260312.mbx

260312.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 12, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 51 Headlines 26 CAPITAL: Barnes Class Action Transferred to Bankruptcy Court ADAPTHEALTH CORP: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 13 AETNA INC: $2MM Fertility Suit Final Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 12 ALIGHT INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ALPHABET INC: Tsourdinis Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Thermostat AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ARCELLX INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Gilead Sciences ASIA FOCUS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Claims AUDEZE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Rushefsky Suit Says AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in N.J. BANCO SANTANDER: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims BEAUTY HEALTH: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set For May 13 BLACKROCK TCP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors CAL-MAINE FOODS: King Kullen Suit Transferred to W.D. Wis. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Nineteenseventynine Suit Transferred to W.D. Wis. CARGURUS INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info CONSTELLATION SOFTWARE: Faces Class Suit Over EZSchoolPay Fees CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: April 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Allegheny Sues Over Drop in Share Price COUVE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Faces Class Suit Over 401K Retirement Plan CYMBIOTIKA LLC: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website D&R INVESTMENT: Violates FLSA Tip Policy, Slicker Suit Says DEL FRISCO'S: Court Dismisses All Claims in "Wright" DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Anguiano Sues Illegal Gambling Platform EVERON LLC: Underpays Company Employees, Barboza Alleges FEDEX CORP: Faces Anastopoulo Suit Over Improper Tariff Fees GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Rent the Runway Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend StubHub Securities Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Venture Global Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Files Petition in 9th Cir. for Rehearing en Banc GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Zymergen Securities Suit for Final OK HILBERS INC: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. INDIANA: Court Grants Permanent Injunction of Religious Freedom INFINITE CARE: Ilyaich Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination JAB & COMPANY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL KETTLE AND FIRE: Walker Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla. KROGER CO: Misclassifies E-Commerce Managers, Class Suit Says LET'S GO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 4 LINUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Protein Bars MT. SINAI HEALTH: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Paramedics' Unpaid OT Wages NEWREZ LLC: Court Trims Class Action Claims in "Sellers" ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lotz Suit Over Improper Bylaws ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PEPSICO INC: Arbit Sues Over Pepsi Brand Soft Drinks Monopoly PROLIANCE SURGEONS: Settles Cyberattack Class Suit for $4.45-Mil. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate Cases REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Settles Hefty Recycling Bags Suit for $212,000 ROMAINE EMPIRE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Castellanos Says RYZE INC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Marquez-Amaya from Detention SCHWARTZ FRUITS: Faces Valesquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. SEAGATE TECH: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Bid Schedule SEAGRAVE FIRE: Vazquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA SGL CARBON: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 3, 2027 SHAKALAKA BAKERY: Ren Sues Over Unlawful Tip Retention Under FLSA SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Class Cert Bid in Kevin Suit Extended to May 19 SPROUTS FARMERS: $5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 19 STASH PRODUCTIONS: Paullin Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. STATE FARM: Bid to Dismiss Brewer Class Action Tossed T&T FARMS: Amended Bid for Class Cert Due April 1 TARGET CORP: Kelley Suit Seeks Rule 11 Sanctions TEAM HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Plaquemine Due June 15 TIEU DENTAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach TRANSITAMERICA SERVICES: White Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. TRUE FINANCE: More Time to File Class Cert. Sought in Kelly Suit U.S. POSTAL: Thomas Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Ye Suit Over Rideshare Services' False Ads UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in D.V.D. Suit VIRCAN GROUP: Pascal Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL YA YA CREATIONS: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ********* 26 CAPITAL: Barnes Class Action Transferred to Bankruptcy Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware referred the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BARNES, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Class A stockholders, Plaintiff, v. JASON ADER, JOHN K. LEWIS, RAFAEL ASHKENAZI, JOSEPH KAMINKOW, GREGORY S. LYSS, J. RANDALL WATERFIELD, 26 CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC, RIMU CAPITAL LTD., SPRINGOWL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, ALEXANDER EISEMAN, CHRISTIAN LITTLEJOHN ZAMA CAPITAL ADVISORS, LT, and ZAMA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LP, Class Action Defendants, and TIGER RESPORT ASIA LTD., TIGER RESORT LIESURE AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., OKADA MANILA INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PROJECT TIGER MERGER SUB, INC., Derivative Defendants, and 26 CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP., Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 25-931-MN (D. Del.) to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in its entirety, including Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Abstention and Remand to the Delaware Court of Chancery of Count VII of Plaintiff's Complaint, to be assigned to the Honorable Karen B. Owens, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, in connection with the Bankruptcy Case captioned In re 26 Capital Acquisition Corp., No. 25-11323-KBO, in accordance with the Court's Amended Standing Order of Reference, dated February 29, 2012, which provides that any or all cases under Title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11 are referred to the bankruptcy judges for this district. On March 17, 2025, plaintiff Kevin Barnes filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other Delaware state law claims on behalf of 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. and its Class A stockholders. The Complaint alleges generally that 26 Capital Holdings LLC ("the Sponsor"), the Company's controlling stockholder, breached its fiduciary duties and was not entitled to share in the proceeds of a settlement, signed on November 9, 2023, of separate litigation1 against various defendants concerning a failed merger. On July 25, 2025, Sponsor removed the Barnes Action from the Chancery Court, which has overseen other litigation involving the Company and/or the Sponsor, to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1334 and 1452, on the basis that the Barnes Action: (1) expressly seeks to undo the Settlement and the return of the settlement proceeds, which Sponsor asserts are the Debtor's only liquid assets; and (2) expressly seeks to augment the Debtor's assets by alleging that the invalidity of the Settlement means that 26 Capital maintains its claims against the UEC affiliates for breaching the Merger Agreement. The removal of the Barnes Action to the District Court was not improper, as the claims asserted in the Barnes Action, which seeks to reverse the Settlement as invalid, would affect Debtors' estate and therefore implicates matters "related to" the Bankruptcy Case: whether the Debtor is entitled to retain these monetary assets, whether the Debtor retains litigation claims against the UEC Parties, and how the Debtor's residual assets should be distributed among creditors. On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Abstention and Remand to the Delaware Court of Chancery of Count VII of Plaintiff's Complaint, which seeks an order abstaining and remanding to the Chancery Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1334(c)(2) and 1452(b), solely Count VII of the Complaint, which alleges that the Sponsor has no claim against the Company as a matter of state law, and which will require consideration of the internal affairs of the Company, a Delaware corporation, as well as a determination as to whether the Sponsor has a claim against the Debtor as a matter of state law. This matter is transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for a decision on abstention. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated February 27, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v6pLez About 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. is a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 25-11323) on July 11, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets between $1 million and $10 million and estimated liabilities between $10 million and $50 million. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Karen B. Owens handles the case. The Debtor is represented by Kevin Scott Mann, Esq. at Cross & Simon, LLC. The case was converted to Chapter 7 on December 12, 2025. Jami B. Nimeroff is the Interim Chapter 7 Trustee. ADAPTHEALTH CORP: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kroll Settlement Administration issued a statement regarding In re AdaptHealth Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04104-MRP pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re AdaptHealth Corp. Securities Litigation Case No. 2:23-cv-04104-MRP SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AdaptHealth Corp.("AdaptHealth") during the period from August 4, 2020 through November 7, 2023, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period") (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"), that the securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System ("ACERS"), International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario ("Local 793"), and City of Tallahassee Pension Plan ("Tallahassee") (together, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $35,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on May 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, before the Honorable Mia R. Perez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, either in person in Courtroom 10-B of the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, or by telephone or videoconference, in the discretion of the Court, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: AdaptHealth Securities Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, P.O. Box 5090, New York, NY 10150-5090; (833) 754-8921; info@AdaptHealth2025SecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website, www.AdaptHealth2025SecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than July 2, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than April 22, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 22, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: AdaptHealth Securities Litigation c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 5090 New York, NY 10150-5090 (833) 754-8921 info@AdaptHealth2025SecuritiesLitigation.com www.AdaptHealth2025SecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Katherine M. Sinderson Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com By Order of the Court The full definition of the Settlement Class, including certain persons and entities excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, is set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), available at www.AdaptHealth2025SecuritiesLitigation.com. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 18, 2025 ("Stipulation"). The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.AdaptHealth2025SecuritiesLitigation.com AETNA INC: $2MM Fertility Suit Final Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Aetna has agreed to a $2,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the health insurer discriminatorily denied LGBTQ+ individuals with uteruses equal access to fertility treatments by forcing them to undergo additional procedures before covering the treatments. The $2 million Aetna discrimination settlement received preliminary court approval on December 17, 2025 and covers all individuals who resided in California and were on an Aetna plan that covered certain infertility treatments between April 17, 2019 and December 31, 2024 (the class period) and, between those dates, had a uterus, was in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship, and was directly impacted by Aetna's allegedly discriminatory policy in that they sought and were denied coverage for intrauterine insemination (IUI) or intra-cervical insemination (ICI) the plan would have covered had they been considered infertile or did not seek covered because they believed themselves to be ineligible, and paid out of pocket for IUI or ICI while they were on an Aetna plan. The court-approved website for the Aetna class action settlement can be found at CaliforniaInfertilitySettlement.com. Court documents specify that individuals looking to participate in the class action settlement must meet the criteria under one of the following: -- Category A class members include California residents who the parties agree sought and were denied coverage for IUI or ICI due to the definition of infertility during the class period, and who Aetna's records indicate were individuals with a uterus in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship during the period; -- Category B class members include California residents who the parties agree sought and were denied coverage for IUI or UCI due to the definition of infertility during the class period, and who submit an attestation certifying that they were individuals with uteruses in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship at the time they sought coverage; -- Category C class members include California residents who were members of an Aetna plan during the class period who attest to and provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for IUI or ICI services received that would have been covered by their Aetna plan; and -- Category D class members include California residents who sought coverage for IUI or ICI during the class period that was denied, then followed by an approval within 90 days or otherwise paid by Aetna, including: -- Category D-A includes those who Aetna's records indicate were individuals with uteruses in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship during the class period and who provide evidence of out-of-pocket expense for artificial insemination services received that would have been covered by their Aetna plan, but weren't paid; -- Category D-B includes individuals who submit an attestation and provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for artificial insemination services received that would have been covered by their Aetna plan but have not yet been paid. Court documents define an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship as a personal relationship that includes two individuals who, at the time of seeking coverage from Aetna, self-identified as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, consisting of one individual with a uterus and one individual incapable of producing viable sperm. According to settlement documents, class members in Categories A, B, C, and D are eligible to receive a one-time default cash payout of $10,000. The agreement notes that if the number of class members exceeds 175, claimants will instead receive a pro-rata (equal share) portion of the class action settlement fund. The agreement also states that all class members who have not already been reimbursed for eligible procedures by Aetna or another coverage provider are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $1,408 and possibly more if their coverage would allow for more reimbursement. Additionally, Aetna has agreed to create a separate $250,000 special harms fund to reimburse class members who experienced greater emotional or physical harm due to the company's denial of coverage for fertility treatment. All class members are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment from the special harms fund at the discretion of the settlement administrator, the website says. According to settlement documents, class members in Category A do not need to do anything to receive an automatic cash payment from the settlement. Class members in categories B, C, and D must fill out a settlement claim form and include an attestation that they were an individual with a uterus in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship who received an infertility service for which they sought coverage from Aetna between April 17, 2019 and December 31, 2024. Class members in categories C and D must also provide documentation supporting their claimed out-of-pocket costs incurred for IUI or ICI during the class period, the settlement website says. To submit an Aetna settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can visit this page and select the correct claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Aetna claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 29, 2026. In addition to monetary benefits, Aetna has agreed to implement business practice changes to ensure that it can no longer discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+ community. The agreement highlights that on June 1, 2024, Aetna implemented a new policy that includes coverage for IUI or ICI pursuant to standards set out in the case Goidel v. Aetna, Inc. et al.. Moreover, Aetna has agreed that individuals with uteruses who are involved in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship are no longer required to undergo more ovulation cycles to qualify for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) than heterosexual individuals. Aetna will fairly consider the couples' specific circumstances, including the availability of chosen sperm, when considering IVF coverage. