260313.mbx

260313.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 13, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 52 Headlines 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Mueller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ABG-CHAMPION LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Alger Dynamic Class Suit Stayed ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement in Kanner Suit for Court OK ACCO BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lamperis Alleges ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Tracleer Antitrust Suit for $65MM AHAAA LLC: Chamul Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ALERT MEDICAL: Faces Pannozzi Suit Over Private Data Breach AMAZON CONSUMER: Seeks to Strike Hallman's Declaration AMERICAN HONDA: Custer Balks at Vehicles' Defective Drive Axle APOLLO GLOBAL: Feldman Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ARKANSAS: Appeals Injunction and Class Cert. Order in Fason Suit ASIAN BISTRO: Fails to Pay Earned Compensation Under FLSA B MICHELLE NY: Faces Ortez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. BAKER CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Patterson Says BURLINGTON STORES: Charges Sales Tax on Tax-Exempt Goods, Suit Says CARE-A-LOT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walsh Alleges CARNIVERO LLC: Ramirez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Frost Consumer Class Suit CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suit CENTER FOR ADVANCED: Pasteur Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info CEVA ANIMAL: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Young Says CFD INVESTMENTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lehmann Says CHARGEPOINT INC: Blackman Sues Over Delayed and Insufficient Refund CHICWISH LLC: Walsh Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHIQUITA BRANDS: De Leon Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Gonzalez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Guzman Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Huertas Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Jaramillo Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court COMODO GROUP: Court Approves $1.625MM TCPA Class Settlement COMPASS GROUP: Must Oppose Mehlberg Class Cert Bid by March 13 CONSTANTINE PRODUCTS: Rynberg Sues Over Withholding Employee Tips CONTINENTAL TIRE: Thompson's Claim for Injunctive Relief Tossed CORNERSTONE FIRST: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach COSTAR GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit COSTAR GROUP: Continues to Defend Burdi-Dumas Class Suit in Del. CSAA INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 23, 2027 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Kvek Sues Over ERISA Breaches CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Mangaroo Sues Over Worker Misclassification DAVID'S BRIDAL: McCormick Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DBZ ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 4 DEL MONTE: Minority Lenders Challenge Fairness of Chapter 11 Plan DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. DOXIMITY INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod DUPONT SPECIALTY: Bower Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Discloses Private Info to Google, Suit Says EDGE FITNESS: Underpays Company Employees, Binda Alleges EOS ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit GARY ALLEN: Sinegal Seeks to Certify Class GEN DIGITAL: $9.95MM TCPA Settlement Final Hearing Set July 14 GIRAYA CONSTRUCTION: Parra and Brito Allege Labor Law Breaches GLOBAL PRODUCT: Class Cert. Bid in Williams Due March 24 GLOBE LIFE: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Action for $4.66-Mil. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend VRDO Class Suit in N.Y. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Klarna Securities Class Suit in New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Supreme Ct. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Deal in DGI Suit for Court OK GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Smith Suit Seeks Class Certification HARTFORD FIRE: Hair Zone Class Action Dismissed HEALTH CARE: BCBS Seeks Clarification of Class Cert Briefing Sched HIGH POINT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Mahmood Suit Alleges HIGHPEAK ENERGY: Self Seeks Oilfield Operators' Unpaid Overtime HILTON GRAND: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Ads IRWIN NATURALS: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website JASON WOOSLEY: Must Release De Corral from Detention JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Certifies Canada-Wide Talc Class Action KIMI CRUSH: Faces E.B. Suit Over Illegal Online Casino Apps L BARN ENTERPRISES: Faces Evans Suit Over Website Inaccessibility LAKE ELSINORE: Pulls Credit Reports Without Consent, Carmona Says LEVEL FITNESS: Facez Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIFEBANC: Bielek Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.6MM LUKS HOLDINGS: Morris Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website LUV CAR: Harrison Sues Over Unlawful Recurring Payment Scheme LUXURY WATCHES: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Liranzo Says MATRIX CABLE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Churchwell Says MELINDA'S FOODS: Young Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance with ADA MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Wins Class Certification Bid MIDLAND FUNDING: Bid to Compel Retainer Agreements Tossed MONROE COUNTY, NY: Retains Property Sale Proceeds, Patrick Says MUNDI 910 VICTORIA: 2020 Fire Class Settlement Reaches $5.25-Mil. NAVIENT CORP: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Ballard's Class Cert Bid NILES FURNITURE: Lamperis Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website NORTHWELL HEALTH: Kempf Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations NORTHWEST MEDICAL: ClassAction.org Probes Potential Data Breach OLINSKY & ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Leon-Roman Gets Initial Nod ORAL ESSENTIALS: Cole Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance with ADA PAPAYA ORGANICS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store PAYBYPHONE US: Agrees to Settle Parking Meter App Class Action PITCH PERFECT: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation PRIME CARE: Faces Guin Suit Over Field Coordinators' Unpaid OT PROGENITY INC: Settlement of Securities Litig. Gets Final Court OK PULMONARY EXCHANGE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Johnson Says QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Pierce Claims QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bower Alleges QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Radtke Says RAOUL'S RESTAURANT: Faces Orcel Suit Over Website's Access Barriers RECYCLINE INC: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Morris Says RICHARD J. KNAPP: Ferebee Sues Over Unlawful Fee Collection RUGSUSA LLC: Parties in Hong Seek to Vacate Class Cert Hearing SKY CITY: Faces Class Suit Over Malta-Based Gambling Platform SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Court Approves "Miller" Settlement STATE AND LIBERTY: Haviland Balks at Use of Data Broker Software STATE FARM: Court Strikes Safont's Previously Filed Class Cert. SUNBELT RENTALS: Boucher Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. T&T ENERGY: Corral Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation TARGET CORP: Faces Kessler Suit Over Illegal Sales Tax Collection TENET FINTECH: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Class Action Lawsuit TIN LIZZIE: Menkhaus Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit Policy TOYOTA INDUSTRIES: $299.5MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod TP−LINK SYSTEMS: Standing Order Entered in Gianne Class Suit TRILOGY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, Kistler Says TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stone Suit Says TROVE BRANDS: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Brown Says UMASS MEMORIAL: Wins Bid to Toss "Progin" Patient Tracking Suit UNITED STATES: Bourque Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNITED STATES: Perkins Seeks to Recover Overpayment Interest UNITED STATES: Texas Farm Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach VALNET INC: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for July 1 VIATOR INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Ramlogan" MSG Tour Ticket Suit VIRGINIA: Hardee Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit VITAL CONTINGENT: Tropea Sues Over Unlawful Wages Practices WESTLAKE CORP: Continues to Defend Caustic Soda Antitrust Suit WESTLAKE CORP: PVC Pipe Antitrust Suits Stayed WIRX PHARMACY: Faces Caulker Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info WIRX PHARMACY: Rader Sues Over Private Data Breach Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Faces 844 Pending PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $136MM A&E Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 454 Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $120MM Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNOW Inc. Faces 713 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Defends 17,000 PI Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Has $312.1MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Has $317MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Reports $10.5MM A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,126 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Defends 610 Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 914 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Defends Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Skydance Faces 17,490 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Has 795 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 290 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Faces Numerous Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Tech Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 405 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Reports 945 Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Faces Exposure Lawsuits ********* 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Mueller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1Stopbedrooms Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-427 (S.D. Ind., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://1stopbedrooms.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Mueller and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Mueller's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Mueller has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on September 22, 2025. While navigating the Website using her screen reader and keyboard, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Mueller, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in the State of Indiana and throughout the United States, says the suit. Mueller seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Tara Nicole Mueller is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant 1Stopbedrooms Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of bedroom and home furnishings, including bedroom sets, dressers, nightstands, mattresses, living and dining room pieces, home office essentials, as well as kids' and youth collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law ABG-CHAMPION LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABG-Champion LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-01626-DWF-DTS (D. Minn., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.champion.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers sports apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, hoodies, sweatshirts, t-shirts, tops, pants, shorts, jackets, bags, backpacks, shoes, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Alger Dynamic Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of California stayed the Alger Dynamic class suit pending the outcome of the Securities Class Action. On March 7, 2024, a purported stockholder of Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a complaint (captioned Alger Dynamic Opportunities Fund v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-00451) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and one executive officer. The complaint is based on the same underlying allegations as the Securities Class Action described above, and alleged claims under federal and state securities laws, and for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentations. On May 24, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On October 31, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed with leave to amend the purported stockholder's state and common law claims, as well as the claim brought under Section 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Defendants filed their answer to the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims on December 16, 2024. On January 13, 2025, the Court stayed this suit pending the outcome of the Securities Class Action. The Company currently believes that none of the foregoing claims or other actions pending against the Company as of December 31, 2025 is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, liquidity, financial position, or results of operations. Given the unpredictability inherent in litigation, however, it cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from these matters, and therefore it has not accrued any amounts in connection with these matters other than attorneys' fees incurred to date. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement in Kanner Suit for Court OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 Kanner derivative action settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On December 15, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action (captioned Kanner et al v. Biggar et al., Case No. 23-cv-2293) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of its current directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint is based on the same alleged misconduct as the Securities Class Action, and asserts state law claims, on behalf of the Company, against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and insider trading. The complaint also asserts federal claims under sections 10(b), 21D, and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On December 27, 2023, the action was reassigned to District Judge William Q. Hayes and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg due to its relation to the Securities Class Action. On January 30, 2024, the parties jointly requested a stay of the action. The Court granted that request and the action was stayed on February 20, 2024, pending the outcome of the Demand Review Committee's investigation into the underlying claims. The stay was briefly lifted on September 5, 2025 but reinstated on October 17, 2025 and remains in place. On January 15, 2026, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle regarding the derivative claims. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, which is still subject to Court approval, defendants agreed to certain governance reforms and agreed to an award of $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees to be paid by its insurance carrier. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases. ACCO BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lamperis Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH LAMPERIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2405 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.trusens.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 11, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase an air purifier. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. Specifically, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff JOSEPH LAMPERIS is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION owns and operates the Website trusens.com which presents air-quality solutions, offering air purifiers, replacement filters, and related accessories designed to support cleaner indoor environments. It highlights a focused product line centered on air treatment technology and ongoing maintenance solutions.[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 ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Tracleer Antitrust Suit for $65MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomson Reuters reports that two Johnson & Johnson units have agreed to pay $65 million to settle a proposed antitrust class action by health plans and others claiming they were overcharged for the pulmonary hypertension drug Tracleer. The preliminary settlement with Actelion Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development was filed on Wednesday, March 4, in the federal court in Maryland. The proposal requires approval from a judge. The plaintiffs, including the Government Employees Health Association and other entities that paid or provided reimbursement for their members’ use of Tracleer, alleged in their lawsuit that the drugmakers delayed competition for a ⁠generic version of the medication. Actelion ⁠made billions of dollars in profits from selling Tracleer, an oral treatment for pulmonary artery hypertension. Johnson & Johnson in 2017 completed its acquisition of Actelion. Janssen is also a part of Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sharon Robertson, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the settlement will provide "meaningful relief" for the class ⁠of so-called third-party payors that purchased Tracleer ⁠and its generic version over the span of nearly a decade. The defendants denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle the case, which was first filed in 2018. The lawsuit alleged the drugmakers impeded competitor access to samples of Tracleer, which they said "effectively blocked competitors from bringing a competing generic product to market for a period of time." The settlement covers Tracleer purchases in 31 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico between ⁠December 2015 and September 2024. The plaintiffs said they plan to seek up to about 33% of the settlement fund for legal fees, or about $21 million. The case ⁠is Government Employees Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd et al, U.S. District ⁠Court for the District of Maryland, No. 1:18-cv-03560-GLR. For plaintiffs: Sharon Robertson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Thomas Sobol of Hagens Berman ⁠Sobol Shapiro For defendants: William Cavanaugh Jr of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler; and Shari Ross Lahlou of Dechert [GN] AHAAA LLC: Chamul Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CHAMUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHAAA, LLC d/b/a HARRY'S BAR & RESTAURANT, Case No. 9:25-cv-81013-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and for Court-authorized notice. The Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify the following collective defined in the Complaint: Tip-Pilfering Collective: "All current and former individuals employed by the Defendant as servers (including those titled "server," "captain," "waiter," "waitress," or similar) at Harry's Bar & Restaurant in Palm Beach County, Florida, who, at any time during the three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, were subjected to a tip pool that included managers or supervisors, or had any portion of their tips retained, shared, or diverted to managers or supervisors." The Defendant owns and operates a single restaurant location at 384 S. Rosemary Ave., West Palm Beach, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FDNGE0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Justin Edell, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 612-3479 Facsimile: (561) 683-8977 EEmail: justin.edell@csklegal.com ALERT MEDICAL: Faces Pannozzi Suit Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- RONALD PANNOZZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALERT MEDICAL ALARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01371 (E.D. Pa., March 3, 2026) arises out of Defendant failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a June 2025 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on its computer network. Despite learning of the data breach on or about June 17, 2025, and determining that private information was involved in the breach, the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the data breach until February 20, 2026. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. Headquartered in Jenkintown, PA, Alert Medical Alarms, Inc. provides medical emergency services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com AMAZON CONSUMER: Seeks to Strike Hallman's Declaration ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcos Ramos et al., v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (RE AMAZON CONSUMER SPEECH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00089-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on April 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order striking the declaration of Greg Hallman Ph.D. submitted in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Amazon brings this motion on the grounds that Hallman's testimony does not meet the standards required by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) because he offers opinions he is not qualified to offer. Hallman is neither a legal expert nor a consumer psychology expert. Despite his declaration that "Amazon should be penalized in an amount sufficient to deter Amazon from violating Section 1670.8 by imposing unlawful restrictions on consumer speech within the Conditions of Use," Hallman walked back these claims at deposition, admitting he is not qualified to opine on whether use of the words in Amazon's Trademark list would violate the challenged provision at all. Because Hallman's Deterrence and Penalty Calculation Opinions exceed the scope of his finance expertise, they should also be stricken. