritella@kandslaw.com Lead Plaintiff Dean Meyers Represented By James Rocco Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 212-960-8345 jserritella@kandslaw.com Lead Plaintiff Nessa Risley Represented By James Rocco Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 212-960-8345 jserritella@kandslaw.com Michael Christopher Ward Barton LLP 212-682-6262 mward@bartonesq.com Christopher James McNamara Barton LLP 212-885-8803 cmcnamara@bartonesq.com Aram Boghosian Kim & Serritella LLP 212-287-7144 aboghosian@kandslaw.com Roger E. Barton Barton LLP 212-687-6262 rbarton@bartonesq.com Lead Plaintiff Robert Scott Represented By James Rocco Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 212-960-8345 jserritella@kandslaw.com Lead Plaintiff Annie Venesky Represented By James Rocco Serritella Kim & Serritella LLP 212-960-8345 jserritella@kandslaw.com WESTHAB INC: Lowther Seek Conditional Cert of Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINA LOWTHER, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTHAB, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-08058-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order: 1. Conditionally certifying a collective action with respect to current and former non-managerial case managers, social service workers, and other similarly situated employees employed by the Defendant at any of its office locations in New York, who, while performing work for the Defendant at any time between Feb. 24, 2020 and the present, did not receive overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek; 2. Requiring the Defendant, within fourteen days of the Court's Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile telephone numbers, all known email addresses, work locations, dates of employment, compensation rates, and primary languages of all potential collective action members who worked for the Defendant at any point from Feb. 25, 2020 to the present; and 3. Permitting the Plaintiff to disseminate notice in the form attached to the declaration of Jarret Bodo, Esq. as Exhibit A ("Notice") and Exhibit B ("Reminder Notice") in English, Spanish, and any other language identified by the Defendant, via regular mail, e-mail (Exhibit C) and text message (Exhibit D) and permitting a sixty-day opt-in period. Westhab offers housing and support services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xjefo0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarret Bodo, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 406-6890 WHITE CAP: Lobdell's Bid to Certify Class Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LOBDELL, v. WHITE CAP, LP, WHITE CAP SUPPLY HOLDINGS, LLC, WHITE CAP MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11450-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Grand entered an order denying Lobdell's motion to certify class and motion to compel. Lobdell's proposed class definition does not meet Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirements. Lobdell's proposed class also fails Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement. The Court agrees that Lobdell's personal objection to any wellness program that provides an insurance premium credit to participants for undergoing medical exams renders him an inadequate representative of the instant proposed class. Lobdell used to work for White Cap, and he now challenges the legality of its "Health Screen Program" that requires employee participants to submit to annual medical exams and biometric testing in order to receive a "credit" towards the cost of their health insurance. Specifically, Lobdell asks the Court to certify a class defined as: "All current and former White Cap employees subject to the [Program] in 2021 to present." White Cap distributes specialty construction supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3FjVNo at no extra charge.[CC] WHOOP INC: Court Seals Key Summary Judgment Docs in "Sanderson" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Donrick Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHOOP, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's Interim Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. The court found good cause and ordered the following materials sealed in connection with Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) designated pages from the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof; (2) Exhibits 1, 4, and 6 through 18 in their entirety; and (3) page 2 of the Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The order was entered on March 3, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GvDFL5 from PacerMonitor.com WICKED TACO: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE R. GONZALEZ, ANTONIO LAMAR, CARLY ZINCONE, HECTOR VENTURA, JOSE NOEL OSORIO MEJIA, JUAN FRANCISCO MARTINEZ MEJIA, and SANTOS MORALES, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. WICKED TACO LLC d/b/a BONGO BURRITO, NDL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a CHARRED BRICK OVEN, f/d/b/a LOBSTER SHACK, D & L RESTAURANT CORP., d/b/a PUGLIAS and GREGORY GAROFALO, Case No. 1:23-cv-09555-NCM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion class certification pursuant to fed. r. civ. p. 23. Bongo Burrito is a Mexican-style restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=29wJXw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 WL GORE: Wolf Bid to File Third Amended Complaint Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA WOLF, et al., v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00280-MJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs propose amending their complaint more than two years after their initial deadline to do so and well over one year after their last motion to amend, yet they offer no good reason for the untimeliness of their new amendments. Even considering the substance of the proposed amendments and prejudice to Defendant, I find the proposed amendments to be significant and at least potentially prejudicial. They add a new plaintiff, add several pages of new allegations, and articulate new theories of recovery, even if the new claims for relief are derivative of claims previously pleaded. The proposed amendments are not earth-shattering, and they may not necessitate further extension of the schedule. But they clearly call for greater efforts in discovery and therefore at least risk prejudice to Defendant. For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ untimely motion to amend is denied. Three years ago, a group of individual Plaintiffs filed this putative class action asserting claims against defendant W.L. Gore for strict products liability, negligence, private nuisance, and public nuisance. W. L. Gore is an American multinational manufacturing company specializing in products derived from fluoropolymers. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ExX87x at no extra charge.[CC] X CORP: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe v. X Corp. et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01282-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, and the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Accordingly, Title 15 U.S.C. section 6851(b)(4)(A) excludes from liability the nonconsensual distribution of commercial pornographic content unless it was produced by fraud or misrepresentation. Produced in this provision has its ordinary meaning—that is, creation. The Plaintiff created his commercial pornographic content freely and voluntarily. Accordingly, any unauthorized disclosure of it by Defendants is not protected. Additionally, Section 230 immunizes Defendants from liability. The Plaintiff's complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff requested the opportunity to replead at oral argument. However, he has not explained the facts that he could provide showing liability under the statute. As such, leave to amend is denied. The Plaintiff creates posts on OnlyFans containing sexually explicit content. OnlyFans is a subscription-based platform on which creators post content for subscribers to view. X Corp. is a social networking service where users can post text, images, and videos that others may view. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xvFRfb at no extra charge.[CC] X CORP: Must Oppose White Coat Class Cert Bid by March 25 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, et al., v. X CORP., INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kim entered an order setting the following deadlines and hearing date for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 1. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion by March 25, 2026. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of its motion by April 1, 2026. 3. The Court will hold a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion on April 27, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. via Public Zoom webinar. 4. All other case deadlines in the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025 stand. X Corp. is an American technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KhkSfs at no extra charge.[CC] X CORP: White Coat Seeks to Certify Twitter Vendor Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, YES CONSULTING, LLC, AUTUMN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., BUSINESS TRAINING WORKS, INC., MEASURING USABILITY LLC, AND FOSTER & FORGE LTD. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. X CORP. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER, INC.), Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs moves the Court to certify a class action on behalf of: "All Twitter vendors who provided goods or services to Twitter, submitted invoice Aug. 1, 2022, and Feb. 1, 2023, whose invoice(s) Twitter either approved or did not dispute at the time they were submitted and are now past due, and who have not received payment from Twitter." The Plaintiffs file this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Because this proposed class qualifies for class treatment under Rule 23, the Court should certify the class and appoint the Plaintiffs as the class representatives and the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel, the suit says. The case was brought against X Corp. as a result of Twitter's failure, following Elon Musk's acquisition of the company in October 2022, to pay pending invoices from hundreds of vendors that had provided goods or services to Twitter. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek to recover the amounts owed to them under the doctrines of breach of contract and related common law theories. X Corp. is an American technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=idB123 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com X CORP: White Coat Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, YES CONSULTING, LLC, AUTUMN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., BUSINESS TRAINING WORKS, INC., MEASURING USABILITY LLC, and FOSTER & FORGE LTD. on behalf of them-selves and all others similarly situated, v. X CORP. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER, INC.), Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file an unredacted copy under seal of their motion for class certification and Exhibits 3-34, 35-A, 36, 38, 39-A, 40-41, 43-45, 47-48, and 53 to the declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan. Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 have been the subject of a previous request to file under seal in this matter. The motion for class certification cites to information from various documents produced by Defendant, such as internal communications and business records, that the Defendant designated as confidential. While the Plaintiffs do not agree that all of the cited documents should remain confidential, the Plaintiffs request that the Court initially allow them to be filed under seal. X Corp. is an American technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sJsP4q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.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 ***