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Aetna infertility settlement following a hearing on November 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Aetna infertility class action lawsuit claimed that the health insurance provider intentionally discriminated against patients on the basis of sex, particularly sexual orientation and gender identity. The suit claimed that Aetna required LGBTQ+ patients seeking coverage for fertility treatments to pay for as many as 12 out-of-pocket cycles of artificial insemination before insurance would cover IVF, which forced queer patients and their families to wait longer before they received fertility treatments. [GN] ALIGHT INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Alight, Inc. (NYSE: ALIT) resulting from allegations that Alight may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Alight securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, visit https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=54542 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 19, 2026, before the market opened, Alight issued a press release entitled "Alight Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Results". Among other metrics, the release stated disclosed results of "[g]ross profit of $240 million and gross profit margin of 36.8%, compared to $271 million and 39.9% in the prior year period, respectively, and adjusted gross profit of $272 million and adjusted gross profit margin of 41.7%, compared to $300 million and 44.1% in the prior year period, respectively[.]" On this news, Alight's stock fell 38.2% on February 19, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ALPHABET INC: Tsourdinis Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Thermostat ------------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE TSOURDINIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALPHABET, INC., and GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01770 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 2, 2026) is a putative class action against Google arising from its unfair and deceptive scheme of designing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, marketing, and selling its first- and second-generation Nest Learning Thermostat ("NLT") as a Wi-Fi-enabled "smart" thermostat operable through an application on the user's smart phone or other electronic device—while, at the same time, failing to disclose that the NLT's advertised functionality would only operate at Google's corporate whim and could be discontinued by Google at any time. In an effort to coerce consumers into buying a newer version of the same product, Google "bricked" the first and second generation of its NLT device by stripping the devices of functionality as remotely-controllable thermostats and their ability to receive software updates from Google—before the NLTs had reached the end of their useful life. Google never told consumers prior to purchase that the NLT's core functionality could be reduced or eliminated for any reason, at any time, without compensation to purchasers, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class Members could not have anticipated that the NLT's value and usefulness could be terminated overnight by Google, for any reason at all—though that is exactly what happened, the Plaintiff avers. As a result of Google's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, public injunctive relief, and all other relief the Court deems proper. The Plaintiff purchased a first-generation NLT from third-party retailer Home Depot in 2011. Alphabet is the parent company of Google LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com Jkaliel@kalielpllc.com AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST) securities between June 16, 2025 and January 8, 2026. Aquestive is a pharmaceutical company committed to advancing medicines to bring improvement to patients' lives through innovative science and delivery technologies. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) Misled Investors Regarding Approval of Anaphylm According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants created the false impression that Aquestive was on track to receive approval for the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) for Anaphylm by the January 31, 2026 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date. In contrast, the FDA identified deficiencies with Aquestive's NDA for Anaphylm precluding labeling discussions and post-marketing commitments. For the FDA to grant approval for any NDA, any deficiencies must be remedied, therefore the launch of Anaphylm was delayed, indicating that Aquestive failed to obtain approval for Anaphylm by the PDUFA date. Plaintiff alleges that on January 9, 2026, Aquestive announced that the Company was in receipt of a letter from the FDA identifying deficiencies that precluded labeling discussions for Anaphylm. Moreover, Aquestive revealed that the letter from the FDA confirmed that the Agency's review of Anaphylm NDA was ongoing and no final decision had been made, which effectively delayed the approval of Anaphylm well beyond the January 31, 2026 PDUFA date. On this news, the price of Aquestive's common stock declined over 37%, from a closing market price of $6.21 per share on January 8, 2026, to $3.91 per share on January 9, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/aquestive-therapeutics-inc-2/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] ARCELLX INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Gilead Sciences -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Arcellx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACLX) related to its sale to Gilead Sciences, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Arcellx shareholders are expected to receive $115.00 per share in cash plus one contingent value right of $5.00 per share upon the achievement of certain milestones. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcellx-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Veris Residential, Inc. (NYSE: VRE) related to its sale to an investor consortium led by Affinius Capital in partnership with Vista Hill Partners. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Veris shareholders are expected to receive $19.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/veris-residential-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Enhabit Inc. (NYSE: EHAB) related to its sale to Kinderhook Industries, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Enhabit shareholders are expected to receive $13.80 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enhabit-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- CECO Environmental Corp. (NASDAQ: CECO) related to its merger with Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CECO shareholders are expected to own approximately 62.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ceco-environmental-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] ASIA FOCUS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASIA FOCUS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02234 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.tallmenshoes.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Asia Focus International Group, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law AUDEZE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Rushefsky Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GLEN RUSHEFSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AUDEZE LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01707 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website, www.audeze.com, is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals. On multiple occasions in 2025 and 2026, Mr. Rushefsky visited www.audeze.com using NVDA with the intent to browse and purchase specific audio products, including the Aluminum Travel Case for the CRBN Electrostatic and the MM-100 Professional Headphones. During each visit, Mr. Rushefsky encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise. NVDA announced product images only as "graphic," size selectors only as unlabeled "button," and the "Add to Bag" control without any accessible name or purpose. As a result, he could not determine what the products looked like, could not select his size, and could not add any item to his cart, the Plaintiff says. The Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its Website in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers denies Mr. Rushefsky -- and all similarly situated individuals -- the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, privileges, and advantages, in violation of ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to remediate the Website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the Website is fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in substantial conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The Defendant sells high-end headphones, audio equipment, accessories, and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Axon Enterprise Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2023, the FTC dismissed its administrative enforcement complaint against Axon Enterprise Inc. without any consent decree or other condition. Nevertheless, some parties continue to claim that Axon's May 2018 acquisition of Vievu LLC, an insolvent body camera competitor, was anticompetitive. Pending is the purported antitrst class suit in the District of New Jersey (Case No. 3:23-cv-7182), largely based on the FTC's prior unproven allegations. Axon Enterprise Inc. denies all allegations and is actively defending the litigation. Axon Enterprise, Inc.is a provider of public safety technology solutions. BANCO SANTANDER: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Banco Santander, S.A. (NYSE: SAN) resulting from allegations that Santander may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Santander securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, visit https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22671 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 27, 2026, Reuters published an article entitled "Wall Street hit by UK mortgage lender collapse, raising fears of more credit 'cockroaches.'" The article stated that "Wall Street lenders on Friday were rocked by the implosion of little-known UK mortgage provider Market Financial Solutions Ltd, fuelling concerns about wider losses among banks and reviving warnings of more "cockroaches" in the booming private credit industry." Further, it stated that Santander faces potential losses from the collapse. On this news, Santander's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell 4.48% on February 27, 2026, and a further 3.2% on February 28, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BEAUTY HEALTH: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set For May 13 --------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE THE BEAUTY HEALTH COMPANY CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION C.A. No. 2024-0114-LWW SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE BEAUTY HEALTH COMPANY ("BEAUTY HEALTH" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK OF AS OF FEBRUARY 20, 2026 ("APPLICABLE BEAUTY HEALTH STOCKHOLDERS") PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE AN APPLICABLE BEAUTY HEALTH STOCKHOLDER, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the February 20, 2026 Scheduling Order entered in the consolidated shareholder derivative action (the "Action"), that a Stipulation of Settlement dated February 9, 2026 (the "Stipulation") has been entered to resolve the shareholder derivative claims pending on behalf of nominal defendant Beauty Health in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Action arises from allegations that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as officers and directors of Beauty Health, and engaged in other wrongdoing, by allegedly failing to properly oversee a new product introduction and, thereafter, the Company's dissemination of certain purportedly false and misleading statements about the market-readiness of the HydraFacial Syndeo Delivery System ("Syndeo"), its new flagship product, its acceptance by customers, the extent of problems besetting both the software and hardware of Syndeo, as well as the Company's financial results and financial guidance. As a result of this alleged wrongdoing, Plaintiffs in the Action allege the Company suffered damages. Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that they committed any breach of duty, violated any law, or engaged in any wrongdoing, expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties, to the extent such duties exist, and further believe that the Action is without merit. In connection with, and conditioned upon, the Settlement, Beauty Health has agreed to implement and/or maintain certain Corporate Governance Reforms, as defined and set forth in the Stipulation. The Parties believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders, and that the Settlement, including the Corporate Governance Reforms, confer substantial benefits upon the Company and its stockholders. Defendants dispute the allegations in the Action and enter into the Stipulation and Settlement without in any way acknowledging any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind. On May 13, 2026, a Settlement Hearing will be held before Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Beauty Health, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement; (iii) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered, substantially in the form as Exhibit E to the Stipulation, dismissing the Action with prejudice; releasing all of the Released Claims against the Released Parties; and barring and enjoining prosecution of any and all Released Claims against any and all respective Released Parties; (iv) consider whether and in what amount any Fee Award should be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel; and (v) rule on other such matters as the Court may deem appropriate. The Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof, including the consideration of the Fee Award application, without further notice of any kind other than by prior docket notice or by oral announcement at the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof. The Court has further reserved the right to approve the Settlement Stipulation and the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing, with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to Applicable Beauty Health Stockholders. The Settlement Hearing may be converted to a hearing by Zoom or telephone, in which case information about how to attend the hearing remotely will be provided on the docket. You should monitor the Court's docket and the Stock Information – Legal Notices page of Beauty Health's website before making plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. You may also confirm the date and time of the Settlement Hearing by contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel as indicated below. This is a summary notice only. For additional information about the claims asserted in the Action and the terms of the proposed Settlement, please refer to the documents filed with the Court in the Action, the Stipulation and its exhibits and the full-length Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action (the "Notice"). The Notice and the Stipulation (and its exhibits) can also be accessed on the Stock Information – Legal Notices section of Beauty Health's website (https://www.beautyhealth.com/legal notices), as well as on the respective websites of Plaintiffs' Counsel in this consolidated action. If you have any questions about matters in this Summary Notice you may contact Plaintiffs' Counsel at: If you are an Applicable Beauty Health Stockholder, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court granting final approval of the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived the right to object (including the right to appeal) and forever shall be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection. Any objections to the Settlement must be filed on or before April 23, 2026, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit C, and available on the Stock Information – Legal Notices section of Beauty Health's website. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE DATED: March 6, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BLACKROCK TCP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against BlackRock TCP Capital Corp. ("BlackRock TCP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCPC) and reminds investors of the April 6, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. The complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the Company's investments were not being timely and/or appropriately valued; (2) the Company's efforts at portfolio restructuring were not effectively resolving challenged credits or improving the quality of the portfolio; (3) as a result, the Company's unrealized losses were understated; (4) as a result, the Company's NAV was overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On February 27, 2025, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2024. The press release disclosed that the Company's portfolio had significantly weakened during the 2024 fiscal year. Specifically, the press release revealed the number of portfolio companies on non-accrual status had more than doubled, and as a result, debt investments on non-accrual status at cost increased by 289% (from 3.7% to 14.4% of the portfolio). Moreover, the press release revealed that the Company's net asset value ("NAV") had fallen 22.44% year over year to $9.23 per share. Total losses, both realized and unrealized, were revealed to have ballooned to $194,895,042 for the fiscal year, a 186% increase year over year, in large part due to a newly added $72.3 million net unrealized loss within the fourth quarter. Despite this, the press release alleged the NAV of the Company was accurate at $9.23 per share, and that "the vast majority of [the Company's] portfolio continued to perform well," and the Company was "working closely with [its] borrowers and sponsors to resolve the portfolio issues." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.90, or 9.64%, to close at $8.44 per share on February 27, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. On January 23, 2026, after market hours, BlackRock TCP disclosed certain fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results, including that the Company's NAV per share as of December 31, 2025 was in fact in the range of $7.05 to $7.09, 19% less than reported the prior quarter and 23.4% less than reported the prior year. On this news, BlackRock TCP's stock price fell $0.76, or 12.97%, to close at $5.10 per share on January 26, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding BlackRock TCP's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the BlackRock TCP class action, visit www.faruqilaw.com/TCPC or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) common stock between July 23, 2025 and February 3, 2026. Boston Scientific is a global company that develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices used across various specialties. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) Misled Investors Regarding Projected Revenue According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, Boston Scientific's ambition of continuing "to grow our share in the overall EP market" to maintain a growth trajectory at "2x the market" had fallen short of reality; the Company had begun to experience new competition entrants that were sapping Boston Scientific's U.S. Electrophysiology market share and thus limiting the Company's growth potential. Plaintiff alleges that on February 4, 2026, Boston Scientific published a press release announcing fourth quarter and full year 2025 results, including a pertinent disappointment in U.S. EP sales, and issued guidance for fiscal 2026 that fell well below expectations. The Company attributed its results and dismal guidance on a combination of slower than expected market growth alongside increased competition, despite management's previous claims of a "growing" EP business and assertions they "have a very good understanding of what competition we will face and in what time frame." On this news, the price of Boston Scientific's common stock declined over 17%, from a closing market price of $91.62 per share on February 3, 2026, to $75.50 per share on February 4, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Boston Scientific Corporation. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/boston-scientific-corporation/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Boston Scientific Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] CAL-MAINE FOODS: King Kullen Suit Transferred to W.D. Wis. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC.; HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC., HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC; HILLANDALE FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC. d/b/a EXPANA; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; UNITED EGG PRODUCERS; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02274, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison) on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00177 to the proceeding. The case has been consolidated in the the multi-district action captioned In Re: Shell Eggs Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3175. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that to raise the price of eggs, egg producers conspired to restrict egg production through a sham animal-welfare program that reduced the laying hen flock sizes. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer of eggs in the United States. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. is the second largest egg producer in the United States. Versova Holdings, LLC is one of the largest egg producers in the United States. Hillandale Farms is comprised of several related companies, including Defendants Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC, Hillandale Farms East, Inc.