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5oAQK1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. Erwin A. Reschke, Esq. Nicole S. Phillis, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com erwinreschke@dwt.com nicolephillis@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com AMERICAN HONDA: Custer Balks at Vehicles' Defective Drive Axle -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Custer and Jorge Santiago, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01330-KSM (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and a proposed classes of past and present owners and lessees of defective 2024-2026 Honda Prologue vehicles designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and serviced by Honda. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Classes were damaged because the Class Vehicles contain defective front drive axles with internal joint irregularities or degradation. The Drive Axle Defect involves a critical drivetrain component responsible for transmitting power to the wheels during turning maneuvers. Progressive axle deterioration leads to impaired propulsion, steering response, and drivability, particularly during turning or low-speed operation and is a serious safety concern, says the suit. In addition, the Drive Axle Defect is, many times, audible with drivers like the Plaintiffs and others actually hearing abnormal clicking, clinking, or ratcheting noises from their drive axles while turning. Honda's sale of the Class Vehicles with the Drive Axle Defect and its failure to repair the Defect constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and Honda's express warranty, a violation of the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, and Honda has been unjustly enriched by selling these defective vehicles, the suit further asserts. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. develops and manufactures automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden equipment, parts, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 APOLLO GLOBAL: Feldman Sues Over Misleading Company Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- SOLOMON FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC., MARC ROWAN, and LEON BLACK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01692 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Apollo Global securities between May 10, 2021 and February 21, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class period starts on May 11, 2021, when Apollo Global filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2021. Attached to the 1Q21 Report was a certification pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendant Marc Rowan, the Company's executive officer, attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud. However, the statements contained in the report were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, asserts the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants Rowan and Black, among other leadership figures at Apollo Global, frequently communicated with Jeffrey Epstein, who was an American financier and a sex offender, in the 2010s regarding Apollo Global's business; (2) as a result, Apollo Global's assertion that the Company had never done business with Jeffrey Epstein was untrue; (3) because of the entanglement between Apollo Global's leaders and Jeffrey Epstein, the harm to Apollo Global's reputation was more than a mere possibility; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times, says the suit. On this news, Apollo Global shares dropped by $5.99, or approximately 5%, to close at $113.73 on February 23, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a global alternative asset manager and a retirement services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com ARKANSAS: Appeals Injunction and Class Cert. Order in Fason Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOYCE HAMLET, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Todd Fason, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Boyce Hamlet, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00089-KGB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On Feb. 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction and a motion to certify class. On Feb. 17, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On Feb. 27, 2026, Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The appellate case is styled as Todd Fason, et al. v. Boyce Hamlet, et al., Case No. 26-1373, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 3, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on April 13, 2026; -- Appendix is due on April 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Brief is due on April 22, 2026; and -- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees TODD FASON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Hadiyah Cummings, Esq. John Charles Williams, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 904 W. Second Street, Suite 1 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 358-1208 (501) 374-2842 - and - Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. Sum Yi Jessica Hui, Esq. Norah E. Rast, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-4619 (212) 906-1200 - and - Olivia Fritz, Esq. Bridget Geraghty, Esq. Emily Cahn Keller, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE 160 E. Grand Avenue, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 503-1271 (312) 503-0929 - and - Chanelle Nicole Jones, Esq. Christine Casey Smith, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Defendants-Appellants BOYCE HAMLET, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, et al. are represented by: Jordan Broyles, Esq. Madalyn Joyce Goolsby, Esq. Ryan C. Hale, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 101 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 682-2007 ASIAN BISTRO: Fails to Pay Earned Compensation Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- JUNIOR FEMIN MEDAL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. ASIAN BISTRO OF STAMFORD, LLC., ASIAN BISTRO OF STRATFORD, LLC., YTLC ENTERPRISES LLC and ABC COMPANIES 1-10 (names fictitious) d/b/a MISIMI - HIBASHI. ASIAN FUSION. SUSHI. BAR and TIANCAI CHEN, YUE XI CHEN and MICHAEL YAT YUNG CHENG, individually, Case No. 3:26-cv-00325 (D. Conn., March 4, 2026) is an action for compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalty damages and attorneys' fees brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Medal his earned compensation was unreasonable, arbitrary and/or in bad faith, in that Defendants knew or should have known that their employees were entitled to be paid for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week at one-and one-half times their regular rate of pay, but failed to pay them accordingly. In addition, and in the alternative, Plaintiff Medal brings this action in his individual and personal capacity, separate and apart from the collective claims. The FLSA class is defined as follows: All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants (including but not limited to cooks, prep assistants, dishwashers, and busboys) at any time from March 4, 2023, through the date of the final judgment, who were subject to Defendants' policy of being paid a flat bi-weekly cash rate without proper overtime compensation. Stamford is a full service restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com B MICHELLE NY: Faces Ortez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- DAMARIS ORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B MICHELLE NY AVENUE CORP. d/b/a MIGUELENO RESTAURANT and JOSE FUENTES, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01271 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide wage statements, sex discrimination, aiding and abetting sex discrimination, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from in or about 2014 through November 2, 2024. B Michelle NY Avenue Corp., doing business as Migueleno Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator located in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com BAKER CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Patterson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VERDELL PATTERSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00224-JPH (S.D. Ohio, March 3, 2026) seeks to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Baker as a journeyman concrete finisher from approximately August 2023 until April 2024. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate him and all other hourly laborers for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Headquartered in Monroe, OH, Baker Concrete Construction Inc. provides full-service structural concrete, deep foundations, and restoration for commercial, industrial, and infrastructure projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Doren, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com adoren@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com BURLINGTON STORES: Charges Sales Tax on Tax-Exempt Goods, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KARIN SANDQUIST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON STORES, INC. d/b/a BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21436-KMW (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, unconscionability, conversion, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of systematically misrepresenting, charging and collecting amounts represented to be sales and use tax for purchases of tax-exempt baby and toddler products at their stores in Florida. This systematic miscalculation and overcharge are deceptive and unlawful under Florida law. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages, says the suit. Burlington Stores, Inc., doing business as Burlington, is a retail store operator based in New Jersey. Burlington Coat Factory is an operator of retail stores in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 3833 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 786-8622 Email: jcohen@brysonpllc.com - and - David J. Tayar, Esq. TAYAR SHUMAN & ASSOCIATES LLP 3324 Parsons Blvd., Ste. 3F Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (917) 750-7740 Email: dtayar@tayarshuman.com - and - Will Shuman, Esq. TAYAR SHUMAN & ASSOCIATES LLP 3605 Tuckerman Lane Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (202) 415-8207 Email: wshuman@tayarshuman.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 Email: jdemay@brysonpllc.com - and - Charles Schimmel, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 1800 Gaylord Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (913) 634-6762 Email: schimmelc@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (914) 356-0061 Email: silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com CARE-A-LOT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walsh Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARE-A-LOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-50085 (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.carealotpets.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 14, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase pet food. Despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CAITLIN WALSH is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CARE-A-LOT, INC. owns and operates the Website which presents carealotpets.com as a comprehensive pet-supply retailer, offering a wide range of products including food, treats, grooming items, accessories, toys, and health-care essentials for various types of pets.[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 CARNIVERO LLC: Ramirez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARNIVERO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2360 (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.carnivero.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured hen she attempted multiple times, most recently on December 29, 2025 to access Defendant's Website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff ROSEMARIE RAMIEZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CARNIVERO, LLC owns and operates the website that highlights a selection of carnivorous plant species, including Venus flytraps, pitcher plants, sundews, and other unique botanical varieties.[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 CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Frost Consumer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, Inc disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Frost consumer class suit in the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County. Frost v. Rolling Hills Memorial Park, Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, Case No. C24-02653. On October 4, 2024, a consumer class action was filed against the Company's subsidiary, Rolling Hills Memorial Park. Plaintiff, an owner of an interment right and purchaser of merchandise and services from Rolling Hills Memorial Park, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former consumers and owners of interment rights as the putative class for the alleged failure to properly set cemetery merchandise and maintain the perpetual care cemetery. As of December 31, 2025, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. Carriage Services, Inc. is a provider of funeral and cemetery services and merchandise based in Texas. CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, Inc disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a wage and hour class suit in the Superior Court of California. Denning v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, Ventura County, Case No. 2024 CU OE 028098. On July 29, 2024, a wage and hour class action was filed against the Company and several of its subsidiaries. Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees as the putative class for the alleged failure to pay legally mandated compensation and reimbursement expenses. As of December 31, 2025, the Company and several subsidiaries are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. Carriage Services, Inc. is a provider of funeral and cemetery services and merchandise based in Texas. CENTER FOR ADVANCED: Pasteur Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN PASTEUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTER FOR ADVANCED EYE CARE, PA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01406 (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty/breach of confidence, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about December 15-16, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Center for Advanced Eye Care, PA is a professional association that provides ophthalmology and eye care services at clinic locations in Pennsylvania and Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, PC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com CEVA ANIMAL: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CEVA ANIMAL HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1718 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.feliway.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 20, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a FELIWAY(R) Optimum Diffuser Kit from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate, against Plaintiff and others similarly situated on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant's Website under the N.Y. Exec. Law and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff LESHAWN YOUNG is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CEVA ANIMAL HEALTH, LLC, operates the Feliway online retail store, as well as the Feliway interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's cat pheromone diffusers, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[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 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CFD INVESTMENTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lehmann Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM LEHMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CFD INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00431-SEB-MKK (S.D. Ind., March 4, 2026) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and approximately 31,731 others' personally identifying information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account information. CFD is an independent registered broker/dealer and financial services company. Between approximately March 15, 2025, and May 9, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to CFD's network systems via an employee's compromised email account and acquired files containing the PII of CFD's customers, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William N. Riley, Esq. Russell B. Cate, Esq. Sundeep Singh, Esq. RILEYCATE, LLC 11 Municipal Drive, Suite 320 Fishers, IN 46038 Telephone: 317.588.2866 Facsimile: 317.458.1785 E-mail: wriley@rileycate.com rcate@rileycate.com ssingh@rileycate.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621 2000 Facsimile: (312) 641 5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com CHARGEPOINT INC: Blackman Sues Over Delayed and Insufficient Refund ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY BLACKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-85 (N.D. Ind., March 3, 2026) is a class action seeking classwide relief for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and unjust enrichment. The complaint relates that ChargePoint operates one of the largest EV charging networks in the United States, which includes approximately 135 stations in Indiana. Once at the station, a charging session can be started by tapping a ChargePoint RFID card, using the mobile app, tapping a contactless credit or debit card at supported stations, or in some cases through a vehicle's built-in Plug & Charge capability. On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff attempted to charge his EV using a ChargePoint EV charging station located at 9236 Indianapolis Boulevard in Highland, Indiana. Plaintiff made two payments of $50.00 to charge his EV using the above charging station using his Apple Cash account. At the time of the transaction, ChargePoint debited Plaintiff's Apple Cash account for two $50.00 transactions for a total of $100.00. After Plaintiff's account was debited by ChargePoint, he discovered that the charging station was malfunctioning and could not charge his vehicle. However, there was no signage or other indication that the charging station was not working. Plaintiff then called ChargePoint's toll-free customer service telephone number to complain about the malfunctioning charging station and to request a refund. During the call, ChargePoint acknowledged that the charging station Plaintiff attempted to use was not working and agreed to refund his money within five to seven business days. Plaintiff demanded that his money be refunded immediately, as he needed the money in his Apple Cash account for other purposes and could not wait five to seven business days. ChargePoint refused and stated that an immediate refund was not possible. Thereafter, on January 30, 2026, and January 31, 2026, Plaintiff received a refund for each of the $50.00 transactions. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was deprived of the use of the $100.00 debited from his account. When a refund was finally processed, it did not include any additional amounts for interest or the transaction fees he incurred to access the funds in his Apple Cash wallet. Thus, despite failing to provide Plaintiff with the charging services he paid for, Plaintiff sustained a loss for which he seeks compensation on behalf of himself and the Class. Plaintiff Timothy Blackman is a natural person residing in and a citizen of Harvey, Illinois. Defendant ChargePoint, Inc. is a corporation that deploys, maintains and operates EV charging stations throughout the United States, including Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Blackman, Esq. William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 230 Northgate Street, Suite 103 Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Telephone: (847) 877-2970 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com CHICWISH LLC: Walsh Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHICWISH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-50087 (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.chicwish.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on June 11, 2025 to access Defendant's Website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CAITLIN WALSH is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CHICWISH, LLC ows and operates the website which showcases a wide range of apparel including dresses, tops, skirts, outerwear, and accessories.