--all incorporated in Pennsylvania—and Hillandale Farms, Inc., incorporated in Ohio. Hillandale Farms is headquartered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Hillandale Farms is one of the largest egg producers in the United States. Daybreak Foods, Inc. is one of the largest egg producers in the United States. Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana is a provider of market intelligence and price data. Egg Clearlinghouse, Inc. operates as an online spot market that allows participants to place bids on eggs listed for sale and see the results of trades. United Egg Producers is a national cooperative of egg farmers representing the ownership of approximately 95% of all the nation's egg-laying hens. John Does (1-10) are the unnamed co-conspirators.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jules Harrison Cantor, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-0708 E-mail: jules.cantor@kirkland.com - and - Amanda Jane Gallagher, Esq. Monica Renee Brownewell Smith, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 11 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 229-3114, (317) 231-7205 Facsimile: (317) 231-7433 E-mail: Amanda.Gallagher@btlaw.com monica.brownewell@btlaw.com - and - Phillip Russell Perdew, Esq. LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 443-1712 Facsimile: (312) 896-6712 E-mail: rperdew@lockelord.com - and - Riley H. Floyd, Esq. Wayne C. Turner, Esq. HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP 111 Monument Circle Suite 4400 P.O. Box 44989 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 822-4400 Facsimile: (317) 822-0234 E-mail: rfloyd@hooverhullturner.com wturner@hooverhullturner.com - and - Duane R. Denton, Esq. Gregory A. Neibarger, Esq. Joseph A. Zumpano, III, Esq. Jessica Laurin Meek, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 635-8900, (317) 968-5335 Facsimile: (317) 236-9907 E-mail: rusty.denton@dentons.com greg.neibarger@dentons.com joseph.zumpano@dentons.com jessica.meek@dentons.com - and - Brooke Smith, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP One Indiana Square Suite 2800 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 238-6218 E-mail: bsmith@kdlegal.com - and - Christopher E Ondeck, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Suite 600S 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 525-0865 Facsimile: Pro Hac Vice E-mail: condeck@proskauer.com - and - Jackson Alexander Hughes, Esq. Offer Korin, Esq. STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC 334 N Senate Ave Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 615-4225, (317) 464-1100 Facsimile: (317) 464-1111 E-mail: jackson.hughes@skofirm.com offer.korin@skofirm.com - and - Eyitayo St. Matthew-Daniel, Esq. Katherine B Forrest, Esq. Natalie Marie Pita, Esq. Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. Staci Yablon, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3229, (212) 373-3000 E-mail: tstmatthewdaniel@paulweiss.com KForrest@paulweiss.com npita@paulweiss.com rsperling@paulweiss.com syablon@paulweiss.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Nineteenseventynine Suit Transferred to W.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Nineteenseventynine LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Versova Holdings, LLC, Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC., Hillandale Farms East, Inc., and Hillandale Farms, Inc, Daybreak Foods, Inc., Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana, Egg Clearinghouse, Inc., United Egg Producers, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02301, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison) on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00178-jdp to the proceeding. The case has been consolidated in the the multi-district action captioned In Re: Shell Eggs Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3175. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants purposefully placed price-fixed Conventional Shell Eggs into the stream of commerce throughout the United States. Plaintiff's claim for relief arises from Defendants' unlawful overcharges for Conventional Shell Eggs and suffered antitrust injury within this jurisdiction. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer of eggs in the United States. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. is the second largest egg producer in the United States. Versova Holdings, LLC is one of the largest egg producers in the United States. Hillandale Farms is comprised of several related companies, including Defendants Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC, Hillandale Farms East, Inc.–all incorporated in Pennsylvania—and Hillandale Farms, Inc., incorporated in Ohio. Hillandale Farms is headquartered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Hillandale Farms is one of the largest egg producers in the United States. Daybreak Foods, Inc. is one of the largest egg producers in the United States. Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana is a provider of market intelligence and price data. Egg Clearlinghouse, Inc. operates as an online spot market that allows participants to place bids on eggs listed for sale and see the results of trades. United Egg Producers is a national cooperative of egg farmers representing the ownership of approximately 95% of all the nation's egg-laying hens. John Does (1-10) are the unnamed co-conspirators.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jules Harrison Cantor, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-0708 E-mail: jules.cantor@kirkland.com - and - Amanda Jane Gallagher, Esq. Monica Renee Brownewell Smith, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 11 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 229-3114, (317) 231-7205 Facsimile: (317) 231-7433 E-mail: Amanda.Gallagher@btlaw.com monica.brownewell@btlaw.com - and - Phillip Russell Perdew, Esq. LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 443-1712 Facsimile: (312) 896-6712 E-mail: rperdew@lockelord.com - and - Riley H. Floyd, Esq. Wayne C. Turner, Esq. HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP 111 Monument Circle Suite 4400 P.O. Box 44989 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 822-4400 Facsimile: (317) 822-0234 E-mail: rfloyd@hooverhullturner.com wturner@hooverhullturner.com - and - Duane R. Denton, Esq. Gregory A. Neibarger, Esq. Jessica Laurin Meek, Esq. Joseph A. Zumpano, III, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 635-8900, (317) 968-5335 Facsimile: (317) 236-9907 E-mail: rusty.denton@dentons.com greg.neibarger@dentons.com jessica.meek@dentons.com joseph.zumpano@dentons.com - and - Brooke Smith, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP One Indiana Square Suite 2800 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 238-6218 E-mail: bsmith@kdlegal.com - and - Christopher E Ondeck, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Suite 600S 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 525-0865 Facsimile: Pro Hac Vice E-mail: condeck@proskauer.com – and – Jackson Alexander Hughes, Esq. Offer Korin, Esq. STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC 334 N Senate Ave Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 615-4225, (317) 464-1100 Facsimile: (317) 464-1111 E-mail: jackson.hughes@skofirm.com offer.korin@skofirm.com – and – Eyitayo St. Matthew-Daniel, Esq. Katherine B Forrest, Esq. Natalie Marie Pita, Esq. Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. Staci Yablon, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3229, (212) 373-3000 E-mail: tstmatthewdaniel@paulweiss.com KForrest@paulweiss.com npita@paulweiss.com rsperling@paulweiss.com syablon@paulweiss.com CARGURUS INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAD WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGURUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11014-MJJ (D. Mass., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or before February 18, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. CarGurus, Inc. is an automotive research and shopping website operator based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com CONSTELLATION SOFTWARE: Faces Class Suit Over EZSchoolPay Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that so-called junk fees assessed by EZSchoolPay on deposits into students' lunch accounts are unjustifiable and illegal, given that the charges "bear little to no relationship" to the platform's business costs. The 37-page fraud lawsuit claims that EZSchoolPay has "corrupted" school lunch purchases and "injected themselves as middlemen" for no discernible reason other than to "exploit" parents and children and "pad" the defendants' bottom line, namely through junk fees and guaranteed annual payments from school districts. The complaint charges that EZSchoolPay misleads parents, guardians and students into believing that their schools or school districts are the entities pocketing the junk fees, even though EZSchoolPay is the "sole beneficiary" of the added charges. "In fact, EZSchoolPay goes to great lengths to conceal from consumers that school districts have already paid for the cost of setting up the district-specific implementation of the EZSchoolPay website," the suit alleges. According to the filing, EZSchoolPay contracts with school districts to provide an online platform where parents and guardians can pre-pay for their child's school breakfast and lunch. The suit says that EZPaySchool charges "significant" junk fees on every online transaction without offering more economical options, such as allowing larger deposits, permitting fee-free transaction options, or correlating transaction fees to the actual cost of a deposit. Per the case, when a parent attempts to deposit money into their child's school lunch account, EZSchoolPay charges a junk fee of at least $2.95 per transaction, well over the actual cost of processing fees for credit cards, which the lawsuit states is about 1.53 percent of the transaction amount. Similarly, the case states that the cost to process an electronic bank transfer from parents who make recurring automatic contributions to their child's lunch account is generally between $0.26 and $0.50 per transaction, but EZSchoolPay levies an excessive $2.95 junk fee, more than six times the actual processing costs. Per the case, EZSchoolPay junk fees violate statutory requirements set under the New York General Business Law, flout restrictions on convenience fees, and "plague" otherwise ordinary transactions made by parents seeking to fund their child's meals. Furthermore, the case emphasizes that the "burden" of junk fees "disproportionately" affects lower-income families, who tend to make smaller deposits more frequently and end up spending as much as 60 cents of every dollar on unlawful fees. The lawsuit further alleges that EZSchoolPay has violated guidelines set by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that stipulate that schoolchildren must not be charged additional fees for services related to the delivery of school meals. The case claims that parents, guardians and schoolchildren are essentially a "captive audience" with no ability to "shop around," as they are forced to pay junk fees with a "staggering" aggregate cost that bilks families out of about $100 million every year. Other options, such as bringing cash or a check directly to the school cafeteria, tend to be more difficult for working parents, the filing says, "effectively forcing parents to rely on the electronic option or risk their kids going hungry during the school day." Hungry students, the case says, are more likely to lose focus and suffer academically, and display more behavioral and disciplinary problems. The lawsuit says that school lunches are crucial to a student's ability to learn. The case scathes that EZSchoolPay is nothing more than a "new generation of school bullies" that are "hard at work" making school lunches less affordable for working families. The EZSchoolPay class action lawsuit seeks to cover all citizens of New York who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, paid junk fees to EZSchoolPay. [GN] CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: April 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN RE: CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Case No. CJ-2022-4162 SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION TO: Any former record holders and all beneficial owners of the common stock of Continental Resources, Inc. ("Continental") who held or owned such stock at any time during the period beginning on and including October 17, 2022, through and including November 22, 2022 (the "Class Period"), including any and all of their respective legal representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, estates, heirs, and any Person acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them (excluding Defendants and their immediate family members, affiliates, subsidiaries, legal representatives, heirs, estates, successors or assigns; and any entity in which any Defendant has or had a direct or indirect controlling interest) (the "Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to 12 O.S. Sec. 2023 and an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma (the "Court"), that the action ("Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class. The defendants in the Action are (i) Harold Hamm ("Hamm"), Shelly Lambertz, and the Hamm Family Affiliates1 (collectively, the "Controlling Defendants"); and (ii) William B. Berry, John T. McNabb, II, and Mark E. Monroe (the "Director Defendants," and together with the Controlling Defendants, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the November 2022 transaction whereby Continental's former minority shareholders were bought out by Hamm and his affiliates for $74.28 per share (the "Transaction"). Plaintiffs allege that Hamm and the other Controller Defendants caused the Class to be cashed out of their Continental shares for inadequate consideration after an unfair process. Plaintiffs further allege that Hamm breached his fiduciary duties by engaging in insider trading prior to publicly announcing his offer to take Continental private. Plaintiffs Ralph Donald Turlington and Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund have been appointed by the Court to serve as Class Representatives on behalf of the Class. The parties have conducted substantial discovery. On December 16, 2025, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by former defendants Ellis L. McCain and Timothy G. Taylor, who negotiated the Transaction on behalf of Continental's then minority shareholders, and dismissed all claims asserted against them in this Action. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor of several defendants relating to plaintiffs' insider trading allegations. The Court further denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended class action petition adding Continental's in-house legal counsel as a defendant. A trial is currently set to begin on May 4, 2026. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS LAWSUIT. You may obtain a copy of the more detailed Notice of Class Action (the "Notice") by downloading it from www.ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com or by contacting the Administrator at: Continental Shareholder Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (877) 509-0919 info@ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. This Action is still being litigated, no money has been recovered, and there is no guarantee that any money will ever be recovered. If you choose to remain a Class Member, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your documentation reflecting your holdings in or ownership of Continental common stock. If you do nothing, you will automatically be included in the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present and future orders, settlements, and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable to the Class, and you may not pursue your own lawsuit with regard to any of the issues in this Action. If you are a Class Member and do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Class (outlined below). If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any orders, settlements, or judgments in the Action, you will be entitled to pursue any individual remedy that you may have, but you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money that might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself, you must mail or email your exclusion request, as explained in the long-form Notice available at www.ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com, so that it is postmarked or received no later than April 23, 2026. Further information about this notice and answers to questions concerning this Action may be obtained by writing, telephoning, or emailing either of the below Class Counsel: Lee D. Rudy, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 www.ktmc.com info@ktmc.com Greg Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Ave. Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 www.blbglaw.com Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator or visiting the website www.ContinentalShareholderLitigation.com. DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE COURT'S CLERK, OR THE JUDGE. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ADDRESS YOUR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS. DATED: February 27, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Allegheny Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INCORPORATED; JOSEPH K. BELANOFF; WILLIAM GUYER; GARY CHARLES ROBB; and SEAN MADUCK, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Corcept common stock between October 31, 2024, and December 30, 2025, inclusive , alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented that the key clinical trials supporting the use of relacorilant as treatment for patients with hypercortisolism were "powerful support" for the New Drug Application ("NDA") that Corcept submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Defendants also stated that they had communicated with the FDA about this NDA and were confident in submitting the NDA, foreseeing no impediments to approval. Toward the latter part of the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly told investors that "relacorilant is approaching approval." As a result of these representations, the price of Corcept common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' actions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit contends. Corcept Therapeutics Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that discovers and develops drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic and psychiatric disorders. The Company's lead product modulates the effect of cortisol, also known as the "stress hormone", by selectively blocking the binding of cortisol to one of its two known receptors, the GR-II receptor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 819-3481 Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com COUVE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BLAZA G. TERRONEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COUVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTING, LLC d/b/a EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE GROUP, Case No. 3:26-cv-05213 (W.D. Wash., Mar. 2, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. On Dec. 3, 2025, the Defendant was hacked in the Data Breach. And yet, the Defendant waited over until Feb. 24, 2026, before it began notifying the class—a full 83 days after the Data Breach was discovered, the suit alleges. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI, the Plaintiff contends. Because of the Defendant's data breach, the sensitive PII/PHI of the Plaintiff and Class Members was placed into the hands of cybercriminals—inflicting numerous injuries and significant damages upon the Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff Terronez is a former patient of the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant obtained and maintained the Plaintiff's PII/PHI. The Defendant is a healthcare group that provides management consulting and other services to skilled nursing homes and assisted living communities across seven states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Faces Class Suit Over 401K Retirement Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Lamar Johnson of ESG DIVE reports that a former employee at commercial real estate services company Cushman & Wakefield filed a class action lawsuit Tuesday, March 3, alleging that the firm failed to properly monitor and protect its employee 401(k) plan from "material climate-related financial risks," according to a March 4, press release from environmental legal nonprofit ClientEarth. The complaint alleges that Cushman & Wakefield broke the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by continuing to include a Westwood Quality SmallCap fund in its plan that is "openly indifferent to climate risk." The fund's managers do not model or manage climate risk in the fund's portfolio, according to the complaint. The lawsuit is the "first-of-its-kind" and, if successful, could create "a legal precedent that recognizes climate risk management as a mandatory component of fiduciary duty," ClientEarth said in the release. Dive Insight: The lawsuit was filed by former Cushman & Wakefield employee Renee Kvek, who is also seeking to bring the lawsuit on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the real estate company's 401(k) plan who are or were invested in the underperforming Westwood fund between January 2021 and the judgment date, according to the complaint. Kvek said she was "disappointed to learn how exposed [her] savings were to climate-related financial risks, especially when the company clearly understood those risks in its own operations." "When your employer offers you a set of retirement options, you assume they've done the work to make sure those options are sound," Kvek said in the release. "You pick a fund, you contribute every month, and you trust that someone is paying attention to the risks. . . . It' s really important that employers understand what types of investments they are offering through their 401(k) plans and how they can affect their employees' retirement security." A Cushman & Wakefield spokesperson told ESG Dive that "once served," the firm will "appropriately defend this case." "This claim is a variation on widely asserted legal theories that have been prevalent for many years," the spokesperson said in emailed comments. "We have thoughtful processes in place that are designed to give our plan participants a variety of prudent investment options." The complaint said that, "for decades," Cushman & Wakefield "has positioned itself as an industry leader in sustainability practices, embedding climate-related considerations into the core of its business." However, the firm still chose to include the Westwood fund in its retirement plan, which had $1.7 billion in assets and over 23,000 participants as of the end of 2024, without "adequately" considering the funds level of climate-related financial risk. The complaint said the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund underperformed the Russell 3000 index -- which is designed as a benchmark for the U.S. stock market -- "by wide margins" over 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year periods prior to its inclusion. The fund underperformed the Russell 3000 index by over 17% in 2025, according to the complaint. "ERISA was designed to protect retirement security and requires fiduciaries to protect workers from risks that would undermine that goal," the complaint states. "Climate change-related risk presents precisely that kind of threat: it is financially substantial, it is escalating, and it imperils the value and stability of investments across asset classes -- causing both sudden and long-term harms. And because such risk is not constrained to one or two industries, it can accumulate within diversified portfolios if not properly evaluated and managed as a discrete concern." Cushman & Wakefield and its investment committee are listed as defendants in the case. The lawsuit alleges three counts of ERISA violations: a fiduciary breach for failing to "select and monitor plan investments prudently, loyalty, and in accordance with plan documents;" a violation for engaging in prohibited transactions; and a failure to monitor other fiduciaries. Kvek is represented by ClientEarth and attorneys from law firm Cohen Milstein, according to the release. "This first-of-its-kind legal challenge under ERISA will hopefully show 401(k) plans that the financial risks associated with climate cannot be ignored," Cohen Milstein's ERISA and Employee Benefits Chair Michelle Yau said in the release. The case represents the other end of the spectrum, compared to recent climate-risk focused suits filed in court. In 2023, a former American Airlines pilot filed a class action lawsuit alleging the airline breached its fiduciary duties to prudence and loyalty. While a judge later determined the airline fulfilled its duty to prudence, he ruled the airline breached its duty to loyalty by not keeping its own corporate interests separate from its fiduciary responsibilities. [GN] CYMBIOTIKA LLC: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYMBIOTIKA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01625 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://cymbiotika.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Cymbiotika LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal D&R INVESTMENT: Violates FLSA Tip Policy, Slicker Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Slicker, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly-situated v. D&R Investment Group LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company d/b/a Planet 59, Case No. 2:26-cv-10713-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich., Mar. 2, 2026) contends that the Defendant's practice of dispersing tips earned by the Plaintiff and the Collective Members violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff avers that cash tips would be collected from the tip boxes, organized and pooled, dated, placed in the office, and dispersed in a cash envelope by the Store Manager. From the outset of his employment, managers shared in the tip pool. Back of the house employees also shared in the tip pool, despite them not having any face time with customers. Indeed.com reviews confirm this company wide policy. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are similarly situated individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, the Defendant subjected them all to the same tip theft policy. The theft of these earned and owed tips resulted in the Plaintiff and the Collective Class not being paid any of the tips owed to them pursuant to the FLSA, the suit asserts. In April 16, 2023, the Plaintiff began employment with Planet 59 as a Cashier and Budtender, earning an hourly rate and tips. Around mid-September 2023, the Plaintiff was promoted to Lead Budtender. As a Lead Budtender, the Plaintiff was required to work up to 50 hours in a week. As a Lead Budtender, the Plaintiff was paid a flat rate that did not include an overtime rate of time and a half his hourly rate. Most of Plaintiff's duties as Lead Budtender involved customer interaction, the same as a Budtender, says the suit. The Defendant is engaged in the production and retail sale of cannabis products across Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 West Jefferson, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 E-mail: etereziu@forthepeople.com DEL FRISCO'S: Court Dismisses All Claims in "Wright" ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MARISSA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEL FRISCO'S GRILLE OF NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24 Civ. 03890 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss all counts and compel arbitration on the remaining claims, per Order dated March 5, 2026. Plaintiff Marissa Wright, who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, began working as a Sous Chef at Defendant Del Frisco's Grille, a restaurant with its principal place of business in New York City, in or about March 2022. Wright worked approximately seventy-five hours each week at a salary of $75,000 a year, which did not include overtime. After approximately two months, Wright terminated employment at Del Frisco's. Wright brought suit alleging (1) discrimination under New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) Section 296; (2) retaliation under NYSHRL Section 296(7); (3) unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1); (4) unpaid overtime compensation under New York Labor Law (NYLL); (5) violation of notice and recordkeeping requirements under NYLL Section 195(1); and (6) violation of wage statement provisions under NYLL Section 195(3). Del Frisco's moved to dismiss all six counts and, in the alternative, to compel arbitration on the overtime claims. As to Counts One and Two, the Court finds that Wright fails to demonstrate that the NYSHRL claims of sexual harassment arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact as the federal FLSA claim for unpaid wages. Wright fails to allege that the improper pay was related to gender identity. To the contrary, Wright alleges that Del Frisco's denied overtime to all employees. The only connection between the sexual harassment claims and unpaid wages claims is that both occurred during the two months that Wright was employed by Del Frisco's. The Court holds this is insufficient to constitute a common nucleus of operative fact, and therefore Counts One and Two are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As to Counts Five and Six, the Court finds that although the Complaint plausibly alleges various technical violations of NYLL Sections 195(1) and 195(3), the Complaint lacks any information about how these alleged violations injured Wright. Wright attempts to supplement the Complaint in opposition to Del Frisco's motion to dismiss, alleging that certain pay periods reflected overtime pay and certain periods did not. The Court holds it is insufficient to allege a concrete injury only in response to a motion to dismiss. Because Wright fails to allege a concrete injury-in-fact as required for standing, Counts Five and Six are dismissed. As to Counts Three and Four, the parties do not dispute that Wright signed an arbitration agreement with Del Frisco's on March 21, 2022. Wright argues the claims are not subject to arbitration because the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) renders the arbitration agreement invalid. The Court finds Wright fails to properly invoke the EFAA. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Wright's NYSHRL claims, it would be unreasonable to utilize those claims for purposes of invoking the EFAA. Wright provides no additional arguments that the overtime claims are unsuitable for arbitration. Accordingly, Del Frisco's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four in favor of arbitration is granted. Regarding class action status, Wright alleged Count Three as a putative collective action under FLSA Section 16(b) on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant. However, because those claims are compelled to arbitration, no collective action will proceed before this Court. Finally, on the question of leave to amend, the Court notes that Wright argues facts in response to the motion to dismiss that could be useful in the Complaint. Wright may propose an amended complaint, if amendment would not be futile. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HVS4Fm from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Del Friscos of New York, LLC Represented By Devin Scott Cohen Fox Rothschild LLP 516-382-5470 dscohen@foxrothschild.com Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger Fox Rothschild, Llp (nyc) 212-878-7900 ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com Plaintiff Marissa Wright Represented By Melissa Vo Phillips & Associates, Attorneys At Law, PLLC 212-248-7431 mvo@tpglaws.com Joseph Anthony Russo Phillips & Associates, Attorneys At Law, PLLC 212-248-7431 jrusso@tpglaws.com DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Anguiano Sues Illegal Gambling Platform --------------------------------------------------------------- LORENE ANGUIANO; BARBARA DOBBS; ALICIA BURGOS; MARY CARLSON; THOMAS GUILLEN; MARCEL STOKES; BRANDON JOHNSON; ANDREW MAGUIRE; ANA METTALI; and SAMUEL WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00622 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, while the Defendant advertised and promoted the DoubleDown Gambling Platform to persons across the country as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiffs and Class members, the DoubleDown Gambling Platform was actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. Double Down Interactive, LLC provides leisure time products and services. The Company specialzies in developing and publishing social and casino games on the internet. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas R. Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC 450 Alaskan Way S, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com EVERON LLC: Underpays Company Employees, Barboza Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL BARBOZA, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff vs. EVERON, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV06926 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., March 3, 2026) is a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to comply with California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous, willful and intentional employment practices and policies. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to properly calculate the overtime rate; (3) failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; (4) failing to pay minimum wage; (5) failing to pay all wages due upon termination; (6) failing to permit compliant meal breaks; (7) failing to provide rest breaks; and (8) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violating record keeping requirements. Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the California Labor Code including the PAGA. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was personally subjected to and observed the unlawful wage and hour practices. Plaintiff was required to work off the clock, work through meal and rest periods without compensation, and received pay stubs that failed to accurately reflect his hours and premium wages. His time was also rounded and he was denied predictability pay. These violations occurred pursuant to uniform policies implemented by Defendant across its workforce, adds the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of himself and all other current and former aggrieved employees of Defendant, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff MIGUEL BARBOZA is a current employee of Defendant, where he began working in April 2023 as an installation technician at Defendant's Los Angeles location. Defendant EVERON, LLC operates a security solutions company. DOES 1-50 are the Defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com FEDEX CORP: Faces Anastopoulo Suit Over Improper Tariff Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ HALI ANASTOPOULO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FedEx Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02181 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 20, 2026) is an action alleging that the Defendant is engaged in unlawfully charging and collecting tariff-related fees from the Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated consumers and businesses throughout the United States. FedEx Corporation delivers packages and freight to multiple countries and territories through an integrated global network. The Company provides worldwide express and freight delivery, ground small-parcels, less-than-truckload, supply chain management, customs brokerage services, trade facilitation, and electronic commerce solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Rent the Runway 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 Rent the Runway, Inc. related securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Rent the Runway, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 14, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to Rent the Runway, Inc.’s (Rent the Runway) $357 million October 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Rent the Runway and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 5,254,304 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $110 million. On September 5, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on September 25, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 12, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for reconsideration of the court's order. On November 23, 2025, the defendants served a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 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 StubHub 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 StubHub Holdings, Inc. securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 24, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to StubHub Holding, Inc.'s (StubHub) approximately $758 million September 2025 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include StubHub and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 10,680,176 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $251 million. 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 Venture Global 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 Venture Global Inc. related securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on April 15, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 2, 2025 relating to Venture Global, Inc.'s (Venture Global) approximately $1.8 billion January 2025 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venture Global and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 15,875,728 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $397 million. GS&Co. is also among the underwriters named as defendants in related purported shareholder derivative actions filed beginning on May 7, 2025 in, or subsequently transferred to, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The derivative actions include allegations that the underwriters aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the director and officer defendants and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. On July 23, 2025, the court stayed the derivative actions pending the resolution of the putative securities class action. On December 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the putative securities class action, and on January 28, 2026, the defendants moved to dismiss the second 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: Files Petition in 9th Cir. for Rehearing en Banc --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 3, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to ON24, Inc.'s (ON24) approximately $492 million February 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ON24 and certain of its officers and directors, including a director who was a Managing Director of GS&Co. at the time of the initial public offering. GS&Co. underwrote 3,616,785 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $181 million. On March 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and on July 7, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On September 1, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, and on March 5, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint with prejudice. On January 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, and on February 11, 2026, the defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc. 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: Settlement in Zymergen Securities Suit for Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 settlement in the Zymergen Inc. securities class suit is subject to the final approval of 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 August 4, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Zymergen Inc.'s (Zymergen) $575 million April 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Zymergen, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 5,750,345 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $178 million. On February 24, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on November 29, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, denying dismissal of the claims for violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act. On August 11, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 3, 2023, Zymergen and three affiliates filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On March 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On November 25, 2025, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, subject to final documentation and court approval, to resolve the action. The firm has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement. 