[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 CHIQUITA BRANDS: De Leon Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SENA DE LEON et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08947 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sg13Z8 at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Gonzalez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-08954 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZZF96 at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Guzman Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUZMAN, et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09020 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vUFv1o at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Huertas Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARRASCAL HUERTAS et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09052 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4M0CF9 at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Jaramillo Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOREZ JARAMILLO et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09008 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. Instead of relying on Plaintiffs' conduct in the instant matter, Chiquita urges the Court to consider the litigants' previous conduct in the MDL as evidence of the Plaintiffs' intent to try these matters jointly, but the Court finds this improper for two reasons. First, Chiquita's use of the term "Plaintiffs" is too broad considering many of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters were not plaintiffs in the MDL. Second, Ramirez outlines that "conduct undertaken after filing the complaint [but prior to removal] is certainly relevant," to whether Plaintiffs intend to proceed jointly. But Chiquita would have the Court factor in conduct before Plaintiffs filed the twelve Complaints—not to mention that this conduct was undertaken by only a subset of the Plaintiffs in these twelve matters. The fact that some Plaintiffs tried to join bellwether trials in the federal MDL litigation has no bearing on Plaintiffs' intent in filing their subsequent state court litigation, and Chiquita has not presented the Court with controlling authority suggesting otherwise. Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In 2007, a group of plaintiffs from the Republic of Colombia filed a putative class action against Chiquita in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Those plaintiffs alleged Chiquita "fund[ed], armed, and otherwise support[ed] terrorist organizations in Colombia, in order to maintain its profitable control of Colombia's banana growing regions." The plaintiffs were "family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists, notably the paramilitary organization United Self-Defense Committees of Colombia [AUC] . during the 1990s through 2004." Chiquita produces and distributes produce. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xd2FM2 at no extra charge.[CC] COMODO GROUP: Court Approves $1.625MM TCPA Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Troutman, writing for JDSupra, reports that In Johnson v. Comodo Group, 2026 WL 296417 (D. N.J. Feb. 4, 2026) the court approved a class action settlement agreement whereby Comodo will pay $1,625,000 to settle the case, with average recovery of approximately $596 for each class member. The claim arose out of alleged telemarketing calls made to sell the defendant's encrypted software to consumers without consent. The court had previously certified a broad class of: (1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number Comodo made a telemarketing call (3) using a prerecorded voice (4) within four years of the filing of the complaint. There were 12,757 class members identified, which means Defendant agreed to pay about $127.00 per class member– not terrible for a prerecorded marketing case with no consent. After notice to the class there were 1,266 valid claims, which represents a solid 10.2% claim rate. Those 1,266 valid claims are associated with 4,631 separate calls, with the average number of calls per valid claim of 3.66– meaning a "full" recovery to each claimant would have been $1,830.00 each. $596.00 out of a potential $1,830.00 isn't bad–although the non-claiming class members received zero. There were no objections to the settlement. Here's where it gets really interesting though. Plaintiff's counsel will receive $650,000 (40% of the settlement fund) PLUS reimbursement of $92,283.46 in expenses. Meaning over 45% of the settlement funds will go to the lawyers who brought the case! Now it is normal for the plaintiff's attorneys to receive huge dollars in these cases, but 45% is the highest I recall seeing off hand. Plus the Plaintiff himself will receive a genuinely massive incentive award of $40,000! I have never seen an award that high approved. Usually, an incentive award is $20k or less. And in some circuits they aren't even allowed. Really an unusual resolution here but it shows just how profitable TCPA class litigation is for the Plaintiff's lawyers.[GN] COMPASS GROUP: Must Oppose Mehlberg Class Cert Bid by March 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mehlberg, et al., v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04179 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting joint motion to amend the scheduling order. (1) Deadline to depose experts: April 30, 2026, unless a later date is agreed to by the parties; (2) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: May 7, 2026 (3) Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion: March 13, 2026 (4) Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification Motion: April 3, 2026 (5) Discovery Deadline: May 29, 2026 (6) Dispositive and Daubert Motion Deadline: June 19, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). Compass retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[CC] CONSTANTINE PRODUCTS: Rynberg Sues Over Withholding Employee Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA RYNBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSTANTINE PRODUCTS, LLC, D/B/A THE DUDE ABIDES, CASS ROOT, and JENA ROOT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00720 (W.D. Mich., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees their tips owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a budtender from in or around July 2023. Constantine Products, LLC, doing business as The Dude Abides, is a producer and seller of cannabis products based in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 150 West Jefferson, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com CONTINENTAL TIRE: Thompson's Claim for Injunctive Relief Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELYNN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01928-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rosenstengel entered an order dismissing without prejudice Thompson's claim for injunctive relief. The Court will set a conference to discuss the discovery schedule for class certification by separate order. On Nov. 18, 2025, this Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing on the question of Article III standing. Having reviewed the parties' filings, the Court dismisses Plaintiff Kaelynn Thompson's claim for injunctive relief for the reasons set forth below. Thompson cannot make the required showing. She is no longer employed by Continental Tire. She fails to allege any risk that Continental Tire will solicit her genetic information in the future. Nor can Thompson point to the risk that Continental Tire will violate the GIPA rights of others in the future to establish her own standing. I After careful consideration of the cases cited by the parties and those discussed above, the Court finds that the nonbinding out-of-circuit rulings in Dixon do not provide a basis for departing from this Court's established precedent here. The Court lacks jurisdiction over Thompson’s claim for injunctive relief because she lacks standing to bring it. In these circumstances, partial dismissal is the correct course of action. On September 16, 2025, Plaintiff Kaelynn Thompson filed a putative class action complaint in Illinois state court against her former employer, Defendant Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, alleging violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). The Defendant manufactures and distributes a complete premium line of passenger, light truck and commercial tires. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5DVBoo at no extra charge.[CC] CORNERSTONE FIRST: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Cornerstone First Mortgage 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 Cornerstone First Mortgage data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Cornerstone First Mortgage Security Incident: What Happened? Cornerstone First Mortgage has reported a data breach that, according to a sample notice submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR), occurred in July or August 2023. While specific details were not disclosed in the notice, the OCABR data breach notification report indicates that Social Security numbers were among the information compromised in the Cornerstone First Mortgage data breach. Cornerstone First Mortgage is licensed in 49 states and operates numerous offices nationwide. What You Can Do After the Cornerstone First Mortgage Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Cornerstone First Mortgage 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 Cornerstone First Mortgage to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] COSTAR GROUP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ CoStar Group, 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. On February 20, 2024, several individuals who allegedly rented “luxury” hotel rooms in metropolitan areas in the United States filed a putative antitrust class action alleging that through CoStar's STR hospitality industry benchmarking products, the hotel defendants agreed to share competitively sensitive price and supply information regarding luxury hotel rooms, and that the sharing of that information has allowed the hotel defendants to increase prices for luxury hotel rooms. While the Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit, it is unable to predict the outcome or estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result. Headquartered in Washington, DC, CoStar provides industry-leading data benchmarking and analytics services to the hospitality industry. [BN] COSTAR GROUP: Continues to Defend Burdi-Dumas Class Suit in Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CoStar Group, 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 the Burdi-Dumas class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. After the May 2024 Brown judgment, additional lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by former Legacy Matterport stockholders, collectively referred to as the "Post-Brown Complaints." The plaintiffs allege that improper transfer restrictions prevented them from trading their shares in Matterport, Inc.. The complaints were submitted on July 19, 2024 by Damien Leostic and William Schmitt; on August 16, 2024 by Greg Coombe; and on September 19, 2024 by Build Legacy LLC, Build the Future Trust under a November 16, 2023 agreement, Penchant Capital LLC, Penchant Trust, and iRobot Corporation. Separately, on September 16, 2024, former Matterport employee Kimberly Burdi-Dumas filed a proposed class action on behalf of persons or entities that held Legacy Matterport shares as of July 21, 2021 and later received Matterport stock through the Gores Transaction. The complaint alleges those shares were improperly restricted from sale until January 18, 2022. Schmitt amended his complaint on November 26, 2024 to assert claims on behalf of a class of former Matterport members who allegedly did not receive their shares immediately following the transaction’s closing. On December 6, 2024, the Burdi-Dumas action was also amended to include Janet Day as an additional plaintiff and to add new claims. The related lawsuits have now been consolidated and coordinated. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company may have previously accrued. As of December 31, 2025, there were no amounts accrued that the Company believes would be material to its financial position, except as noted above. Further, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities currently cannot be reasonably estimated, except as noted above. Headquartered in Washington, DC, CoStar provides industry-leading data benchmarking and analytics services to the hospitality industry. [BN] CSAA INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 23, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dickson et al., v. CSAA Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-09836-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: Trial date: March 27, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Feb. 10, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Sept. 14, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: June 22, 2027 Last day to hear motion for class certification: Last Day to be heard: Feb. 23, 2027 2:00 p.m. in person Reply due: Feb. 5, 2027 Opposition due: Jan. 15, 2027 Last Day to file Class Dec. 18, 2026 certification motion: CSAA offers auto and home insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CaPbpW at no extra charge.[CC] CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Kvek Sues Over ERISA Breaches -------------------------------------------------- RENEE KVEK, individually and as a representative of a class of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the Cushman & Wakefield 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, U.S., INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00736 (W.D. Wash., March 3, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case concerns the failure by Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc and certain of its affiliates to engage in the thorough, unbiased deliberative process that is legally mandated under ERISA when selecting and monitoring the 401(k) investment options that it offers to tens of thousands of its employees. Allegedly, the Defendants exposed employee retirement savings to significant, unreasonable climate-related financial risk--apparently failing to employ any climate risk management strategy at all. Moreover, the Defendants included the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund as a fund option on the Company's 401(k) menu. As a result, the Defendants' fiduciary failure, Plaintiff and other employees suffered losses to their retirement savings, says the suit. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. provides commercial real estate services including property management, leasing, capital market transactions, and valuation advisory to real estate occupiers and investors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly Blake, Esq. Benjamin Segal, Esq. CLIENT EARTH USA, INC. 501 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 361-7006 - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Mangaroo Sues Over Worker Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOVELLE MANGAROO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02201 (D.N.J., March 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of misclassifying Plaintiff and the putative collective members as exempt employees. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a facility analyst since February 2024. During the Collective Class Period, the Defendant unlawfully failed to pay overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks relief for himself under the applicable provisions of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and for the Collective Class under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to remedy Defendant’s failure to pay all wages due, in addition to injunctive relief. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Cushman & Wakefield U.S. Inc. operates real estate services in the United States and internationally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: FILOSA GRAFF LLP Gregory N. Filosa, Esq. 17 State Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 100004 Telephone: (212) 256-1780 Facsimile: (212) 256-1781 E-mail: gfilosa@filosagraff.com DAVID'S BRIDAL: McCormick Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE MCCORMICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, LLC AND CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01758 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. During each website visit, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise. Moreover, the Defendant failed to design, maintain, and operate its website in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers denies Plaintiff--and all similarly situated individuals--the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, privileges, and advantages. David's Bridal, LLC owns, operates, and controls the commercial retail website, www.davidsbridal.com, which markets and sells wedding dresses, bridesmaid attire, formal wear, accessories, and related products to consumers throughout the United States, including New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY, 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com DBZ ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 4 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.B., R.L., and R.S., individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DBZ ENTERPRISES LLC, doing business as K-CHILL, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-02405-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valenzuela entered an order granting joint stipulation to set class certification briefing schedule and modify pretrial schedule as follows: Event Date The Plaintiffs' motion for class Sept. 4, 2026 certification: The Defendant's opposition to motion for Oct. 16, 2026 class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in further support Nov. 13, 2026 of the motion for class certification: Last date to hear motion for class Dec. 18, 2026 certification: Fact discovery cut-off: May 7, 2027 DBZ specializes in offering a range of high-quality kratom products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9cE69s at no extra charge.[CC] DEL MONTE: Minority Lenders Challenge Fairness of Chapter 11 Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Archer of Law360 reports that the minority lenders in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Del Monte Foods Inc. have filed objections to the company's disclosure statement, describing it as lacking the necessary detail for creditors to evaluate the proposed plan. They argue that the disclosure materials fail to clearly explain key aspects of the restructuring strategy. In addition, the lenders claim the plan itself unfairly disadvantages minority creditors. According to the group, the restructuring framework appears designed to benefit the majority lenders while leaving smaller lenders with limited recovery prospects, according to report. The lenders are asking the bankruptcy court to require the company to revise its disclosures and address what they describe as significant deficiencies in the plan materials. Without additional information, they argue, creditors cannot make an informed decision about whether to support the restructuring, the report states. About Del Monte Foods Corporation II Inc. Del Monte Foods, Inc. produces, distributes, and markets branded plant-based packaged food products in the United States and Mexico. Del Monte Foods Corporation II Inc. and its affiliates filed their voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D.N.J. Lead Case No. 25-16984) on July 1, 2025, listing $1,000,000,001 to $10 billion in both assets and liabilities. Judge Michael B Kaplan presides over the case. Michael D. Sirota, Esq. at Cole Schotz P.C. represents the Debtor as counsel. The U.S. Trustee for Regions 3 and 9 appointed an official committee to represent unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 cases of Del Monte Foods Corporation II, Inc. and its affiliates. The committee hires Morrison & Foerster LLP as counsel. Province, LLC as financial advisor. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP as co-counsel. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. ("Miller Buckfire") as investment banker. DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW DICKSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Matthew Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Direct Energy, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00182, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On May 22, 2024, Defendant Direct Energy filed a motion for summary judgment. On Oct. 4, 2024, Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Henderson entered a Report and Recommendation that Direct Energy's motion for summary judgment be denied. On Dec. 16, 2025, Judge John R. Adams entered an Order rejecting the Report and Recommendation and granting Direct Energy's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds that no evidence exists to create a genuine issue of fact surrounding agency. Instead, the record reflects that no agency relationship exists as a matter of law. Direct Energy's motion for summary judgment, therefore, is granted. The appellate case is styled as Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, et al., Case No. 26-3164, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW DICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL 1114 Dublin Road, Suite 150 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Defendants-Appellees DIRECT ENERGY, LP, et al. are represented by: Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq. David Lee Villarreal, Esq. Diane S. Wizig, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON 1001 Fannin Street 2400 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5580 - and - Neil David Schor, Esq. HARRINGTON, HOPPE & MITCHELL 26 Market Street, Suite 1200 Youngstown, OH 44503 Telephone: (330) 744-1111 - and - Thomas P. Yardley, Jr., Esq. BUCHALTER 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 980-5760 DOXIMITY INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and providing for notice of settlement. The Parties have proposed the certification of the following Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Doximity common stock from June 24, 2021, through Aug. 8, 2023, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) any current or former Officers or directors of Doximity; (iii) the Immediate Family members of Defendant Tangney or any current or former Officer or director of Doximity; (iv) any entity that any excluded person owns or controls, or owned or controlled, during the Class Period; and (v) the successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. 2. The Court also finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to appoint Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and appoint Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement – The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, and finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to finally approve the Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below. 4. The Court will hold a hearing on June 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Doximity operates as a health care online networking service company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vyubNA at no extra charge.[CC] DUPONT SPECIALTY: Bower Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BREANA A. BOWER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. DUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC, and DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00453-RGA (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): (a) Conditionally certifying a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and all others similarly situated; (b) Directing that notice be sent by mail, email, and text message to the following collective: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees of the Defendants who were paid for 40 or more hours of work in any workweek since April 11, 2022 and who did not participate in the settlement reached in Pollock et al. v. DuPont De Nemours, Inc., et al., No. 2024 CV 06 0520, (Ct. Com. Pl. Tuscarawas Cnty., Ohio)." (c) Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms (attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of this Motion); and (d) Directing the Defendants to provide within 14 days of this Order an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format or comma-delimited format a roster of all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs that includes their full names, dates of employment, locations worked, job titles, last known mailing addresses, personal email addresses, and cellular phone numbers ("Class Roster"). DuPont is a science company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0h77Nr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4660 - and - Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP 3208 Clinton Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 815-9500 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com - and - Jason P. Matthews, Esq. JASON P. MATTHEWS, LLP 130 West Second Street, Suite 924 Dayton, OH 45402 Telephone: (937) 608-4368 Facsimile: (888) 577-3589 E-mail: jason@daytonemploymentlawyers.com EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Discloses Private Info to Google, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA STRAIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDFINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01807 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act by disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all Edfinancial account holders who have accessed and used edfinancial.studentaid.gov -- a website owned and operated by Defendant. To create and access their private financial accounts on the website, users must share personally identifying information. When consumers provide this information and navigate their private financial accounts, they expect that their confidential information and activity will be protected and not disclosed to unknown third parties. Such expectations are based, in part, on the legal protections afforded to such information. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, the Defendant discloses information related to consumers' student loan debts to Google LLC, alleges the suit. Edfinancial Services, LLC provides financial services to consumers through the website it maintains, where Edfinancial account holders can manage their student loans and select payment plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com EDGE FITNESS: Underpays Company Employees, Binda Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BINDA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and LAKISIA WEBSTER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDGE FITNESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01351 (E.D. Pa., March 3, 2026) is a class action seeking to redress Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, the Massachusetts Common Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The complaint relates that all Class Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as hourly employees in positions that included as personal trainer. The Defendant paid Class Plaintiffs hourly wages, issued pay checks, and withheld payroll taxes from their paychecks. The Plaintiffs assert that Defendant failed to pay them and those similarly situated earned overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, FMWA, the MA Common Law, and NJWHL. As a consequence of Defendant's actions, they and others similarly situated have suffered damages. Plaintiff Joseph Binda is an adult individual who worked for Defendant as a Personal Trainer at its location in Attleboro, Massachusetts from 2023 until 2024. Plaintiff Lakisia Webster is an adult individual who worked for Defendant as a Personal Trainer at its location in Cherry Hill, New Jersey from August 2023 to December 2024. Defendant Edge Fitness, LLC is a corporation that operates fitness centers throughout the United States, including New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manali Arora, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner St Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 EOS ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Yung v. Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02372, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Eos Energy Enterprises ("Eos Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOSE) securities between November 5, 2025 and February 26, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On February 26, 2026, Eos Energy announced fourth quarter and full year 2025 results, reporting, among other things, full year 2025 revenue of $114.2 million, falling far short of the Company's previously issued guidance of $150 to $160 million. Management attributed these results to, in part, that "battery line downtime ran well above industry norms" and "the ability for the automated bipolar production to hit quality targets took longer than expected." The Company further disclosed it had "uncovered inefficiencies that result in longer end-to-end production times." On this news, Eos Energy's stock price fell $4.39, or 39.4%, to close at $6.74 per share on February 26, 2026, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was unable to achieve the ramp in production and capacity utilization required to achieve its previously set guidance; (2) the Company's battery line downtime was running well above industry norms, the design intent of the line, and internal forecasts; (3) the Company was experiencing delays in the ability for its automated bipolar production to hit quality targets; (4) the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate guidance and that its public disclosures were timely, accurate, and complete; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eos Energy securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, ca 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN] GARY ALLEN: Sinegal Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Sinegal, on behalf of all similarly situated, v. Gary Allen et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00498-TAD-KDM (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification under Rules of Civil Procedure 13. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V7qZys at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] GEN DIGITAL: $9.95MM TCPA Settlement Final Hearing Set July 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Gen Digital Inc., parent company of Norton and LifeLock, has agreed to a $9.95 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited phone calls. The Norton settlement benefits consumers who received a call regarding a LifeLock or Norton account from Gen Digital between Feb. 19, 2021, and Oct. 30, 2025, that used an artificial or prerecorded voice but who did not have a LifeLock or Norton account with Gen Digital. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Gen Digital of violating the TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with calls placed regarding LifeLock and Norton accounts to cellular telephone numbers of persons who are not its customers or accountholders. Gen Digital is the parent company of Norton and LifeLock, which provide identity theft protection and other cybersecurity services. Under the terms of the LifeLock account settlement, class members who submit a valid claim form will be entitled to a share of the settlement fund after administrative costs, attorneys' fees and other expenses are deducted. Each class member who submits a timely and valid claim form will be entitled to an equal share of the Norton settlement fund, estimated to be between $200 and $625, depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is April 13, 2026. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July 14, 2026. The deadline to submit a claim form is April 13, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a call regarding a LifeLock or Norton account, directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, between Feb. 19, 2021, and Oct. 30, 2025, from Gen Digital using an artificial or prerecorded voice are eligible for the settlement. Potential Award $200 to $625 Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide evidence of having received from Gen one or more calls with an artificial or prerecorded voice regarding a LifeLock or Norton account during the settlement class period and attest to the fact that they were not a customer of LifeLock or Norton when they received these calls. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/13/2026 Case Name Michelle Jackson v. Gen Digital Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-MTL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Final Hearing 07/14/2026 Settlement Website JacksonIVRSettlement.com Claims Administrator Jackson v. Gen Digital Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 info@jacksonivrsettlement.com (800) 398-1280 Class Counsel Michael L. Greenwald GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC Anthony I. Paronich PARONICH LAW P.C. Defense Counsel Artin Betpera BUCHALTER P.C. [GN] GIRAYA CONSTRUCTION: Parra and Brito Allege Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- DERIS JAVIER HIDALGO PARRA and HARON JOSE HIDALGO BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GIRAYA CONSTRUCTION LLC, YMA CONTRACTORS LLC, YOUSSEF AHMED and ALEXIS GIRON, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01148 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2026) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as construction workers and laborers. The Plaintiffs were regularly required to work by the Defendants approximately 66 hours each week from in or around July 2024 until in or around November 2025. However, the Plaintiffs were only paid by Defendants a flat daily rate of approximately $200.00 per day during the said period. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Additionally, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs at all for his last two weeks of work. Headquartered in New York, NY, YMA Contractors LLC operates as a construction company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 GLOBAL PRODUCT: Class Cert. Bid in Williams Due March 24 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Williams, et al., v. Global Product Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02264-FMO-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order vacating all pending deadlines and vacating proceedings and denying as moot any pending motion. 1. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement no later than March 24, 2026. The Defendants may also file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval by the same deadline. 2. The Motion shall include appropriate evidentiary support and a thorough discussion of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the parties shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any response to such notice. 4. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order. Global is engaged in the retail sale of fresh fruits and vegetables. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ePL83C at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBE LIFE: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Action for $4.66-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Globe Life Inc. and American Income Life Insurance Co. have reached a $4.66 million settlement with a class of consumers. Why: The consumers alleged Globe Life and American Income Life Insurance failed to adequately protect their personal information in a 2024 data breach. Where: The Globe Life data breach class action settlement was reached in Texas federal court. Globe Life and its subsidiary American Income Life Insurance have reached a $4.66 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming the companies failed to adequately protect the personal information of policyholders and applicants in a 2024 data breach in which hackers attempted to extort money from the company. Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on Feb. 12 in Texas federal court. The settlement provides up to $3.4 million in cash payments to class members and $1.26 million in attorneys' fees for class counsel. Plaintiffs seek to represent more than 530,000 individuals who received notice that their information was potentially exposed. If approved, the Globe Life data breach settlement would resolve claims that Globe Life and American Income Life failed to properly encrypt or redact the sensitive information of clients and insurance applicants, leaving it vulnerable to theft during a 2024 cyberattack targeting American Income Life. The lawsuit consolidated three proposed class actions by current and former policyholders and a policy applicant who received notice that their private information was potentially exposed in the breach. Globe Life data breach settlement provides cash payments, credit monitoring The incident prompted Globe Life to notify approximately 850,000 individuals whose information was stored in databases linked to the breach and to offer them credit monitoring services "out of an abundance of caution," the insurer told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year. Under the proposed settlement, class members may receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented losses as well as compensation for lost time at a rate of $18 per hour for up to four hours. The agreement also provides two years of credit monitoring. "Though the parties remain convinced of the strength of their respective cases, they also understand the risk, complexity, delays and expense of prolonged litigation," plaintiffs said in their motion for preliminary approval of the deal, noting that the agreement is the result of negotiations in recent months. The "relevant factors all weigh in favor of the reasonableness, fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement, so the court should grant preliminary approval," the motion said. Were you affected by the Globe Life 2024 data breach? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Joe Kendall of Kendall Law Group PLLC, Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow, Carl V. Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Kent A. Bronson of Bronson Legal LLC, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg PLLC and Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A. The Globe Life data breach class action settlement is In re: American Income Life Insurance Co. and Globe Life Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:25-cv-00262, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend VRDO Class Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 VRDO-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Group Inc. and GS&Co. were among the defendants named in a putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on June 3, 2019. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the state common law claims against GS&Co., but denying dismissal of the federal antitrust law claims. 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: Faces Klarna Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Klarna Group 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 December 22, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to Klarna Group plc's (Klarna) approximately $1.6 billion September 2025 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Klarna and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 10,850,940 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $434 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: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Supreme Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 along with other underwriters filed writ of certiorari for the Robinhood Markets securities class suit in U.S. Supreme Court. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on December 17, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Robinhood Markets, Inc.'s (Robinhood) approximately $2.2 billion July 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Robinhood and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 18,039,706 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $686 million. On February 10, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend, and on March 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On January 24, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. On October 8, 2025, the defendants' petition for rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was denied. On February 5, 2026, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. 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 Deal in DGI Suit for Court 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 agreement in the DiDi Global Inc. securities class suit is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Global Inc. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on July 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California and New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to DiDi Global Inc.'s (DiDi) $4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering of American Depositary Shares (ADS). In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include DiDi and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 104,554,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. On September 22, 2021, plaintiffs in the California action voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. On May 5, 2022, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On March 14, 2024, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On January 6, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, and on August 13, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On December 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, to resolve the action, which will not require a contribution from GS Asia. 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. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Smith Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tanner Smith, Qimin Wang, and Sabrina Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01410-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for certification of the following classes pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Class: "All persons who (a) enrolled in a doctoral program at Grand Canyon University before Nov. 18, 2023, and (b) paid for one or more continuation courses for that program on or after June 13, 2020." California Subclass: "All Class members who resided in California when they enrolled in a Grand Canyon University online doctoral program." Florida Subclass: "All Class members who resided in Florida when they enrolled in a Grand Canyon University online doctoral program." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint (1) Plaintiffs Smith, Wang, and Palmer as Class Representatives, (2) Plaintiff Wang as Representative for the California Subclass, (3) Plaintiff Palmer as Representative for the Florida Subclass, and (4) the law firms of DiCello Levitt LLP and National Student Legal Defense Network as Class Counsel. Grand Canyon provides services to universities, specializing in program development, online education, and operational support. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CalSLD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Dender, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Peter C. Soldato, Esq. Joseph Frate, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: cdender@dicellolevitt.com alevitt@dicellolevitt.com psoldato@dicellolevitt.com jfrate@dicellolevitt.com - and - Chris Bryant, Esq. Eric Rothschild, Esq. Madeline Wiseman, Esq. Laura Bart, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: chris@defendstudents.org eric@defendstudents.org madeline@defendstudents.org laura@defendstudents.org HARTFORD FIRE: Hair Zone Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAIR ZONE INC. D/B/A SENSATIONNEL, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; THE CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:25-cv-14960-SRC-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stanley R. Chesler entered a judgment that the Plaintiff's complaint against Hartford and Travelers will be dismissed in its entirety because it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, it is apparent based on the nature of the underlying class action that any effort to amend Plaintiff’s Complaint would be futile, so the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. There is no allegation that the named plaintiff's or class members' property have been harmed nor that they will need to remediate such harm at their own expense. Accordingly, the Little Complaint does not seek damages because of "property damage." Instead, the Plaintiff can only point to nebulous allegations regarding the dangerous nature of the Hair Products at issue. The Plaintiff is a corporation that sells synthetic braiding hair, weaves, hair extensions, and wigs ("Hair Products"). Hartford offers auto, home, and fire insurance products. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YlLsA2 at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE: BCBS Seeks Clarification of Class Cert Briefing Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendant Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Montana's (BCBSMT) Motion For Clarification Of Class Certification Briefing Schedule, Or In The Alternative, Extension Of Response Date. The Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (1) clarifying that BCBSMT's response to the Plaintiff's renewed, supplemental motion to certify class Under Rule 23(b)(3) is due on May 1, 2026 (as the current scheduling order provides), rather than within the 14-day default deadline for responses set by Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(B)(ii); or (2) alternatively, extending the deadline for BCBSMT to respond to the Rule 23(b)(3) Motion until May 1, 2026. Merrill is an American investment management and wealth management division of Bank of America. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uhP9yS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728-1694 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. Robert C. Deegan, Esq. Tracy A. Roman, Esq. Elizabeth Parr Hecker, Esq. Emily T. Kuwahara, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 300 N. LaSalle Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 321-4200 E-mail: mbishop@crowell.com rdeegan@crowell.com troman@crowell.com ehecker@crowell.com ekuwahara@crowell.com HIGH POINT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Mahmood Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- AFFAQ MAHMOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH POINT CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORP and SADAQAT ALI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01219 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) for damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that the Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a construction supervisor from June 2, 2024, through his unlawful termination on October 26, 2025. The Defendants' own records establish that Plaintiff worked hundreds of overtime hours. However, the Defendants routinely failed to pay Plaintiff for all his hours worked. In addition, the Plaintiff paid weekly as required under NYLL despite he was employed as a manual worker. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable provisions of the FLSA. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, High Point Construction Group Corp is engaged in construction industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madeline Howard, Esq. Diego Barros, Esq. 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 HIGHPEAK ENERGY: Self Seeks Oilfield Operators' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SELF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHPEAK ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00241-P (N.D. Tex., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Self was employed by the Defendant as an oilfield operator from February 2024 to July 2025. Highpeak Energy, Inc. is an oil and gas company, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net HILTON GRAND: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01337-AJB-VET (S.D. Cal., March 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the California Business and Professions Code due to unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements. According to the complaint, Hilton Grand Vacations flagrantly violates consumer protection laws. Its business model relies on aggressive, high-pressure sales tactics marketed through advertisements engineered to manufacture urgency and distort value. Rather than present straightforward pricing and availability, HGVI deploys countdown timers, exaggerated discount claims, and other artificial scarcity cues to pressure consumers into impulsive purchases. These practices are not incidental -- they are central to HGVI's strategy of driving attendance at its hard-sell timeshare presentations through misleading, urgency-driven promotions. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff recently received numerous messages promoting Defendant's timeshares. Each of the spam messages came from a spoofed, nonsensical address and contained a forged domain untraceable to the Defendant. The messages were also both deceptive and misleading. They contained prominent language that "OFFER ENDS IN" a limited amount of time -- reinforced by a countdown clock -- when in fact the offer is an ongoing evergreen solicitation. The use of a ticking countdown falsely conveys urgency and scarcity, signaling to consumers that they must act immediately or lose access to the advertised pricing, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California resident who received spam e-mail from the Defendant. Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. is a global timeshare company engaged in developing, marketing, selling, managing, and operating timeshare resorts and plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com IRWIN NATURALS: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IRWIN NATURALS, Case No. 1:26-cv-02412 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.irwinnaturals.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com JASON WOOSLEY: Must Release De Corral from Detention ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICAELA DE CORRAL v. JASON WOOSLEY, ET AL., Case No. 4:25-cv-00145-BJB-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Beaton entered an order that the Government must, within five days, either release the Petitioner or else provide her with a bond hearing, consistent with section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The Court further directs the parties to provide a joint status report within seven days of this order to certify compliance with the Court's order. That report should state whether the Petitioner received a bond hearing and its outcome if any. Accordingly, because the Government hasn't offered a reason to doubt the preclusive effect of the Bautista final judgment, it cannot rely on section 1225(b)(2) to subject the Petitioner to mandatory detention during the pendency of her removal proceedings. A group brought a putative class action in the Central District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment on behalf of a nationwide class that the Government's statutory interpretation was wrong. The class includes: "All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination." A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lxFldA at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Certifies Canada-Wide Talc Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a Canada-wide talc class action was certified against Johnson & Johnson on March 4, 2026, by Justice Leiper of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This class action alleges that the Defendants' talc-based Baby Powder products were marketed without adequate warnings about the potential risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer following perineal use. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages arising from the Defendants' alleged misconduct that spanned decades. The decision also certifies Competition Act and provincial consumer protection legislation claims based on the Defendants' false and misleading representations about the safety of Baby Powder. This certification decision follows Justice Leiper's earlier June 25, 2025 decision, which found that the pleadings and evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs met four out of the five certification criteria and adjourned the final determination on certification pending developments in a similar British Columbia action. The parties re-attended before Justice Leiper following developments in the British Columbia action in the Fall of 2025, and Justice Leiper has now found that all five certification criteria are met by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations and the Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the class action. Rochon Genova and Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP, who represent the Plaintiffs and Class Members in this case, welcome this development in the litigation which advances the rights of vulnerable people across Canada. The Canadian proceedings are advancing alongside talc litigation in the United States, where recent trials have resulted in jury verdicts in favour of plaintiffs. For additional information about the case and the judgment, please contact: Paul Miller, Esq. (416) 885-0452 pmiller@hshlawyers.com Joel Rochon -- c/o Jon Sloan – jsloan@rochongenova.com– 416-363-1867 [GN] KIMI CRUSH: Faces E.B. Suit Over Illegal Online Casino Apps ----------------------------------------------------------- E.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIMI CRUSH LIMITED, a California corporation, ANT HIVE CREATIONS, INC., a California corporation, PRINSLOO GLOBAL GROUP, INC., a New York corporation, JOYBOX STUDIO LIMITED, a Nevada corporation, and STARFISH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, a Nevada corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05216 (W.D. Wash. March 3, 2026) arises from a predatory scheme orchestrated by Defendants through various illegal online casino apps, including Bingo Royal and Solitaire Master. To obscure their operations, the Defendants regularly rebrand their gambling apps under new names and new app-store publisher identities. But the apps themselves did not change--each retained the same unique Apple App Store identification number, which remains constant even when an app's name or listed publisher is changed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to expose Defendants' predatory practices, recover funds lost by their victims, and dismantle their deceptive and unregulated gambling operations. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Kimi Crush Limited owns and operates online casino games. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah LaFreniere, Esq. EDELSON PC P.O. Box 75493 Seattle, WA 98125 Telephone: (206) 647-6424 E-mail: slafreniere@edelson.com - and - Michael Ovca, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: movca@edelson.com L BARN ENTERPRISES: Faces Evans Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L Barn Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02259 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to even complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Wheeling, IL, L Barn Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://theliquorbarn.com, which offers alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law LAKE ELSINORE: Pulls Credit Reports Without Consent, Carmona Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- YOSELINE CARMONA and ESTEBAN CARMONA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. LAKE ELSINORE CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.: 26-cv-01354-JLS-MMP (S.D. Cal., March 3, 2026) is a class action to challenge the conduct of the Defendant and its present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for the obtaining consumer reports without a permissible purpose in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs were customers of Defendant and had previously purchased a vehicle from Defendant in April 2025. In August 2025, Plaintiffs briefly discussed the possibility of upgrading their vehicle with Defendant. During that conversation, Defendant advised Plaintiffs that they would not qualify for new financing until they completed at least one year of payment history on their existing vehicle loan. Plaintiffs were advised to return in April 2026. The Plaintiffs did not apply for credit with Defendant at that time, and no credit application was completed in August 2025. After the August 2025 conversation, Plaintiffs had no further communications with Defendant regarding any vehicle purchase, lease, or financing. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs did not authorize Defendant, either orally or in writing, to obtain their consumer credit reports at any time after August 2025. On October 23, 2025, Plaintiffs began receiving multiple credit monitoring alerts notifying them that numerous hard inquiries had been placed on their consumer credit reports. Upon further investigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Defendant had caused numerous hard inquiries to be placed on both Plaintiffs'. In total, Defendant caused approximately 12 or more hard inquiries to be placed on each Plaintiff's credit file in a single day. These inquiries were initiated without Plaintiffs' knowledge, authorization, or consent. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs were forced to spend substantial time and effort reviewing their credit reports, contacting Defendant, disputing inquiries with the credit bureaus, and seeking legal counsel. The Plaintiffs suffered mental anguish, anxiety, frustration, embarrassment, and loss of sleep as a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct. For this reason, the Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, actual damages, and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs Yoseline Carmona and Esteban Carmona are husband and wife and are both consumers. Defendant Lake Elsinore Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, LLC is an automobile dealership located in Lake Elsinore, California, and regularly conducts business within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Spencer L. Pfeiff,, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Spencer@ SwigartLawGroup.com LEVEL FITNESS: Facez Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Level Fitness NY Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-01760 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against Level Fitness NY for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.levelfitnessclubs.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On a number of occasions, and most recently on October 8, 2025, Zhang searched for a local fitness club to purchase a membership online and discovered Defendant's website. Plaintiff Zhang decided to explore the available memberships and offerings with the intent to purchase a membership. However, while navigating the website using the keyboard, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the transaction. The website lacked a "Skip to Content" link, forcing him to navigate through all navigation menu items without the ability to move keyboard focus directly to the main content of the page. These access barriers have caused Levelfitnessclubs.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Level Fitness NY's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Level Fitness NY Inc. operates the website that offers consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, access to fitness facilities equipped for strength and cardio training, group fitness classes, personal training services, and wellness amenities, available through on-site memberships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com LIFEBANC: Bielek Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Bielek, Vincent Lanese, Nataliya Loshak and Ariel Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lifebanc, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00505-DAP (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2026) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for Lifebanc's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees all earned overtime wages. The complaint says that Lifebanc failed to pay Plaintiffs, the Collective Members and the Class Members one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Members are current and former tissue recovery specialists who worked for Lifebanc in the United States at any point between the three years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the present. Lifebanc is an organ and tissue extraction and transportation company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.6MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Long Island Plastic Surgical Group has agreed to pay $2,600,000 to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the plastic surgery practice failed to protect the sensitive patient information stored on its systems from a January 2024 cyberattack. The $2.6 million Long Island Plastic Surgical Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 29, 2026 and covers all living individuals in the United States whose personal information was compromised in the data breach suffered by the practice on or around January 4, 2024. The court-approved website for the Long Island Plastic Surgical Group (LIPSG) data breach settlement can be found at LIPSGSettlement.com. Per the settlement site, LIPSG settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented monetary losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 from the settlement. According to the settlement agreement, class members must submit third-party documentation, such as invoices or receipts, to receive compensation for unreimbursed losses related to fraud or identity theft. The agreement states that reimbursable expenses include professional fees, credit repair services, credit freezes, credit monitoring costs and miscellaneous expenses such as travel and postage. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may file a claim to receive a one-time alternative payment from the settlement with no proof required. The final amount of this payment, the agreement outlines, will be a pro rata (equal share) portion of the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys’ fees, settlement administration costs, lead plaintiff service awards and all other settlement benefits. In addition to either cash payment option, class members whose clinical photographs were compromised in the breach may submit a claim for an additional cash payment of up to $1,000. Settlement documents note that this cash payment may be reduced pro rata depending on the amount remaining in the settlement fund. To submit a Long Island Plastic Surgical Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form from the site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed at the top of the document. All LIPSG settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 18, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, LIPSG has agreed to implement enhanced data security procedures; the company will pay for these updates independently of the settlement fund. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the LIPSG settlement following a hearing on June 2, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Long Island Plastic Surgical Group class action lawsuit claimed that the plastic surgery group, operating multiple practices across the tri-state area, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards to protect sensitive patient information stored on its systems from a data breach that occurred sometime between January 4, 2024 and January 8, 2024. According to the settlement agreement, the private patient information that may have been compromised during the breach included full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, contact information, driver’s license numbers, medical information, health insurance information, financial information and clinical photographs of patients. [GN] LUKS HOLDINGS: Morris Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LUKS HOLDINGS, LLC,, Case No. 2:26-cv-351 (E.D. Wisc., March 4, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.fotoncandle.