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. HILBERS INC: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- BAMLAWCA reports that in recent news, Hilbers faces wage and hour violation allegations in a California class action. Case: Martin Couch v. Hilbers, Inc. Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California Case No.: 25STCV34742 Get to Know the Plaintiff: Couch v. Hilbers The plaintiff in the case, Martin Couch, is an individual who alleges he worked for the Hilbers entities as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California from January 2024 through May 2025. He filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees, claiming the defendants engaged in uniform wage-and-hour practices that, among other things, failed to pay employees for all time worked (including alleged off-the-clock work) and failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods (and related premium pay), along with other associated Labor Code violations tied to pay practices and recordkeeping. Who is the Defendant in the Case? The defendant in the case, Hilbers, employed the plaintiff at a California operation. The plaintiff claims Hilbers engaged in wage-and-hour violations tied to its standard pay practices for non-exempt employees. The allegations would constitute violations of California Labor Code Sections Secs. 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws According to the class action, the plaintiff alleged that Hilbers engaged in various business practices that violated labor law, including: 1. Failing to pay employees for all the time they worked, including time worked "off the clock." 2. Expecting employees to complete pre-shift and post-shift work (like attending meetings) that wasn't fully recorded or paid. 3. Failing to provide meal breaks, cutting breaks short, or requiring employees to work while clocked out during what was supposed to be an off-duty meal period. 4. Failing to pay the additional "premium" hour of pay owed for missed meal breaks 5. Underpaying overtime/double time (and other pay tied to the "regular rate") because incentive/bonus pay wasn't properly included when calculating the pay rates. 6. Failing to provide compliant paystubs/wage statements. 7. Failing to reimburse required business expenses (like personal cell phone services used for work). 8. Failing to provide reporting-time pay when workers are required to report to work without being provided enough work. The Main Question of the Case: Couch v. Hilbers The core question is whether the Hilbers entities had company-wide pay and scheduling practices that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock work before/after shifts and during meal periods. The court will also need to evaluate whether employees were provided legally compliant meal and rest breaks, or instead were kept on duty/on call, interrupted, or required to work through breaks without receiving the required premium pay. A related issue is whether the employer correctly calculated and paid overtime and other wages tied to the "regular rate," including whether incentive/bonus compensation was properly included. Finally, the case raises whether any alleged timekeeping and pay practice problems also resulted in non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses across the proposed class. As of January 2026, the case is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. FAQ: Couch v. Hilbers Q: What counts as "hours worked" in California? A: "Hours worked" generally includes any time an employee is under the employer's control or is allowed to work, including pre-shift/post-shift tasks. Q: If an employee attends meetings or completes tasks off the clock, what wage rights may be triggered? A: If that work is required or allowed, it should be paid and may also count toward overtime depending on the total hours worked in the day or week. Q: What makes a meal break "off-duty?" A: To qualify as "off duty," an employee must be fully relieved of all work, and if the employee is required to work, the time may be compensable and can trigger premium pay penalties. Q: How many rest breaks are required based on shift length, and what happens if staffing/workload prevents breaks? A: Rest break entitlements generally increase with shift length, and heavy workload or staffing issues do not excuse missed breaks; when breaks are missed, premium pay may be owed to the employee. Q: What is "premium pay" for missed meal/rest breaks, and when is an additional hour of pay owed? A: Premium pay is one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate owed when an employer fails to provide a compliant meal or rest break. Q: How does bonus or incentive pay affect the "regular rate" used for overtime and other wage calculations? A: Certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentives must be included in the regular rate, which can increase the overtime rate and total wages owed. If you believe your employer's standard wage payment practices or overtime pay rate calculations may result in labor law violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable. [GN] INDIANA: Court Grants Permanent Injunction of Religious Freedom --------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Indiana reports that on March 5, 2026, the Marion County Superior Court granted a permanent injunction preventing Indiana from enforcing Senate Enrolled Act 1 (SEA 1), the state's near-total abortion ban, against the plaintiffs and certified class when doing so would conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court agreed that Indiana's abortion law imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). More than three years after the case was filed, the court's order makes permanent the protection that had remained in place while the litigation moved through the courts. Because the court certified the case as a class action, the ruling reaches beyond the named plaintiffs and protects all Hoosiers whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions that would otherwise be prohibited by the ban. "The ruling is a recognition that religious freedom protects people of many faiths and beliefs, not just those favored by the state," said Stevie Pactor, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Indiana. “For more than three years, our clients have challenged a law that forces them to choose between their faith and their autonomy. This decision makes it clear that Indiana cannot enforce its abortion ban in ways that violate their religious freedom." A copy of the court's order is available https://live-awp-indiana.pantheonsite.io/app/uploads/2026/03/Proposed-Order-3.pdf [GN] INFINITE CARE: Ilyaich Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAZAL ILYAICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFINITE CARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC d/b/a HUDSON HILL CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING, and DANIEL SPIZER, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-01642 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law including discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin, retaliation, and failure to pay overtime. The Plaintiff was employed as a Director of Social Service by the Defendants in the State of New York from August 26, 2023 through August 21, 2024. Infinite Care Development, LLC, doing business as Hudson Hill Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing, is a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitation services based in Yonkers, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc JAB & COMPANY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Stella, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members v. J.A.B. & Company, Inc. d/b/a Honda City, John Burns, and Dennis Buchanan, Case No. 2:26-cv-01211 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 2, 2026) seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for a class and collective-wide failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, commissions, and other required premiums, and for making unlawful deductions from employee earnings. The Plaintiff and other Honda City salespeople were routinely required to work uncompensated hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law due to the Defendants' policies. These policies include failing to pay required minimum and overtime wages, failing to pay spread-of-hours premium, and making unlawful deductions from earned commissions, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants have allegedly maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and other salespeople the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked in a given workweek. Further, the Defendants unlawfully utilize commissions earned in subsequent weeks to offset their minimum wage obligations for prior weeks within a monthly reconciliation period, resulting in numerous workweeks where the Plaintiff's compensation fell below the minimum wage required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says the suit. Plaintiff Stella is a resident of Suffolk County, New York. He has been employed by the Defendants as a car salesman from 2020 to the present. JAB operates a Honda car dealership located in Bethpage, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew J. Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 East Main Street, Suite 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 Facsimile: (631) 942-7399 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com KETTLE AND FIRE: Walker Class Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LAUREN WALKER, individually, and on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KETTLE AND FIRE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06568, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-00477-RBD-RMN to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the protein content in its consumer food products. Defendant Kettle and Fire Inc. is a bone broth company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alan Pryor, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 E-mail: alan.pryor@alston.com - and - Sharon Steinerman, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 Facsimile: (212) 210-9444 E-mail: sharon.steinerman@alston.com - and - Troy Stram, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree St Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7256 E-mail: troy.stram@alston.com KROGER CO: Misclassifies E-Commerce Managers, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Douglas Moran, writing for Grocery Dive, reports that Kroger is facing two recently filed class action lawsuits alleging that the grocer misclassified its e-commerce manager position as exempt from overtime pay. -- The same law firm, Morgan & Morgan, brought both lawsuits. It filed the first suit Feb. 25 in a Colorado district court, and filed the second on Monday, March 2, in a Washington state district court. -- The lawsuits claim that Kroger violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law, as well as wage and hour laws in both states. Dive Insight: Kroger classified its e-commerce manager position as a salaried role with no additional compensation or overtime pay, but both lawsuits said the job isn't exempt from overtime pay because it doesn't include traditional manager duties. "E-commerce managers, like Plaintiff, are not involved in hiring or firing employees of Kroger, nor are their recommendations as to hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or other status change of an employee given particular weight, and as such, cannot be exempt under the FLSA," according to the two suits. The main duties of the e-commerce manager, both suits stated, "are production: to fill orders received from customers on Kroger's e-commerce website platform and prepare those orders for customers, which are non-exempt duties." Both plaintiffs claimed that they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and did not receive overtime pay while in the e-commerce manager role. The lawsuits also allege that Kroger expected its e-commerce managers to work more than 40 hours per week and failed to accurately track the hours worked by people in that role. "Even though Plaintiff and other 'e-commerce managers' were ostensibly 'supervisors', his/their primary job duties were non-exempt and overtime pay eligible duties," both lawsuits stated. Kroger did not respond to a request for comment. The plaintiffs want to recover unpaid overtime wages along with the penalties, interest and other remedies provided by federal and the respective state laws. Both lawsuits claim there are at least 100 people in each state who could be eligible to sue. [GN] LET'S GO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 4 ------------------------------------------------------- Dynamis LLP provides notice to investors of a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Let's Go Brandon Coin ($FJB) and/or Patriot Pay ($PPY) tokens between December 6, 2021 and February 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR $FJB OR $PPY INVESTMENTS, visit https://www.dynamisllp.com/class-actions-1/blog-post-title-four-lr658-tcthp-rndwd OR CONTACT US TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWSUIT. Investors have until May 4, 2026 to file a motion with the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in this action. What Is the Lawsuit About? The complaint alleges that Defendants Let's Go Brandon Coin LLC, Patriot Pay LLC, Stephen K. Bannon, Boris Epshteyn, Sarah Abdul, Grant Tragni, and related entities violated federal securities laws by offering and selling unregistered securities and making materially false and misleading statements regarding $FJB and $PPY. Defendants allegedly: (i) marketed $FJB and $PPY as decentralized, censorship-resistant digital tokens while retaining centralized control over smart contracts and token wallets; (ii) failed to disclose that transaction-based "marketing" and "charity" fees were used for non-designated purposes; (iii) failed to disclose insider fee exemptions and over-the-counter sales; (iv) misrepresented the tokens as a safer store of value than fiat currency; (v) misrepresented their level of commitment to promoting and developing the token; and (vi) failed to distribute promised liquidity proceeds after disabling trading. What Is a Lead Plaintiff? A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any investor who purchased or otherwise acquired $FJB and/or $PPY during the Class Period may seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any potential recovery. Contact Us to Participate or Learn More: If you wish to discuss this action or your rights, please contact: Constantine P. Economides, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 1 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1000 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 985-2959 Email: ceconomides@dynamisllp.com [GN] LINUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Protein Bars ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Sutton of Top Class Actions reports that three consumers are suing Linus Technologies Inc., doing business as David Protein. Why: The plaintiffs claim the company misrepresents the calories and fat content in its protein bars. Where: The David Protein class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses David Protein of misrepresenting the calories and fat content in its protein bars. Lead plaintiff Daniella Lopez filed the class action complaint against Linus Technologies Inc., doing business as David Protein, on Jan. 23 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, the company's protein bars are misbranded because they contain significantly more calories and fat than advertised. The lawsuit claims that David Protein knowingly misled consumers by labeling its products with incorrect nutritional information, causing them to pay a premium for what they believed were low-calorie, low-fat options. David Protein bars allegedly exceed advertised calories by up to 83% The class action lawsuit alleges that the protein bars in question, which include flavors like Chocolate Chip Cookie, Cinnamon Roll and Fudge Brownie, exceed the calorie count stated on their labels by up to 83% and the fat content by up to 400%. The plaintiffs argue that this misrepresentation violates Food and Drug Administration regulations, which require that the nutrient content of food products not exceed the declared value by more than 20%. The complaint includes test results from an accredited laboratory, which found that the bars contained between 268 and 275 calories per serving, compared to the 150 calories advertised. Similarly, the fat content was found to be between 11 and 13.5 grams per serving, far exceeding the 2 grams stated on the packaging. The plaintiffs claim that these discrepancies are material to consumers who rely on nutritional information to make informed purchasing decisions. They argue that if the correct information had been provided, they would not have purchased the bars or would have paid less for them. The David Protein class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who purchased the misbranded protein bars in the United States, California, Illinois and New York. The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and are asking for damages, restitution and injunctive relief to prevent David Protein from continuing to sell misbranded products. In related news, a California federal judge partially dismissed a lawsuit against PepsiCo over claims the company misled consumers about the sugar and protein content of its Gatorade protein bars. The plaintiffs are represented by Jason P. Sultzer and Daniel Markowitz of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC and Russell M. Busch and Nick Suciu III of Bryson Harris Suciu & Demay PLLC. The David Protein class action lawsuit is Lopez, et al. v. Linus Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00635, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] MT. SINAI HEALTH: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Paramedics' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Ruiz, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Mt. Sinai Health System Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01754 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from the Defendant unpaid compensation and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay all non-exempt employees at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. Plaintiff Ruiz is employed by the Defendant as a paramedic since November 2023 to work at its Mount Sinai Morningside location in New York. Mt. Sinai Health System is one of the largest academic medical systems in the New York metropolitan area, with eight hospital campuses and over 400 outpatient practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. Sarah Sears, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com NEWREZ LLC: Court Trims Class Action Claims in "Sellers" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DAVID SELLERS, Plaintiff, v. NEWREZ LLC, d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-00035-LKG (D. Md.), Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, entering judgment in favor of the Defendant on Counts I, II, III, and V of the complaint and denied count IV without prejudice . The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), and for declaratory relief and unjust enrichment against Defendant Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (Shellpoint), arising from Shellpoint's alleged failure to provide monthly statements and attempts to collect a debt with regard to a second mortgage for which the Plaintiff's personal obligations had been discharged in a prior bankruptcy proceeding. The Plaintiff purchased his home in North Potomac, Maryland in 2005 using an 80/20 mortgage, comprising a traditional first mortgage and a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to cover the remaining 20 percent of the home's value ($70,350). In 2011, the Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Following the bankruptcy discharge in early 2012, he stopped receiving monthly statements on his HELOC loan. In 2022, he received a foreclosure