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com LUV CAR: Harrison Sues Over Unlawful Recurring Payment Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- JARED HARRISON, BRIAN ZAHN, and LAQUITA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUV CAR WASH GROUP, LLC; LUV CAR WASH HOLDINGS, LLC; LUV CAR WASH SOUTHWEST, LLC, Case No. 26STCV07197 (March 4, 2026) seeks to enjoin the Defendants from profiting from the unlawful scheme designed to extract recurring payments from California consumers without the clear disclosures, affirmative consent, or lawful enrollment required by the ARL, and to secure restitution, consumer refunds, and disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits. After enrolling customers without lawful consent, LUV violates the ARL by failing to provide a simple, accessible, and effective method of cancellation. Customers, including Plaintiffs, encounter broken or nonfunctional online cancellation portals, or other barriers that prevent termination of the subscription while Defendants continue to collect recurring payments. By making automatic renewal offers and continuous service offers described above in violation of the ARL, LUV engaged in unlawful and deceptive business practices in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code; and California's False Advertising Law. To address these deceptive practices, California enacted the Automatic Renewal Law, California Business and Professions Code sections 17600, et seq., which requires businesses to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures, obtain affirmative consent to enrollment after disclosing all material terms, and offer a straightforward and accessible method of cancellation. The Defendants do none of this. Instead, LUV built and employs a uniform enrollment system that enrolls consumers into automatically renewing subscriptions without clear, adequate, or meaningful disclosures or consent, allowing Defendants to collect recurring payments without lawful authorization. Compounding the harm, the Defendants make it difficult, if not impossible, to cancel these subscriptions, leaving consumers unable to stop the recurring charges for months at a time, the lawsuit says. LUV Car Wash Group, LLC operates as an auto repair center. The Company provides car washing, tire shine, ceramics, paint protectant, and drying services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Kathryn Bonifas, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com kbonifas@clarksonlawfirm.com LUXURY WATCHES: Figueroa Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LUXURY WATCHES USA CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-02409 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website, www.luxurywatchesusa.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Liranzo Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL LIRANZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-01791 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and approximately 130,000 other similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected computer network systems, including the Oracle E Business Suite in August 2025. As a part of its operations, the Defendant allegedly collects, maintains, and stores in the Systems personally identifiable and financial information of its current and former employees, including that of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant owns and operates a portfolio of iconic venues, including Madison Square Garden, a world-famous multi-purpose indoor arena located in New York City, USA. The Defendant's Systems use the Oracle E-Business Suite to automate its business operations across finance, manufacturing, human resources, and supply chains. MSG Entertainment is an American entertainment holding company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Erik Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com MATRIX CABLE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Churchwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES CHURCHWELL, DEMORA WILLIAMS, and JERMON WALKER on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATRIX CABLE, LLC and ITG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00166 (E.D. Va., March 3, 2026) is a collective and class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia misclassification law, and Virginia common law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants do not and did not pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated: (i) an hourly wage; (ii) minimum wage; (iii) all overtime wages earned for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Defendants misclassify the cable technicians they hire as independent contractors and fail to pay them the wages required under the FLSA, VWPA, VOWA, and VMWA, including overtime pay, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs for Defendants' willful, unlawful, and improper conduct. Plaintiff James Churchwell is a resident of Virginia and was employed as a cable technician for Defendants from August 7, 2024 to April 3, 2025. Plaintiff Demora Williams is a resident of Virginia and was employed as a cable technician for Defendants from August 20, 2024 to June 2025. Plaintiff Jermon Walker is a resident of Virginia and was employed as a cable technician for Defendants from January 2024 to June 2024, and from October 2024 to March 2025. Defendant Matrix Cable, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its registered office is located in Richmond, Virginia. Matrix provides telecommunications installation services and technical support for customers in the Richmond, Virginia metropolitan area. Defendant ITG Communications, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas and has its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. It is a nationwide leading provider of installation, fulfillment, construction, and project management services to the cable, telecommunications, and utility industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tiffany Joseph Goodson, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT A TTORNEYS LLP 3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (202) 919-5952 E-mail: tjosephgoodson@hkm.com - and - Gian Fanelli, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT A TTORNEYS LLP 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 978-3272 E-mail: gfanelli@hkm.com MELINDA'S FOODS: Young Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance with ADA ------------------------------------------------------------------ LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all otherpersons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MELINDA'S FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01719 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://melindas.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Melinda's Foods, LLC owns and operates the website which offers pepper sauce and condiments for sale. [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 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH VALELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certifies the Plaintiff to act as a representative of a class consisting of: "All persons who had one or more Merrill Edge retirement accounts with cash balances that were swept pursuant to the Retirement Asset Savings Program at any time during the period Dec. 15, 2016, through March 15, 2020." Wolf Popper LLP is appointed as class counsel. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 305. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding trial. Not later than Thursday, March 19, 2026, the parties must file a joint letter informing the Court how long they expect trial will take and providing three mutually convenient dates for trial between June 15, 2026, and Dec. 15, 2026 (but not during the last two weeks of August or the first three weeks of September). The letter should also indicate whether the parties would like a referral for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Wang. The parties must appear for a conference to discuss the trial on Friday, March 27, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 20C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007 The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant breached its contract with her by failing to pay a reasonable rate of interest on cash balances in certain retirement accounts that Merrill "swept" into deposit accounts at a Merrill affiliated bank. The Defendant is a registered broker-dealer that offers a brokerage product called Merrill Edge Self-Directed Investing. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kv4zLF at no extra charge.[CC] MIDLAND FUNDING: Bid to Compel Retainer Agreements Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SVETLANA LERNER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-07838-BRM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to compel all retainer agreements between the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the Plaintiff's counsel, the Kim Law Firm, LLC. In conclusion, while discovery is broad at the pretrial stage, it is not unlimited. Requests for production must still demonstrate how the requested information is relevant or necessary, particularly where the information sought is likely to implicate legitimate privacy interests or other sensitive information. The Defendants' premature concerns over Rule 23 adequacy and their reliance on nonbinding out-of-circuit decisions will not compel production of the plaintiff's fee agreements here. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to compel is denied. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, New Jersey on May 29, 2020. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), by regularly collecting or attempting to collect on past due debts to which they were not entitled. Midland is a debt relief law firm. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCdWHX at no extra charge.[CC] MONROE COUNTY, NY: Retains Property Sale Proceeds, Patrick Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KARA PATRICK, on behalf of the Estate of Dennis Patrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK et al., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-06250 (W.D.N.Y., February 27, 2026) accuses the Defendant of unlawfully and unfairly taking Class members' property for public use without providing proper compensation. According to the complaint, Defendant Monroe County foreclosed on the Patrick Property due to approximately $8,885.49 in taxes, fees, and/or penalties owed. Instead of only keeping amounts owed in taxes and reimbursing taxpayers any remaining balances, the Defendant unconstitutionally took and retained all the property sale proceeds including any extra proceeds which can be the entire amount of the sale amount or the full equity of the property not including reductions for what may be owed in taxes and associated fees, wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of any opportunity to regain any of the extra proceeds from the sale of her former property to a third party, being approximately $60,114.51, which is the approximate difference between the price for which the County sold the property ($69,000.00) and the amount owed of ($8,885.49), and which the County retained without returning to, or for which the County has failed to compensate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant and asserts claims for violations of the U.S. and New York Constitutions. Monroe County is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York state. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan S. Thompson, Esq. Claire A. Esmonde, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com cesmonde@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 E-mail: rkshelquist@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles Barrett CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 4235 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 293-7375 E-mail: cbarrett@cuneolaw.com - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 E-mail: cercone@ruppfalzgraf.com MUNDI 910 VICTORIA: 2020 Fire Class Settlement Reaches $5.25-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Mackin, writing for Prince George Citizen, reports that a $5.25 million settlement has been reached in the class action lawsuit over the 2020 Prince George motel fire that killed three people. CFM Lawyers LLP and Dick Byl Law Corp., firms representing anyone who was injured or lost property, said March 5 that the sum is the proposed settlement for the July 8, 2020 fire at the Prince George Econo Lodge Motel. One of the occupants, Leonard Hay, is the representative plaintiff. In his August 2020-filed claim, he accused Mundi 910 Victoria Enterprises Ltd., Choice Hotels Canada Inc., the City of Prince George and All Points Fire Protection Ltd. of negligence. In December 2022, Justice Marguerite Church deemed Hay a suitable representative plaintiff for the common cause and certified the lawsuit as a class action. A statement from the law firm said that the proposed settlements do not involve findings or admissions of wrongdoing. "This fire was a tragedy. Our legal system can never truly address the losses of the guests who were injured or the families of the three who were killed," Jamie Thornback of CFM Lawyers said. "We started this class action to get fair compensation for the people who were injured by this fire. These settlements achieve that goal." On July 30, lawyers will go to Prince George Courthouse to seek a judge's approval of the settlement and protocol for distributing funds and fees. If approved, the claims will be settled without a trial. Deadline to contact the lawyers is June 3 for people who fall under the following categories: registered guests at the hotel on July 8, 2020; people present at the hotel on July 8, 2020 at the time of the fire; people present at Yolks All-Day Family Restaurant on July 8, 2020 at the time of the fire, and family members of the people who died in the fire. In May 2023, BC Supreme Court Justice Margot Fleming acquitted suspect Kyle Aster of arson and criminal negligence causing death. The case relied on a video showing Aster in the area around the time the fire broke out. But the video evidence did not show anyone actually setting the fire. Investigators could not determine how the blaze was set. [GN] NAVIENT CORP: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Ballard's Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting them an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have not met their evidentiary burden to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and their motion for class certification should be summarily denied. In the event that the Court is not inclined to deny the Plaintiffs' motion on the papers, however, Navient submits that an evidentiary hearing should be held on the class certification issue so that the Court can undertake the "rigorous analysis" required by controlling precedents of the United States Supreme Court as well as the Third Circuit. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5oQ4Uc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 E-mail: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Brier, Esq. Donna A. Walsh, Esq. Richard L. Armezzani, Esq. MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP 425 Biden Street, Suite 200 Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 342-6100 E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com dwalsh@mbklaw.com rarmezzani@mbklaw.com - and - Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq. Jonathan M. Marmo, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-7576 E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com jonathan.marmo@hklaw.com NILES FURNITURE: Lamperis Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NILES FURNITURE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02403 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.milwaukeefurniture.net, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NORTHWELL HEALTH: Kempf Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA KEMPF, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01237 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2026) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was initially hired by Defendant in or about March 2022 as a radiology technician. Allegedly, Defendant manipulated both the beginning and end of shift time records of Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant to reflect less time worked when Defendant submitted these employees' records to payroll, resulting in less time paid than time worked. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover 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 FLSA, and/or all applicable New York State wage and hour laws. Headquarters in New Hyde Park, NY, Northwell Health provides treatment and other healthcare services in New York. [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 - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Amy C. Winters, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com awinters@lawjw.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 NORTHWEST MEDICAL: ClassAction.org Probes Potential Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Northwest Medical Homes 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 Northwest Medical Homes data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Northwest Medical Homes Security Incident: What Happened? Northwest Medical Homes has announced a data breach that may have exposed personal and health information. A notice posted to the company's website states that on May 13, 2025, the company detected unauthorized access to its network. Northwest Medical Homes launched an incident response, bringing in third-party experts to secure the network and complete a digital forensic investigation to assess the breach's impact. According to the website notice, the information compromised in the Northwest Medical Homes data breach may include names, addresses, dates of birth, medical details, and health insurance information. For some, Social Security numbers may also have been affected. It was determined that the incident occurred between March 19, 2025 and May 20, 2025. Northwest Medical Homes now operates as Springfield Family Physicians and has three offices in Springfield and Eugene, Oregon. What You Can Do After the Northwest Medical Homes Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Northwest Medical Homes 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 Northwest Medical Homes to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] OLINSKY & ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Leon-Roman Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE LEON-ROMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OLINSKY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00462-ECC-CBF (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the settlement described in the "Settlement Agreement" between the Plaintiff and Olinsky; (2) preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class for purposes of Settlement; (3) appointing the Plaintiff Felipe Leon-Roman as Class Representative; (4) appointing Casondra Turner of Milberg PLLC as Class Counsel; (5) approving the notice plan set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (6) appointing Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement Administrator; (7) approving the form and content of the Short Notice (Ex. C) and Long Notice (Ex. A); and (8) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a final order approving the Settlement, final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, and the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and the Plaintiff's service award. The terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and consistent with precedent concerning class settlements in this Circuit and elsewhere. The Settlement provides the exact relief sought by the lawsuit (i.e., both monetary and injunctive relief). The Settlement provides timely and excellent benefits to the Settlement Class. If finally approved, all Settlement Class Members will automatically receive a $40 cash payment and an Enrollment Code for three years of state-of-the-art identity theft protection and credit monitoring. No claim need be filed to receive these benefits – all Settlement Class Members will receive both checks and enrollment codes automatically. The Settlement also provides sweeping injunctive relief whereby Defendant agrees to implement enhanced data security measures outlined in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement provides for the certification of a Settlement Class defined as: "all persons identified by Olinsky & Associates, PLLC as being among those individuals impacted by the Data Breach, including all who were sent notice of the Data Breach." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) the Defendant Olinsky, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendant's officers, directors, partners, employees, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and members of their immediate families and their judicial staff. There are approximately 521 individuals in the Settlement Class. This case arises out of the cybersecurity incident (the "Data Incident") that was discovered by the Defendant on or around Jan. 28, 2025. The Defendant is a law firm headquartered in Syracuse, New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gI3ZQv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com rkassan@milberg.com ORAL ESSENTIALS: Cole Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance with ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oral Essentials, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04055-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 27, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://lumineuxhealth.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Moreover, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiffs and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. Headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA, Oral Essentials, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers oral care products for sale.[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 : (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PAPAYA ORGANICS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPAYA ORGANICS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02433 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 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.herbalgoodnessco.