notice from Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS) informing him that the HELOC loan was in default and that he owed more than $87,000 in interest and fees that had accumulated since the bankruptcy discharge. The Plaintiff entered negotiations to modify the HELOC loan and signed a modification agreement in October 2022. In May 2024, Shellpoint took over the servicing of the HELOC loan after it merged with SLS. The Plaintiff asserts five claims in the complaint: (1) Count I - MCPA Section 13-303; (2) Count II - MCDCA Section 14-202; (3) Count III - MCPA Section 13-301(14); (4) Count IV - unjust enrichment; and (5) Count V - declaratory relief. Shellpoint moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the MCPA and MCDCA claims are predicated upon an alleged time-barred and non-existent Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) violation, the unjust enrichment claim fails because an express contract governs the same subject matter, the declaratory relief claim fails because there is no case or controversy, and the class claims must fail because no class member can assert a viable claim. Upon careful examination, the Court agreed with Shellpoint that the MCPA and MCDCA claims are predicated upon violations of the TILA and its implementing regulations. The TILA's disclosure requirements apply only to creditors and their assignees, and there is no dispute that Shellpoint and SLS were servicers of the HELOC loan, rather than owners. Therefore, Shellpoint cannot be held liable under the TILA. The Plaintiff cannot rely upon the MCPA and the MCDCA to enforce an obligation arising under the TILA. On the unjust enrichment claim, the Court found the complaint makes clear there is an express contract governing the parties' obligations regarding repayment of the HELOC loan. However, the Court found Shellpoint's argument less convincing, noting that Maryland law permits a party to assert an unjust enrichment claim even where an express contract exists, when fraud or bad faith is alleged. The Court found insufficient factual allegations to support the fraud and/or bad faith exception with the particularity required under Rule 9(b) but allowed the Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. As a final matter, the Court dismissed the declaratory relief claim in Count V, as declaratory relief is not an independent cause of action and the underlying MCPA and MCDCA claims fail as a matter of law. The Court also dismissed the class claims associated with the MCPA and MCDCA claims in Counts I, II, and III. The Modification Class claim for unjust enrichment in Count IV was not dismissed, as the Court declined to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim at this stage of the litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4stuKa from PacerMonitor.com ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lotz Suit Over Improper Bylaws ------------------------------------------------------------ AGNES LOTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORAMED PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0244 (Del. Ch., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant adopted and maintains provisions in its bylaws that expand the Company's power beyond what is permissible under the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company's board of directors refused to cure those facial statutory violations when they were brought to the Board's attention, forcing Plaintiff to commence this litigation to vindicate rights guaranteed to stockholders by Delaware law. Oramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development of oral delivery solution. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Andrew J. Peach, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com dsborz@andrewsspringer.com apeach@andrewspringer.com jwarren@andrewsspringer.com ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky Security Incident: What Happened? The Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky, which was acquired by Mercy Health in December 2023 and now operates as Mercy Health -- Western Kentucky Orthopedics, reported a data breach to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR). According to a sample notice provided to OCABR, the breach occurred at a third-party vendor, Keystone Technologies, which provided managed services for the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky. Keystone Technologies experienced two cybersecurity incidents in mid-2025, during which unauthorized parties accessed certain systems and obtained files. An investigation into the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky data breach found that patient information, including names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, medical record numbers, health insurance details, and treatment information, had been compromised. The Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky's electronic medical record system and Mercy Health's IT and electronic medical record systems were not involved or affected by the breach. What You Can Do After the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] PEPSICO INC: Arbit Sues Over Pepsi Brand Soft Drinks Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- OREN ARBIT; CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER; ALISHA GONZALES; SAMUEL R. HUMPHREYS; MINDY OWENS; BRANDI ADKINS; FRANKIE BAILEY; ERIC PIEL; and SANDI WESTERFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEPSICO, INC.; and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-01455 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a pricing pact where the Defendants worked together to ensure that wholesale and retail prices for Pepsi bottled soft drinks remained above levels that would exist in a competitive market. Since at least 2018, Pepsi and Walmart have acted in concert to restrain competition for Pepsi soft drinks at both the wholesale and retail tiers. Their coordinated conduct allowed each to impose prices that exceeded competitive benchmarks (the "Pact" or "Pricing Pact"), says the suit. PepsiCo, Inc. operates foods and beverages businesses. The Company manufactures markets and sells a variety of grain-based snacks, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, and foods. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Szot, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1320 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com aszot@millerlawllc.com - and - Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. James M. Terrell, Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. The Highland Building 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 Email: rgm@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com PROLIANCE SURGEONS: Settles Cyberattack Class Suit for $4.45-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Proliance Surgeons has agreed to a $4,450,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the Washington-based healthcare provider failed to protect the sensitive patient information stored on its systems from a targeted data breach in February 2023. The $4.45 million Proliance Surgeons class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 29, 2026 and covers all individuals residing in the United States whose private information may have been compromised during the data security incident, including all those who received notice of the cyberattack from the healthcare provider. Per court documents, approximately 437,932 individuals are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Proliance Surgeons data breach settlement can be found at ProlianceDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Proliance settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement and may claim any and all benefits applicable to them. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 from the settlement. The settlement agreement reports that class members may receive compensation for unreimbursed documented losses related to fraud, identity theft, credit monitoring, bank fees, professional fees, and miscellaneous expenses such as travel and postage. Proliance class members may also file a claim to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of up to $599 from the settlement fund; no proof is required to claim this benefit. The final amount each class member receives, the agreement notes, will depend on the total number of valid claims filed and how much remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs, lead plaintiff service awards and the cost of all other settlement benefits. Class members may elect to receive their cash payout via check or electronic payment upon submission of their claim form, and the agreement states that all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, the agreement says that all settlement class members may file a claim to receive an enrollment code for two free years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which provides medical information protection and monitoring. To file a Proliance Surgeons claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the class member ID found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed at the top of the document. All Proliance Surgeons settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 28, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Proliance has agreed to enhance its policies, processes and security controls to secure the highly confidential patient information stored on its network. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Proliance data breach settlement following a hearing on June 26, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Proliance Surgeons class action lawsuit alleged that the specialized surgeon group based in Washington failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the confidential patient information it collected from patients in the course of business, which led to a targeted cyberattack on Proliance on or around February 11, 2023. Per court documents, the private patient information that may have been compromised as a result of the breach included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, contact information, financial information, medical information, health insurance information and medical record numbers. [GN] RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate Cases -------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned as KARRY WHITTEN, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24CV3145, and KARRY WHITTEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, LVNV FUNDING LLC, SHERMAN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 8:25CV661 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. DeLuca of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate. Whitten moved to consolidate the Citibank action and the Resurgent action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows consolidation of actions involving a common question of law or fact. The Court noted that consolidation is inappropriate if it leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party. The Citibank action was brought against Citibank, N.A. and LVNV Funding, LLC. The Court had previously granted Citibank's motion to compel arbitration, stayed claims against LVNV, and arbitration had not commenced. Plaintiff's objection to the Court's subsequent order remained pending. In the Resurgent action, Whitten amended the complaint as of right after Resurgent moved to dismiss. Whitten had not served the amended complaint on LVNV, Sherman Financial Group, LLC, or Messerli & Kramer, P.A., and all named defendants still needed to respond. The Court found that consolidating these cases would not promote judicial economy. The different procedural postures of the cases would result in inconvenience and inefficiency upon consolidation. Accordingly, Whitten's Motion to Consolidate was denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 05, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uajXUE from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Citibank, N.A. Represented By Victoria H. Buter Kutak, Rock Law Firm - Omaha 402-346-6000 vicki.buter@kutakrock.com Edward M. Fox, II Kutak, Rock Law Firm - Omaha 402-346-6000 edward.foxii@kutakrock.com Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC Represented By A. Victor Rawl, Jr. Gordon, Rees Law Firm - South Carolina 843-714-2501 vrawl@grsm.com Katie S. Wayne Gordon, Rees Law Firm - Lincoln 531-215-0979 kwayne@grsm.com Plaintiff Karry Whitten Represented By Paul D. Heimann Erickson, Sederstrom Law Firm - Omaha 402-397-2200 paulh@orrlawgrp.com REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Settles Hefty Recycling Bags Suit for $212,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Reynolds Consumer Products has agreed to a $212,000 settlement to resolve allegations from the Arizona Attorney General that the company misleadingly marketed and advertised its Hefty recycling bags as recyclable when Arizona's municipal recycling centers are unable to recycle them. In a February 23, 2026 press release, Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes announced that the Reynolds Consumer Products settlement will prohibit the manufacturer from selling "recycling" bags under the Hefty brand in Arizona, unless the bags are accepted at a substantial majority of municipal recycling facilities. The consent judgment further stipulates that Reynolds must alter the packaging for its transparent clear and blue bags to state "These Bags Are Not Recyclable," and remove any images on the packaging that depict recyclable materials, such as plastic bottles or aluminum cans. The packaging redesign will be implemented nationwide, the press release states. Court documents state that Reynolds will pay $30,000 in restitution to consumers. To be eligible for benefits under the settlement, consumers must file a complaint online or download a PDF complaint form to print, fill out, and return to the Arizona AG's office before October 1, 2026. The Reynolds Consumer Products lawsuit, filed by the Arizona AG on August 20, 2025, claimed that the household product manufacturer misleadingly marketed its "Recycling," "Clear," and "Blue" bags as recyclable and "appropriate to use when disposing of recyclable material," in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, as the bags are made of soft plastic that cannot be processed by any Arizona municipal recycling centers. The filing highlighted the bags' packaging, which bore "RECYCLING" in large, hard-to-miss letters, reinforced consumer belief that the products were recyclable because they were marked with the traditional "chasing arrows" symbol for recycling, and included claims such as "Developed for Use in Municipal Recycling Programs Where Applicable." The Reynolds lawsuit explained that when a company overemphasizes a product's supposed environmental benefits, it is referred to as "greenwashing." Greenwashing can include "intentionally" labelling a product with misleading claims to give the "deceptive impression" that the product allows environmentally conscious consumers. Not only were the bags not recyclable, the case alleged, but any recyclable products placed in them were also redirected to landfills. Additionally, the filing claimed that if the bags end up in an Arizona municipal recycling center, they could "damage the equipment, lead to unsafe conditions for workers, and are never recycled." Reynolds, the case contended, knew or should have known that its repeated claims that the bags were recyclable were false. The suit added that consumers are frequently "confused" about which items are recyclable, and Reynolds took advantage of their ignorance to peddle a product that is completely inappropriate for recycling purposes. The lawsuit concluded that consumers should not be expected to decipher whether a product's packaging is accurate, as they should be able to reasonably rely on a product's packaging and marketing for accurate information. The Reynolds lawsuit additionally noted that both the Connecticut and Minnesota Attorneys General had previously filed lawsuits against Reynolds over the same false claims that the bags were recyclable. [GN] ROMAINE EMPIRE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Castellanos Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO BENITES CASTELLANOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROMAINE EMPIRE INC. (d/b/a FARMER'S FRIDGE), a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02364 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2026) is a collective action complaint seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant controlled Plaintiff and its Hourly Employees' work schedules, duties, protocols, assignments, and employment conditions. The Defendant paid its hourly employees at varying hourly rates. The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $24.50. In addition to the base rate of pay, the Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their payment structure such as shift differential pay and bonus pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay, bonus pay, and other remuneration and non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. Plaintiff is an adult resident of West Humboldt Park, Illinois and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Lead Shift Operator from June 12, 2025, through November 12, 2025. Defendant Romaine Empire, Inc. d/b/a Farmer's Fridge is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and employs hundreds of Hourly Employees in numerous locations throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com RYZE INC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RYZE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02358 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.ryzesuperfoods.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was searching for a functional coffee alternative and was interested in identifying a brand offering coffee products designed to support overall well-being. However, she was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on December 23, 2025 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products. She encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ryze, Inc. operates the website that offers mushroom-infused coffee and wellness products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Marquez-Amaya from Detention ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE MARQUEZ-AMAYA, v. SAMUEL OLSON, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00067-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Marquez Amaya's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus: -- The United States is directed to release Petitioner Marquez-Amaya 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. 26, 2026. Petitioner Jorge Marquez-Amaya is a native and citizen of Honduras. Marquez-Amaya has been present in the United States since 2023. Marquez-Amaya entered the United States without inspection. Since his arrival, Marquez-Amaya has been living in Rochester, Indiana. He has a pending application for asylum. Marquez-Amaya has been in detention since December 17, 2025. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXDTF7 at no extra charge.[CC] SCHWARTZ FRUITS: Faces Valesquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALBERTO VALESQUEZ, ANDRES APONTE BECERRIL, PAVIA PAVIAS, a/k/a MARTIN ISRAEL, PETER M. SANCHEZ, CARMEN LOPEZ, TAMER MABROOK SAMIR, AHMED AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCHWARTZ FRUITS & VEGGIES CORP., d/b/a HUDSON MARKET PLACE, HEAVENLY MARKET 3O ST INC. d/b/a HEAVENLY MARKET 30 ST, HAMPTONS FRESH DELI INC. d/b/a HAMPTON FOOD MARKET, HAMPTONS FRESH DELII INC. d/b/a HAMPTON FOOD MARKET, NAJIR NASSAR a/k/a VICTOR NAJ, MOHAMMED SALEH a/k/a NAJ KENNEDY, FAH SALEH, BILLAL MUSLEH, AHMED A. MUSLEH, BASHAR NASSAR, SALEH ALI SALEH and DOES NO. 1 through NO. 20, corporately and individually, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01743 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are hourly employees who worked for the Defendants as grocery/deli workers in various locations throughout the City of New York. During their employment, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs the proper minimum wage, overtime wage and spread of hour wages, and failed to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, says the suit. Plaintiff Valesquez was employed by the Defendants as a stockboy from November 27, 2019 to March 20, 2022 at Hamptons Food Market in New York. Schwartz Fruits & Veggies Corp., d/b/a Hudson Market Place, is a New York-based gourmet grocery store.