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: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, 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. Papaya Organics Limited Liability Company is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PAYBYPHONE US: Agrees to Settle Parking Meter App Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Justin Alicea filed a class action lawsuit against PayByPhone US Inc. and PayByPhone Technologies Inc. Why: Alicea alleges PayByPhone's mobile app begins charging consumers for parking before they have confirmed and paid for the transaction. Where: The PayByPhone class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that PayByPhone's mobile parking meter app deceptively begins charging consumers for parking sessions while they are still on the payment selection screen. Plaintiff Justin Alicea filed the complaint Feb. 11, 2026, in a California federal court, alleging that the company's business practices violate multiple state and federal consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, PayByPhone's digital interface departs from the long-standing "payment-first" model used by traditional parking meters, where a timer only begins counting after a transaction is processed. Instead, the PayByPhone class action claims the parking meter app initiates the parking session in the background as soon as a user selects a duration, even before they have selected a payment method or clicked the final "Pay" button. The proposed class action lawsuit seeks to represent users who paid for parking via the app within the last four to six years in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Washington, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Class action: PayByPhone profits from deceptive practice Alicea alleges that the parking meter app's interface is designed to obscure this early start time by displaying a static duration. For example, if a user selects "15 minutes" of parking, the payment screen continues to show "Parking for 15 m" even if the user spends several minutes entering new credit card information or navigating the app. Consequently, once the payment is finally confirmed, the user may find they have significantly less than the 15 minutes they paid for. The lawsuit asserts that PayByPhone has a direct economic incentive to "shortchange" users. In many cities, such as San Francisco, PayByPhone earns a flat service fee for every transaction processed -- such as 35 cents per session. By causing parking sessions to expire earlier than expected, the company allegedly increases the likelihood that a user will either pay for a second "extension" transaction or vacate the spot for a new customer to start a new paid session. Alicea, a regular user of the app in San Francisco, claims he was unaware his timer was running during the checkout process and was shortchanged by at least a minute on his reservations. He maintains that had the parking meter app provided a live countdown or clear disclosure, he would have initiated the payment process only when he was ready for the timer to start or used a physical meter instead. The plaintiff alleges fraud by omission, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection acts. Alicea is seeking class certification, restitution, damages and a jury trial. Last year, CAVU eCommerce agreed to a $425,000 settlement to resolve claims it failed to disclose mandatory service charges for online bookings on airportparkingreservations.com and airportparking.com. The plaintiff is represented by Yaman Salahi, Nicole Cabañez and Taylor Applegate of Salahi P.C. The PayByPhone class action lawsuit is Alicea v. PayByPhone US Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01266, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] PITCH PERFECT: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- REUBEN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PITCH PERFECT SOLUTIONS LLC and BORIS SHVARTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00230-UNA (D. Del., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt call center employee since approximately June 2022. Pitch Perfect Solutions, LLC is a call center operator based in Dover, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Gellert, Esq. GELLERT SEITZ BUSENKELL & BROWN, LLC 1201 N. Orange Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 425-5806 Email: rgellert@gsbblaw.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com PRIME CARE: Faces Guin Suit Over Field Coordinators' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- KENDALL J. GUIN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PRIME CARE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00142-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., March 2, 2026) is a collective action against Prime Care pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime pay violations. Plaintiff Guin brings this action for herself and all current and/or former employees of Prime Care who were misclassified as exempt, salary-paid employees, but who worked for Prime Care in a direct care position Prime Care called "Field Coordinator." The Plaintiff and her fellow Field Coordinators were not properly paid overtime for the many hours each worked in excess of 40 each week, says the suit. Prime Care is headquartered in Terre Haute, Indiana and provides in-home, Medicaid-waiver paid services to disabled and incapacitated individuals in a nine county area in West Central and South West Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street P.O. Box 1527 Terre Haute, IN 47808 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmtlawfirm.com PROGENITY INC: Settlement of Securities Litig. Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California entered an order granting lead plaintiff's motion for final approval of a $1,000,000 class action settlement and granting lead counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses in In Re Progenity, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiffs in the case are Lin Shen, Lingjun Lin, and Fusheng Lin. On behalf of themselves and similarly situated investors, Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77k and 77o arising from Progenity Inc.'s June 2020 initial public offering against three groups of defendants: (1) Progenity; (2) Harry Stylli, Eric d'Esparbes, Jeffrey Alter, John Bigalke, Jeffrey Ferrell, Brian L. Kotzin, Samuel Nussbaum, and Lynne Powell ("Individual Defendants"); and (3) Piper Sandler & Co., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and BTIG, LLC ("Underwriter Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially misleading statements in the Registration Statement issued in connection with Progenity's IPO by failing to disclose that: (i) Progenity had overbilled government payors for its Preparent genetic tests; (ii) shortly before the IPO Progenity abandoned its key illegal marketing practice of waiving patient payment amounts; and (iii) at the time of the IPO Progenity suffered from negative trends in test volumes, test average selling prices, and revenue. The Court finds that the $1,000,000 non-revisionary Settlement Amount provides adequate relief to the Settlement Class relative to Defendants' potential exposure based on the strength of the Parties' positions and the risk of further litigation. The Court also reaffirms its prior conclusion, set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, and finds that the Settlement was achieved in the absence of collusion. Balancing the complexity, uncertainty, and delay of continued litigation against the immediacy and certainty of settlement, the Court concludes the Settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The Final Approval Motion is therefore granted. In this case, the requested $250,000 in attorneys' fees represents a 25% benchmark of the Settlement Amount. This amount represents a 0.29 negative multiplier on Lead Counsel's lodestar, which is approximately $850,081.25 as of January 8, 2026 and is based on 875.65 collective hours of work The Court finds the PSLRA awards to the Lead Plaintiffs are appropriate. Accordingly, the Court grants the request for service awards. Given the efforts expended, the results obtained for this type of high-risk case, and the compromise reached in the best interests of the class members, the Court finds the requested amount of attorneys' fees are reasonable and therefore grants the award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $250,000. Lead Counsel seeks reimbursement of $79,409.10 in expenses, which is within the maximum preliminarily approved by the Court and noticed to the Class Members. The Court finds that Lead Counsel's out-of-pocket costs were reasonably incurred in connection with the prosecution of this litigation and were advanced by Lead Counsel for the benefit of the Class. Accordingly, the Court grants the request for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the full amount of $79,409.10. Plaintiffs also seek $2,500 for each of the three Lead Plaintiffs. The Court finds the PSLRA awards to the Lead Plaintiffs are appropriate. Accordingly, the Court grants the request for service awards and awards $2,500 to each Lead Plaintiff for a total of $7,500. Additional terms of the Court order: 1. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Progenity, Inc. (n/k/a Biora Therapeutics, Inc.) pursuant and/or traceable to Progenity's initial public offering Registration Statement and were damaged thereby. 2. The Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair and reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class members. The Court finally approves the Settlement Amount of $1,000,000 as a non-reversionary settlement payment to settle and resolve all claims in the action by or on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court therefore directs the Parties and the Claims Administrator to effectuate the Settlement according to its terms and conditions. 3. The Court finally approves Glancy, Prongay, & Murray LLP as adequate Lead Counsel and awards Lead Counsel $250,000 in attorneys' fees and $79,409.10 in litigation expenses. 4. The Court finally approves Lead Plaintiffs Lin Shen, Lingjun Lin, and Fusheng Lin as adequate Class Representatives and grants PSLRA awards of $2,500 for each Lead Plaintiff, for a total of $7,500. This action and all released claims set forth in the Settlement Agreement are dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 4, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0diDcU Biora Therapeutics Inc., formerly Progenity, Inc., creates innovative smart pills designed for targeted drug delivery to the GI tract and systemic, needle-free delivery of biotherapeutics. It develops therapies to improve patients' lives. Biora Therapeutics Inc. sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 24-12849) on December 27, 2024. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets between $10 million and $50 million and estimated liabilities between $100 million and $500 million. The Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon handles the case. The Debtor tapped McDermott Will & Emery LLP as counsel, MTS Health Partners as investment banker, and Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC as administrative advisor. Evora Partners, LLC is also tapped to provide the Debtor with a chief transition officer (CTO) and certain additional personnel. The case was converted to Chapter 7 on May 27, 2025. PULMONARY EXCHANGE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Johnson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD JOHNSON, individually and for others similarly situated v. PULMONARY EXCHANGE, LTD. d/b/a PEL/VIP and MIDWEST NURSE STAFF, Case No. 1:26-cv-02330 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week but the Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant deducts 30 minutes a day from Plaintiff and its other hourly employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break. The auto-deduct policy violates the state and federal laws by depriving the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees of overtime wages of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay for overtime hours worked, says the suit. Plaintiff Johnson was employed as a respiratory therapist by the Defendant from approximately June 2021 until November 2024. Pulmonary Exchange, Ltd. is a full-service respiratory company providing cardio-pulmonary disease management programs, staffing, equipment, and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Pierce Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORI PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00251 (M.D. Tenn., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for gross negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. QualDerm Partners, LLC, is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bower Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA BOWER and DANIEL HOEFER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00236 (M.D. Tenn., March 2, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiffs and other current and former patients and employees of Defendant. On February 24 2026, the Defendant posted a public notice of the data breach which states that they determined their network had been accessed by an unknown actor on December 24, 2025. The data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sue Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) gross negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. QualDerm Partners, LLC is a Brentwood, Tennessee-based dermatology management organization that partners with dermatology practices across multiple states to provide healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Radtke Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BETH RADTKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00245 (M.D. Tenn., March 3, 2026) is a class action against QualDerm for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendant with their private information and/or the private information of their family members. Because of this, QualDerm has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite QualDerm's duty to safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' private information, this information was compromised in a data breach when, on December 24, 2025, QualDerm detected unauthorized activity on certain systems within its network, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now exposed to cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, the suit alleges. QualDerm Partners, LLC is a dermatology management services organization that partners with and supports affiliated dermatology practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com - and - Kevin Sharp, Esq. Leigh Anne St. Charles, Esq. Kasi Wautlet, Esq. Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7010 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com kwautlet@sanfordheisler.com kmcgregor@sanfordheisler.com RAOUL'S RESTAURANT: Faces Orcel Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAOUL'S RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02250-ES-CF (D.N.J., March 4, 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, www.raouls.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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. Raoul's Restaurant Corporation is a restaurant company in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RECYCLINE INC: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Morris Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECYCLINE, INC., D/B/A PRESERVE, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00353 (E.D. Wis., March 4, 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, www.preserve.eco, 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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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. Recycline, Inc., doing business as Preserve, is a company that sells online goods and services in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RICHARD J. KNAPP: Ferebee Sues Over Unlawful Fee Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- WYNTON FEREBEE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RICHARD J. KNAPP & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ICAFS, INC., d/b/a GENERAL SERVICES CORPORATION, a/k/a GSC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00160-DJN (E.D. Va., February 27, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful collections of fees from Plaintiff and similarly situated Virginia residents. The Plaintiff asserts that fees were not reasonable, not memorialized in any agreement to which Defendant Richard J. Knapp & Associates, P.C. is a party, and illegal pursuant to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, and in clear violation of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that Richard J. Knapp & Associates, P.C. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act., Section 1692f, by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt, including the collection of unlawfully excessive attorney's fees, and Section 1692 by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection of unlawfully excessive attorney's fees. Richard J. Knapp & Associates, P.C. is a law firm in Henrico County, VA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com - and - Phillip T. Storey, Esq. VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER 919 E. Main Street, Suite 619 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 418-3210 Facsimile: (804) 649-0974 E-mail: phil@vplc.org RUGSUSA LLC: Parties in Hong Seek to Vacate Class Cert Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order vacating class certification deadlines pending resolution of the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion to amend complaint to add new class representatives. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rer14o at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Abby Meyer, Esq. P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Abby Meyer, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLING, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 SKY CITY: Faces Class Suit Over Malta-Based Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------- RNZ reports that a so-far, unnamed United States-funded group is leading a class action lawsuit against SkyCity.com's Malta-based online gambling platform, which has been operating since 2020. In a statement to the market, casino operator Sky City Entertainment Group said the class action group was "seeking to test the lawfulness of the online gaming operations" operated by Europe-based Silvereye on behalf of SkyCity's Malta subsidiary. The class action is over gambling monies lost to SkyCity Online between February 2020 and February 2026. SkyCity set up the Malta operations after it began losing potential earnings to overseas online operators who had been marketing gambling services to New Zealand residents. SkyCity believed the Malta operation would allow it to legally operate a platform using the SkyCity brand, while still complying with New Zealand laws, including tax regulations and host responsibility rules which applied in New Zealand. RNZ understands that belief is what was being tested by the class action group, who were understood to be seeking refunds for every New Zealand gambler who ever lost a bet on the Malta-based SkyCity platform, on the premise that the online platform was illegal. SkyCity said it denied any such liability and would actively defend the proceedings. The company said it was still reviewing the legal action and would make no further comment. [GN] SMOKY MOUNTAIN: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible ----------------------------------------------------- Dustin Youngren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Smoky Mountain Knife Works, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02136 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through its Website https://smkw.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of outdoor and cutting-related gear, including knives, camping utensils, hammocks, fire-starting kits, flashlights, backpacks, hunting supplies, and knife-related accessories, along with apparel such as hats, shirts, jackets, shorts, and footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLNO) common stock between March 26, 2025 and November 4, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until May 5, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Soleno class action lawsuit. Captioned City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. Soleno Therapeutics, Inc., No. 26-cv-01979 (N.D. Cal.), the Soleno class action lawsuit charges Soleno and certain of Soleno's top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Soleno class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-soleno-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-slno.