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL, P.C. 1129 Northern Boulevard, Ste 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 415-0100 E-mail: msegal@segallegal.com SEAGATE TECH: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Bid Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-03431-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the class certification briefing schedule and hearing date as follows: 1. The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to file their Reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be moved from March 17, 2026, to March 24, 2026. 2. The hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for April 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. shall be moved to April 21, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., or to a later date convenient for the Court. There are no other existing deadlines in the case; therefore, extending the deadline by which Lead Plaintiffs must file their reply in support of their motion and a continuance of the hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' motion would not impact any other deadlines. On May 12, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. Seagate is a major global data storage company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ErdXZj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Lance V. Oliver, Esq. William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. Andrew P. Arnold, Esq. Cameran M. Gilliam, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com loliver@motleyrice.com bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com aarnold@motleyrice.com cgilliam@motleyrice.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Hannah Ross, Esq. James A. Harrod, Esq. Jorge Tenreiro, Esq. Aasiya Farah Mirza Glover, Esq. Sarah Schmidt, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com jim.harrod@blbglaw.com jorge.tenreiro@blbglaw.com aasiya.glover@blbglaw.com sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com - and - John L. Davidson, Esq. DAVIDSON BOWIE, PLLC 1062 Highland Colony Parkway 200 Concourse, Suite 275 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 932-0028 E-mail: jdavidson@dbslawfirm.net - and - Caz Hashemi, Esq. Stephen B. Strain, Esq. John I. Karin, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: chashemi@wsgr.com sstrain@wsgr.com jkarin@wsgr.com SEAGRAVE FIRE: Vazquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENNY VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SEAGRAVE FIRE APPARATUS, LLC, Case No. 26-cv-341 (E.D. Wis., Mar. 2, 2026) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff’s and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (3) failing to compensate said employees for daily meal breaks, in violation of the WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek was intentional, willful, and violated federal law and state law, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non exempt employee in the position of electrician from May 2023 to the present. Seagrave is an American fire apparatus manufacturer that specializes in pumper and rescue units.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com SGL CARBON: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 3, 2027 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISAEL RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SGL CARBON FIBERS AMERICA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00360-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Bastian entered an order setting class action certification briefing schedule and striking scheduling conference as follows. 1. The Feb. 26, 2026, scheduling conference is stricken. 2. The following briefing schedule is set: a. The deadline to file the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is Feb. 3, 2027. b. The deadline for Defendant to file its response is March 3, 2027. c. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his reply is March 24, 2027. d. The Plaintiff shall contact the Court for a hearing date prior to filing his Motion for Class Certification. 3. Initials disclosures shall be exchanged pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) within 21 days from the date of this Order. 4. A jury trial will be set after the Court rules on the Motion for Class Certification. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and forward copies to counsel The Defendant produces carbon fibers, carbon fiber fabrics, composite solutions, and process technology services. On Feb. 19, 2026, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report Pursuant to FRCP 26(f), asking the Court to set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BtxviS at no extra charge.[CC] SHAKALAKA BAKERY: Ren Sues Over Unlawful Tip Retention Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIANG QI REN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHAKALAKA BAKERY INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01694 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant maintained an unlawful tip pooling practice, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes Rules & Regulations. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to: 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of a collective group of persons employed by the Defendant as cashiers, baristas, and shift leads during the past three years through the final date of the disposition of this action who were subject to the Defendant's unlawful tip pooling practices whereby the Defendant's Managers retained a portion of the Cashiers', Baristas', and Shift Leads' tips in violation of the FLSA and are entitled to recover: (i) unpaid tips; (ii) liquidated damages; (iii) attorneys' fees and costs; and (iv) such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. The Plaintiff further brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of a class of persons employed by the Defendant as Cashiers, Baristas, and Shift Leads during the past six years through the final date of the disposition of this action who were subject to the Defendant's unlawful tip pooling practices whereby the Defendant's Managers retained a portion of the Cashiers', Baristas', and Shift Leads' tips in violation of the NYLL/NYCRR and are entitled to recover: (i) unpaid tips; (ii) liquidated damages; (iii) interest; (iv) attorneys' fees and costs; and (v) such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Cashier from June 19, 2025, until on or around Nov. 25, 2026. The Defendant is an artisanal bakery with two locations within Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 E-mail: awhite@vkvlawyers.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Class Cert Bid in Kevin Suit Extended to May 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brnich Electric LLC, et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01229-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling order by extending the deadline for the parties to complete class expert discovery and submit class certification briefing. Event Deadline Close of Class Expert Discovery: April 10, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: May 19, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification: Aug. 4, 2026 Reply in Support of Class Certification: Sept. 15, 2026 Deadline for Settlement Conference: Sept. 25, 2026 Siemens provides engineering and technological solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RRS2ov at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Kafka, Esq. Mark Vandenberg, Esq. Rachael Flanagan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Fl. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: ekafka@cohenmilstein.com mvandenberg@cohenmilstein.com rflanagan@ochenmilstein.com - and - Charles H. Van Horn, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C. 3475 Piedmont Road, N.E. Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 261-7711 E-mail: cvanhorn@bvfvlaw.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER | SCHELKOPF 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Stacey Mohr, Esq. Kaitlin A. Carreno, Esq. Claire Scavone, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 853-800 Facsimile: (404) 853-8806 E-mail: staceymohr@eversheds-sutherland.com kaitlincarreno@evershedssutherland.com clairescavone@evershedssutherland.com - and - Toni Michelle Jackson, Esq. Cheryl A. Falvey, Esq. Robbie Jost, Esq. Ruben F. Reyna, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2595 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 E-mail: tjackson@crowell.com cfalvey@crowell.com rjost@crowell.com rreyna@crowell.com - and - Gregg LoCascio, Esq. Ragan Naresh, Esq. Sarah McVay, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: ragan.naresh@kirkland.com gregg.locascio@kirkland.com sarah.mcvay@kirkland.com SPROUTS FARMERS: $5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LARRY TRAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC. (d/b/a Sprouts Farmers Market and d/b/a Sprouts); SF MARKETS, LLC (d/b/a Sprouts Farmers Market, d/b/a Sprouts, and d/b/a SFM, LLC); and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV26572 [Consolidated with Case No. 23STCV08339] Hon. William F. Highberger NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT What is this About? Two class actions lawsuits are pending against Sprouts. One lawsuit is titled Larry Tran v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. et al., Case No. 22STCV26572, and the other lawsuit is titled Robert Cohen v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV08339. Both lawsuits were consolidated effective May 2, 2023, and they are both pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuits allege that Sprouts violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act or FACTA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g), by printing on customer receipts more than the last five digits of the customer's credit card or debit card number, which for purposes of this settlement includes EBT cards. Sprouts disputes the class action allegations and denies that it violated FACTA. Sprouts challenged the operative complaints in both of the lawsuits and the Court granted Sprouts' request to dismiss both of the operative complaints. Plaintiffs Larry Tran and Robert Cohen each appealed the Court's dismissal of the operative complaints. The parties agreed upon a proposed Settlement of the class action lawsuits to avoid the uncertainty and cost of further legal proceedings, including the appeals, and to provide benefits to Class members. The Court of Appeal remanded the lawsuits to the Trial Court for settlement approval proceedings. Sprouts does not admit any violation of FACTA by agreeing to the proposed Settlement. Am I a Class Member? You are a member of the Class if you used your personal credit card or debit card at any Sprouts grocery store within the United States at any time during the period (1) from August 16, 2020 through October 31, 2022 for debit and credit cards excluding EBT cards or (2) March 15, 2021 through April 15, 2023 for EBT cards, and you were provided an electronically printed receipt at the point of the sale or transaction, on which receipt was printed more than the last five digits of your credit card or debit card number. What are The Settlement Benefits and What Can I Get From the Settlement? Sprouts will establish a non-reversionary cash fund in the amount of $5,000,000 (the "Cash Fund"). If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, Sprouts shall also implement a written company policy which states that it will not print more than the last 5 digits of the credit or debit card number or the credit or debit card expiration date upon any printed receipt provided to any customer who uses a credit or debit card to transact business with Sprouts. How Can I Get Payment? Did you receive written notice with a Notice Number that begins with the letter P?: If you have already received written notice by e-mail which contains a Notice Number that begins with the letter P, this means that the records show that you used a credit card or debit card for one or more transactions at a Sprouts grocery store within the United States during the period between August 16, 2020 and April 15, 2023. Therefore, if you received written notice by e-mail which contains a Notice Number that begins with the letter P, in order to obtain a payment, you must submit a Short-Form Claim Form attesting that at least one transaction shown in the records was made with your personal credit card or debit card. Once you timely submit your Short-Form Claim Form and it is approved you will become an Eligible Settlement Class Member. If you are mailing the Short-Form Claim Form, your completed form must be mailed to the following address postmarked no later than August 5, 2026: Atticus Administration LLC P.O. BOX 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 You may also send your completed Short-Form Claim Form by facsimile to the following facsimile number 1-888-326-6411, by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2026. You may also submit your Short-Form Claim Form by completing and submitting an electronic version of the Short-Form Claim Form on the internet at www.SettleInfo.com, by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2026. If you have NOT received written notice by e-mail with a Notice Number, then you must submit a Claim Form-R in order to obtain payment: If you have NOT received written notice by e-mail with a Notice Number, then, to become an Eligible Settlement Class Member and obtain a payment, you must complete and return a valid Claim Form-R. Once you timely submit your Claim Form-R and it is approved, you will become an Eligible Settlement Class Member. If you are mailing the Claim Form-R, your completed form (together with the required documentation) must be mailed to the following address postmarked no later than August 5, 2026: Atticus Administration LLC P.O. BOX 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 You may also send your Claim Form-R (together with the required documentation) by facsimile to the following facsimile number 1-888-326-6411, by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2026. You may also submit your claim by completing and submitting an electronic version of the Claim Form-R (and uploading and submitting the required documentation) on the internet at www.SettleInfo.com, by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2026. Please visit www.SettleInfo.com to get a copy of the Claim Form-R or to complete and submit the Claim Form-R on the internet. If I Submit a Valid and Timely Claim, What Will Be The Amount of My Payment? Sprouts will establish a non-reversionary cash fund in the amount of $5,000,000 (the "Cash Fund"). After subtracting from the Cash Fund (1) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees ($1,666,666.67) and costs (not to exceed $75,000), (2) an enhancement payment to the Class Representatives (total of $20,000.00), and (3) Administration Costs (not to exceed $661,000 but may decrease depending on the number of claims submitted by Settlement Class members), the remaining amount (the "Net Cash Fund") will be divided by the total number of Settlement Class members who submit a valid and timely claim to determine each claiming Settlement Class member's pro-rata share (the "Pro-Rata Share"). Each Settlement Class member who submits a valid and timely claim will be mailed a check in the amount of the Pro-Rata Share (less any applicable backup withholding), to be paid from the Net Cash Fund. For purposes of determining the Pro-Rata Share, each Eligible Settlement Class Member will be counted once, and may not receive more than the ProRata Share, regardless of whether they made one or more than one transaction during the Settlement Class Period. Each Eligible Settlement Class Member will be mailed a check in the amount of the ProRata Share, to be paid from the Net Cash Fund. All settlement checks will have an expiration date stated on them that will be calculated as 180 days from the date the check is issued. If any residual funds from the Net Cash Fund remain after claims payments are made to the Settlement Class members, any and all such residual funds will not revert to Sprouts and, instead, will be distributed as follows: To the extent postage and other costs render it economically feasible, then (1) the total amount of any settlement checks not cashed after 180 days shall be sent out in a second distribution to those Settlement Class members who have cashed checks in the first round of payments; and (2) any settlement checks that remain uncashed after the second round of distribution shall be distributed cy pres to the following 501(c)(3) charity: Electronic Frontier Foundation. What Am I Giving Up to Receive Settlement Benefits? Unless you exclude yourself, you are a Class member, and that means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue Sprouts or any of the other persons or entities referenced in the "Release by the Settlement Class" about the issues in these lawsuits. You will not be responsible for any out-of-pocket costs or attorneys' fees concerning the lawsuits if you stay in the Class. Can I Exclude Myself From the Settlement and What Will That Mean For Me? Yes. If you don't want to receive benefits from this Settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue Sprouts or any of the other persons or entities referenced in the "Release by the Settlement Class" about the issues in the lawsuits, then you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Settlement. To exclude yourself from the Settlement you must include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature on correspondence requesting that you be excluded as a Class member from Tran, et al. v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV26572. To be effective, you must mail your request for exclusion, postmarked no later than April 7, 2026, to the Settlement Administrator at the following address: Atticus Administration LLC P.O. BOX 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 If you request to be excluded from the Settlement, then: (a) you will not be a part of the Settlement; (b) you will have no right to receive any benefits under the Settlement; (c) you will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement; and (d) you will not have any right to object to the terms of the Settlement or be heard at the fairness (final approval) hearing. If I Don't Exclude Myself, Can I Sue for the Same Thing Later? No. Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you give up the right to sue Sprouts and the other persons and entities referenced in the "Release by the Settlement Class" for the claims that this Settlement resolves. If you have a pending lawsuit against Sprouts or any of the other persons or entities referenced in the "Release by the Settlement Class" for any of the claims that this Settlement resolves, speak to your lawyer in your case immediately. You must exclude yourself from this Settlement to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is April 7, 2026. What if I Don't Like the Settlement? If you are a Class member and you do not like any part of the Settlement, you can object to the terms of the Settlement, including, but not limited to, an award to Class Counsel of attorneys' fees which Class Counsel will seek in the amount of $1,666,666.67 and which will be paid from the Cash Fund, an award to Class Counsel of Class Counsel's litigation costs of up to $75,000 also to be paid from the Cash Fund, and an incentive payment to the Class Representatives Larry Tran and Robert Cohen with each receiving an incentive payment of $10,000, to be paid from the Cash Fund. You must give reasons why you think the Court should not approve the Settlement or any of its terms. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to the proposed settlement of Tran, et al. v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV26572. You must mail your objection to the Settlement Administrator at the following address: Atticus Administration LLC P.O. BOX 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 Any and all objections must be postmarked no later than April 7, 2026. What Happens if I Do Nothing At All? If you do nothing, you will remain in the Class and be bound by the terms of the Settlement and all of the Court's orders and judgment. This also means that if the proposed Settlement is approved by the Court, you agree to the release of claims set forth under the heading "What Am I Giving Up to Receive Settlement Benefits?", which describes exactly the legal claims that you give up. You will not be responsible for any out-of-pocket costs or attorneys' fees concerning the lawsuits if you remain in the Class. Do I Have a Lawyer in the Case? The Court appointed lawyers to represent you and other Class members. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. Class Counsel are Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company A Professional Law Corporation and Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices Of Todd M. Friedman. You do not need to pay for these lawyers out of your own pocket. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense, but you do not have to. How Will Class Counsel and the Class Representatives Be Paid? Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of $1,666,666.67 (33⅓% of the Cash Fund) for attorneys' fees, to be paid from the Cash Fund, plus an award of Class Counsel's litigation costs of up to $75,000, also to be paid from the Cash Fund. The fees and costs would pay Class Counsel for investigating the facts and law, prosecuting the matter as well as appeals, negotiating the Settlement, causing Sprouts to change its receipt printing processes and implement a new written policy concerning FACTA, and implementing the Settlement. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to approve payment of $10,000 each, to be paid from the Cash Fund, to Larry Tran and Robert Cohen for their services as the Class Representatives. When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the Settlement? The Court will hold a fairness hearing at 11:00 a.m. on November 19, 2026, at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, in Department SS10, before Judge William F. Highberger. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and whether the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have fairly, adequately, reasonably and competently represented and protected the interests of the Class. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement, including fees and costs to Class Counsel and service payment to the Class Representatives. Class Counsel does not know how long these decisions will take. The date and time of the fairness hearing may be changed without further notice. For updates on dates and times, call the Settlement Administrator at 1-800-958-1026 or visit the website www.SettleInfo.com. Are There More Details About the Settlement and How Do I Get More Information? This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are contained in a Settlement agreement that you may obtain through the Settlement Administrator. For more information, you may: (1) visit the website www.SettleInfo.com; (2) write the Settlement Administrator at the following address: Atticus Administration LLC, P.O. BOX 64053, St. Paul, MN 55164; or (3) call the Settlement Administrator at 1-800-958-1026. You may also view the Court file at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. STASH PRODUCTIONS: Paullin Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MATT D. PAULLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STASH PRODUCTIONS, INC., an unknown business entity; ERIKA [sic] LANG, an individual; PETER LANG, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV31630, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California Western Division on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02220 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) Continuing Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Compliant Pay Stubs; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4) Unpaid Overtime; (5) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (6) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenses; (7) Unfair Business Practices; and (8) Breach of Implied Employment Contract. Stash Productions Inc. is a foreign profit corporation in Los Angeles, California. Electra Lang holds the position of Chief Financial Officer and Secretary. Peter Lang serves as the Director and Chief Executive Officer.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Levin, Esq. Brian M. Ragen, Esq. PDMITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 E-mail: axl@msk.com byr@msk.com STATE FARM: Bid to Dismiss Brewer Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG BREWER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00904-CCE-JGM (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order that: 1. The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay is denied. 2. The defendant's motion in the alternative to compel an appraisal is granted and the plaintiff shall promptly cooperate with State Farm's appraisal demand. 3. The defendant shall file an answer within the time provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for an initial pretrial conference. Mr. Brewer has alleged sufficient facts to establish standing and to state plausible claims, class certification is better assessed on a more developed factual record, and there is no reason litigation cannot continue during the appraisal process, so State Farm's motion will otherwise be denied. Craig Brewer alleges that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance breached its insurance contract with him and violated North Carolina law when it did not pay him the pre-accident actual cash value of his totaled car. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lIsuHA at no extra charge.[CC] T&T FARMS: Amended Bid for Class Cert Due April 1 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER, v. T&T FARMS, INC. and THOMAS HALLECK, JR., Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon Leichty entered an order directing Mr. Porter to file any amended motion for class certification by April 1, 2026. The court finds that it had and continues to have diversity jurisdiction as an independent basis to federal question jurisdiction to proceed with this suit. In the joint statement, the parties indicated that, were the court to retain jurisdiction, Mr. Porter would file an amended motion for class certification. Much of that work has been done before, though it will be refined. The court finds that Mr. Porter's complaint sufficiently alleged an amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Porter claims he was promised an average net weekly earnings of $1,200 to $1,500. For the 55 weeks Mr. Porter worked with T&T Farms, this would amount to $66,000 to $82,500. That said, the court agrees with T&T Farms that the promised earnings must be offset by the $35,000 of actual earnings—reducing the potential compensatory damages to $31,000 to $47,500. Michael Porter sued T&T Farms, Inc. and its owner, Thomas Halleck, Jr., claiming that he and other similar situated truck drivers were induced and defrauded by T&T Farms through their business opportunity program. T&T refers to an active interstate freight carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9swzQZ at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Kelley Suit Seeks Rule 11 Sanctions ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDEN KELLY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for Rule 11 sanctions to strike portions of the Defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests the Court strike the following portions of the Defendant's Opposition: (1) the first paragraph of Section IV(A)(2) at page 10; and (2) all of Section IV(B)(2) and order the Defendant to file an amended brief with these sections stricken, and without leave to make additional arguments. The Plaintiff also requests all reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred for the preparation and filing of this memorandum, the motion, and the attached exhibits, including Ryan A. Hancock's declaration. In the Opposition, Ogletree misrepresented the record evidence to falsely assert that Target distributed its Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards Ordinance, Phila. Code Chapter 9-4600, et seq. ("Fair Workweek Law") "Scheduling Policy" to hourly employees. This misrepresentation is material, as one of the Plaintiff's claims in this case is that Target does not distribute to employees its policy for offering and distributing work shifts to existing employees before it hires new employees, as required by Fair Workweek Law. Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5cHYKn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 335 18th Pl NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com TEAM HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Plaquemine Due June 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF PLAQUEMINE AND RISK MANAGEMENT, INC. v. Team Health Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00111-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn the Hon. Judge Poplin entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to amend scheduling order as follows: 1. The Defendants shall serve their expert disclosures on or before March 20, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff shall serve its expert disclosures on or before April 17, 2026. 3. The parties shall complete expert depositions on or before May 15, 2026. 4. Any class certification motion or Daubert motion shall be filed on or before June 15, 2026. 5. Responses to class certification motions or Daubert motions shall be filed on or before July 20, 2026. 6. Reply briefs to class certification motions or Daubert motions shall be filed on or before Aug. 10, 2026. The Court admonishes the parties that it is unlikely to grant another extension, absent extraordinary circumstances. The Court finds that Defendants have established good cause. First, Defendants have shown due diligence. Prior to Plaintiff disclosing its witnesses, Defendants represent that they retained their experts. Team Health is a physician practice in the U.S. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HKXpc2 at no extra charge.[CC] TIEU DENTAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Tieu Dental data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Tieu Dental data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Tieu Dental Security Incident: What Happened? Tieu Dental Corporation has disclosed a data breach to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation and the California Attorney General. According to a notice posted to the company's website, the Tieu Dental data breach occurred between July 28 and July 29, 2025. Upon discovery, Tieu Dental enlisted third-party cybersecurity experts to investigate the breach. Their investigation revealed that certain files containing personal and protected health information, such as names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, medical records, treatment plans, prescriptions, and health insurance details, might have been accessed. Tieu Dental, which specializes in oral and maxillofacial surgery, operates two offices in Campbell and Morgan Hill, California. What You Can Do After the Tieu Dental Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Tieu Dental data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Tieu Dental to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] TRANSITAMERICA SERVICES: White Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case MONYEA G. WHITE and REGINALD T. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANSITAMERICA SERVICES, INC., HERZOG RAILROAD SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV483200, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 27, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01726 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. TransitAmerica Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Herzog Transit Services based in St. Joseph, Missouri. Herzog Railroad Services, Inc. is a passenger rail operations and maintenance (O&M) provider based in St. Joseph, Missouri. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joan Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Email: JFife@winston.com TRUE FINANCE: More Time to File Class Cert. Sought in Kelly Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STERLING KELLY, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUE FINANCE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01284-MA (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification, and disclose experts in support of class certification, to Aug. 14, 2026. The Plaintiff served discovery effective that day, and Defendant's responses are currently due March 2, 2026. A deadline two weeks later does not permit the Plaintiff sufficient opportunity to analyze the documents produced, assess any shortcomings in the production, schedule and take necessary depositions, and enlist any experts required for class certification prior to the March 16 deadline. This is important because Plaintiff has an evidentiary burden to carry at class certification, and the timeline currently set for filing a contested motion does not permit ample time for that discovery. Second, the Parties are also attending a mediation of this case on April 16, 2026, to attempt to resolve this matter prior to incurring the expense of undertaking the discovery necessary to brief a contested motion for class certification. Finally, to move the proceeding forward expeditiously, the Defendant intends to file its motion to enforce the arbitration agreement by March 6, 2026, approximately one month sooner than the Court's deadline. True Finance provides a money app for borrowing, earning, and saving. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZmC2e8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com - and - Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Ste. B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Bart Dalton, Esq. Katarzyna Brozynski, Esq. BROZYNSKI & DALTON PC 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 Plano, TX 75024 Telephone: (972) 371-0679 E-mail: bart@bdlegalgroup.com kasia@bdlegalgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Cullen Pick, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 890-5000 Facsimile: (713) 890-5001 E-mail: cullen.pick@morganlewis.com U.S. POSTAL: Thomas Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH THOMAS, and BRIAN BAUSKA, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:26-cv-00731 (D.D.C., Mar. 2, 2026) seeks to recover overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and parallel state wage and hour laws in all states except for New Jersey. According to the complaint, the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes of time every day worked by a City Carrier Assistant for a lunch break, regardless of whether any lunch break is/was taken, reducing the hours credited as hours worked by 30 minutes for each day worked, the suit says. The improperly deducted meal periods constitute over 40 hours, also known as overtime hours, in one or more workweeks of the Plaintiffs' employment during the applicable statute of limitations. As a result of deducting, and not paying, these hours over 40, the Defendant's practice of automatically deducting meal periods, even where meal periods were not taken, caused the Plaintiffs to be deprived of owed overtime compensation, the Plaintiff asserts. The FLSA collective action is intended to include all current and former Full Time USPS CCAs who worked for the Defendant, at any time within the past three (3) years in all states except for New Jersey ("those similarly situated"), through the date of judgment in this case, who file a consent to join. In May 2021, the Defendant initially hired the Plaintiff Thomas as a CCA in Illinois. The Plaintiff Thomas' initial employment continued through May 2022. Thereafter, the Plaintiff Thomas was rehired and worked for the Defendant from April 2023 through September 2023 in Illinois. USPS is responsible for providing postal service in the United States and its territories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence Davis, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 M St. SE, FL 6 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202)772-0595 Facsimile: (202)772-0645 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com amurthy@forthepeople.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Ye Suit Over Rideshare Services' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUCY YE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01744 (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, and declaratory judgment or relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide rideshare services as advertised. According to the complaint, the Defendant provides its customers the option to choose a faster service as an alternative to its Wait & Save option. However, those rides failed to arrive at the time advertised. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentation, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a provider of rideshare services based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in D.V.D. Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.V.D., et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10676-BEM (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Murphy entered an order that: The April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction is dissolved. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part. Counts II and III are dismissed. Counts V and VI, including all claims against Defendant Antone Moniz, are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the remaining Defendants is granted as to Counts I and IV. Judgment will enter for Plaintiffs as follows: 1. The Court declares that 8 C.F.R. section 1240.12(d) requires Defendants, before effecting removal of a class member to any third country, to first seek removal to that class member's designated country of removal or specified alternative country or countries of removal, as provided in that class member's final order of removal. 2. The Court declares that 8 U.S.C. section 1231(b) requires Defendants, before effecting removal of a class member pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1231(b)(2)(E), to first seek removal to that class member's designated country of removal or country or countries of citizenship, if any. The Court declares that class members have the right to meaningful notice before removal to any third country. 4. The Court declares that class members have the right to a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim against removal before removal to any third country. 5. The Court declares that the Defendants' third-country removal policy, as embodied in DHS's March 30, 2025 memorandum, titled "Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals," and ICE's July 9, 2025 memorandum, titled "Third Country Removals Following the Supreme Court's Order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153 (U.S. June 23, 2025)," is unlawful and SETS ASIDE that policy. 6. This judgment is stayed until fifteen days from date of issuance or until the First Circuit rules on any motion for an administrative stay or stay pending appeal, whichever occurs first. DHS works to improve the security of the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wlp8bP at no extra charge.[CC] VIRCAN GROUP: Pascal Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Pascal, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Vircan Group LLC d/b/a Salinas Restaurante y Bar De Tapas, Luis Bollo, Nicolas Matar, Donald Mikula, and Mary Catherine Mikula, Case No. 1:26-cv-01708 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not paid overtime in violation. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for those hours that he worked after forty hours per workweek, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover spread of hours pay, and statutory damages under NYLL. Mr. Pascal was employed by the Defendants as a cook from 2016 until 2026. The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 YA YA CREATIONS: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YA YA CREATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04054-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.efavormart.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ya Ya Creations, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ********* 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 ***