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Soleno is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapeutics for the treatment of rare diseases. At the time of the Soleno class action lawsuit's filing, Soleno's only commercial product is diazoxide choline extended-release tablets ("DCCR") for the treatment of hyperphagia in individuals afflicted with Prader-Willi syndrome ("PWS"). The Soleno class action lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period failed to disclose that: (i) the Soleno Phase 3 clinical trial program for DCCR had systematically downplayed, misrepresented, and/or concealed significant evidence of safety concerns potentially related to the administration of DCCR, including issues related to excess fluid retention in clinical trial participants; (ii) as a result, the administration of DCCR to treat hyperphagia in individuals with PWS posed materially greater safety risks than disclosed by Soleno or its executives; and (iii) consequently, DCCR had materially lower commercial viability and undisclosed risks related to the likelihood of significant and widespread adverse events after its commercial launch, including risks related to patient discontinuation rates, lower patient adoption, prescriber reluctance, adverse regulatory action, and potential reputational and legal fallout. On August 15, 2025, the Soleno investor class action alleges that Scorpion Capital LLC published a critical report regarding Soleno, DCCR, and Soleno's Phase 3 clinical trial program, titled "Russian Roulette With Prader-Willi Children: How The Latest Rare Disease Price-Gouging Scheme Fleeced the FDA, Parents, And Its Own Study Investigators With A Worthless, Toxic Drug; Suspect Data; And Sham Clinical Trials To Push A $500K/Year Knockoff Of A 50-Year-Old Generic Compound -- Triggering One Of The Worst Launch Failures And Safety Catastrophes In Post-Approval History." On this news, the price of Soleno common stock declined nearly 12% over two trading days, the complaint alleges. Then, on September 10, 2025, Soleno filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a current event report on Form 8-K disclosing that a patient had died after taking DCCR, the Soleno shareholder lawsuit alleges. On this news, the price of Soleno common stock declined approximately 19% over two trading days, the complaint alleges. Finally, on November 4, 2025, Soleno reported its financial results for its third fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2025, revealing that the Scorpion Capital Report had caused a "disruption" in DCCR's launch trajectory and concerns within the PWS community, with a lower number of patient start forms and increased discontinuations beginning after the report's publication, the Soleno class action alleges. On this news, the price of Soleno common stock declined approximately 27%, the complaint alleges The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Soleno common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Soleno class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Soleno investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Soleno shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Soleno class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Court Approves "Miller" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as BRADLEY MILLER, KAYLA KILPATRICK, and BLAKE BUMANN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 3.23-cv-2597-JPG (S.D. Ill.), Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the parties' joint motion to approve a settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs are employed as Telecommunicators who manage 911 calls for St. Clair County's Emergency Management Administration, a subdivision of the County. They were assigned to work eighty hours in a two-week period such that one week they worked more than forty hours and one week they worked less. Under the Work Week Policy, the County paid overtime premiums only for hours worked over eighty hours in a two-week period, even where employees worked over forty hours in a one-week period. The Plaintiffs alleged this violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, Section 201-219 (Count I) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Section 105/1-15 (Count II). The Court found a bona fide dispute between the parties about how to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for workers not assigned to a traditional 40-hour work week. The settlement obtained all of the wages the Plaintiffs claimed based on the Work Week Policy, though it did not include an award of liquidated damages. The Court further noted that the underpayment was not in bad faith but consistent with the Defendant's honest belief about the proper way to calculate overtime pay. The Defendant also began paying overtime based on a 40-hour work week very soon after the lawsuit was filed. All parties were represented by experienced counsel who appear to have negotiated the settlement at arm's length and in good faith. The Court also approved attorney's fees of $80,000, applying the lodestar method. Though the award exceeded twice the total amount awarded to the Plaintiffs, the Court approved it as reasonable, noting the County had approved the fee award and a local counsel affidavit supported the hourly rate charged. The Court further noted that the cut from the approximate lodestar total of $125,000 to $80,000 fairly compensated counsel for their limited success, as the Plaintiffs had no success challenging the Break Policy. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment of dismissal of the case. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated March 6, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=orn5Qc from PacerMonitor.com STATE AND LIBERTY: Haviland Balks at Use of Data Broker Software ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE AND LIBERTY CLOTHING COMPANY, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00677-CSK (E.D. Cal., March 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software and code supplied by Twitter/X and Meta, without obtaining consent or authorization in violation of the California's Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses data broker software on its website http://stateandliberty.comto secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the website users, including Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant and the website utilize software owned by the social media platform-operating entities X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and Meta (formerly Facebook) that operates in a substantially similar manner. Both Defendant and the third-party data collectors involved benefit commercially and financially from this surveillance. The surveillance and collected user data are used to target website visitors for specific marketing, among other things, says the suit. State and Liberty Clothing Company, LLC is a nationwide clothing online and brick-and-mortar retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com STATE FARM: Court Strikes Safont's Previously Filed Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting plaintiffs' unopposed emergency motion to strike previously filed motion for class certification. On Feb. 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike and/or Seal the Previously Filed Motion for Class Certification, but, on Feb. 20, 2026, the Court denied the Motion to Strike and/or Seal. According to State Farm, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed as Docket Entry 102, contains redactions that may be manipulated to make confidential information legible, creating a direct, immediate and substantial harm that may occur to State Farm’s interest in maintaining confidentiality. State Farm provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GBYgjd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 200 Southeast Second Avenue Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and – Paulino A. Núñez Jr., Esq. Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: pan@rtgn-law.com frr@rtgn-law.com - and – Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745-2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com SUNBELT RENTALS: Boucher Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. The case is styled as Alberto Phillip Boucher, Jr., individually, and on behalf of similarly situated aggrieved employees v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., a North Carolina corporation; Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV06420 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sunbelt Rentals -- https://www.sunbeltrentals.com/ -- provide the tools, equipment, and support our customers need to build and maintain the world around us.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Karczewski, Esq. Natalie McGuire, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222 Fax: (213) 382-2230 Email: jkarczewski@ejlglaw.com nmcGuire@ejlglaw.com T&T ENERGY: Corral Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Corral, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. T&T ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00567-DLM-KRS (D.N.M., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought as a result of Defendant's failure to pay proper and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NM Wage Law"). The Defendant paid Plaintiff their regular rate for some of their overtime hours worked. In other words, Defendant did not pay an overtime premium for all hours worked over forty each week. The Defendant did not pay other Technicians an overtime premium for all hours worked over forty each week. The Defendant set the work schedule for Plaintiff and other Technicians. The Plaintiff and other Technicians logged their time in timesheets. The Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other Technicians worked over forty hours in at least some weeks. The Defendant deprived Plaintiff and other Technicians of sufficient overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty in a week. The Plaintiff worked at multiple job sites while employed with Defendant, and the pay policies were consistent at each job site. The Defendant made no reasonable efforts to ascertain and comply with applicable law. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA and the NM Wage Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Technician in the last three years. The Defendant has been involved in the business of providing oilfield services in New Mexico and Texas over the last three years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com TARGET CORP: Faces Kessler Suit Over Illegal Sales Tax Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KESSLER, individually and all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION d/b/a TARGET STORES, Case No. 1:26-cv-21438-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for the practice of systematically misrepresenting, charging and collecting amounts represented to be Florida sales and use tax for purchases of tax-exempt Baby and Toddler Products in the Florida stores of defendant. The Plaintiff class consists of all persons who were charged sales tax on tax-exempt Baby and Toddler Products at a Target Stores retail store in Florida during the period from July 1, 2023, to present. The complaint alleges that Florida retail stores of defendant Target Stores charge and collect a 7% surcharge payment, presented as Florida sales tax, from their customers buying certain baby and toddler clothes, shoes, or other apparel, which are sales tax exempt "Baby and Toddler Products" under Florida law. The Defendant owns and operates retail stores across the United States, with approximately 135 stores in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 3833 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 786-8622 E-mail: jcohen@brysonpllc.com - and - David J. Tayar, Esq. Will Shuman, Esq. TAYAR SHUMAN & ASSOCIATES LLP 3324 Parsons Blvd., Ste. 3F Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (917) 750-7740 E-mail: dtayar@tayarshuman.com wshuman@tayarshuman.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Charles Schimmel, Esq. Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com schimmelc@thesultzerlawgroup.com silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 E-mail: jdemay@brysonpllc.com TENET FINTECH: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Fintech Group Inc. (CSE: PKK) (OTC Pink: PKKFF) ("Tenet" or the "Company"), an innovative analytics service provider, owner and operator of the Cubeler Business Development Platform, today announced that the class action lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on October 25, 2023 against the Company, its CEO and CFO alleging four counts of violations of the securities laws of the United States (the "Lawsuit"), was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation of voluntarily dismissal. The Court has administratively closed the litigation. The Company did not pay any compensation to the plaintiffs, nor does it have any obligations, financial or otherwise, owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the Lawsuit. "We are very grateful for today's announced resolution to the Lawsuit and can now focus our attention on the Company's continued development," commented Johnson Joseph, President and CEO of Tenet. "On behalf of all Tenet shareholders, I would like to thank our U.S. counsels Douglas Baumstein and Scott Rader of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. for their exceptional work in guiding us through the litigation." About Tenet Fintech Group Inc.: Tenet Fintech Group Inc. is the parent company of a group of innovative financial technology (Fintech) and artificial intelligence (AI) companies. All references to Tenet in this news release, unless explicitly specified, include Tenet and all its subsidiaries. Tenet's subsidiaries offer various analytics and AI-based products and services to businesses, capital markets professionals, government agencies and financial institutions either through or leveraging data gathered by the Cubeler Business Development Platform, a global ecosystem where analytics and AI are used to create opportunities and facilitate B2B transactions among its members. Please visit our website at: https://www.tenetfintech.com/. For more information, please contact: Tenet Fintech Group Inc.: Dom Mannella (514) 340-7775 ext.: 516 investors@tenetfintech.com CHF Capital Markets: Cathy Hume, (416) 868-1079 ext.: 251 cathy@chfir.com [GN] TIN LIZZIE: Menkhaus Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit Policy --------------------------------------------------------- AMY MENKHAUS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIN LIZZIE CINCINNATI TWO LLC, TIN LIZZIE LEXINGTON, LLC, and CHOICE EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS III INC. d/b/a FORD'S GARAGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00102-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., March 3, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Defendants have employed Plaintiff as a server since May 2025. During her employment, the Plaintiff received hourly wages of less than $7.25 per hour. Moreover, at all relevant times, the Defendants only paid Plaintiff and other tip credit employees an hourly wage below the applicable FLSA minimum wage and minimum overtime wage rates. In addition, the Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and other tip credit employees of the required information prior to relying on the tip credit, says the suit. Headquartered in Noblesville, IN, Tin Lizzie Cincinnati Two LLC owns and operates the Ford's Garage restaurants in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 647-9242 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jerome P. Prather, Esq. GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC 141 North Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 254-9352 Facsimile: (859) 233-9769 E-mail: jprather@garmerprather.com TOYOTA INDUSTRIES: $299.5MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROADMOOR LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO., et al., v. TOYOTA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06640-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Corley entered an order granting preliminary approval of settlement class. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging the Defendants engaged in a pattern of misconduct in the design, development, and testing of gasoline and diesel-powered forklifts and their engines. The parties have reached a class action settlement and now seek preliminary approval of the settlement. Having considered the parties’ submissions, including the revised notice, and having had the benefit of oral argument on Feb. 26, 2026. The Court grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement as follows: 1. This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons or entities that purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle, or leased a Settlement Class Vehicle, through the date of filing of the Motion for Preliminary Approval." Those excluded from the Class are: (a) the Defendants' officers, directors, and employees; the Defendants' affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors, and employees; the Defendants' authorized dealers and distributors and their officers, directors, and employees; (b) Released Parties; (c) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case; and (d) all those otherwise in the Settlement Class who or which timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class as provided in this Class Action Agreement. 2. The Court appoints as Settlement Class Counsel David Stellings and Kevin Budner of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd P.C. 3. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs as Settlement Class Representatives to represent the Settlement Class. 4. The Court appoints Citibank, N.A., as the escrow agent to maintain the Settlement Fund, which the Court establishes as a "qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1. 5. The Court appoints Verita Global, LLC as the Settlement Administrator, and approves the payment of reasonable administration costs to the Settlement Administrator from the proceeds of the Settlement, not to exceed $895,000 without further Court order prior to the Effective Date. 6. The Plaintiffs shall file copies of the notices and claim form within 10 days of dissemination of notice. 7. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Final Approval by April 30, 2026. The motion shall include the information suggested by the Northern District of California Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. By this same date, Class Counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards for the Class Representatives, and all supporting documentation and papers. 8. Any objections or opt-outs are due by June 1, 2026. 9. Plaintiffs' reply memoranda in support of final approval and fee/expense application shall be filed by June 11, 2026. 10. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final approval hearing on July 9, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay $299.5 million. Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0YJZRB at no extra charge.[CC] TP−LINK SYSTEMS: Standing Order Entered in Gianne Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE GIANNE, v. TP−LINK SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01818-AH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hwang entered an standing order for civil cases assigned to Judge Anne Hwang: All counsel must immediately review and comply with the Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism guidelines. ] Parties appearing as pro se litigants are required to comply with all Local Rules, including Local Rule 16 (“Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management”). Only individuals may represent themselves. Only one attorney for a party may be designated as lead counsel (and the designation must appear on the docket if a party has more than one attorney). Counsel who is most knowledgeable may address and resolve all matters within the scope of the proceeding. Neither counsel nor a party shall initiate contact with the Court or its Chambers’ staff by telephone, or by any other improper ex parte means. Counsel may contact the CRD with appropriate inquiries. The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). A Status of Fictitiously Named Defendants. The plaintiff should identify and serve any fictitiously named defendant(s) before the deadline set forth in the Court’s Order Setting Scheduling Conference. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. TP-Link produces computer networking devices. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QMo1N2 at no extra charge.[CC] TRILOGY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, Kistler Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DESTINIE KISTLER and RICHARD VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00156-GNS (W.D. Ky., March 4, 2026) seeks available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana and Kentucky state law, for failure to pay all wages owed. The Plaintiff was employed by Trilogy as a State Tested Nursing Assistant from July 2023 to February 2025 at its Heritage facility located in Ohio. The Plaintiffs bring Count I of this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as a collective action on behalf of themselves and the following proposed collective: "All current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Trilogy in the United States who worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek during the three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint (the FLSA Collective)." Trilogy was founded in 2012. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: mfoster@marknfoster.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com - and - Mariyam Hussian, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 E-mail: mhussain@bergermontague.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stone Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN STONE and ERNEST EASTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00308 (E.D. Mo., March 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifying information and personal health information of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Beginning in November 2024, an unauthorized third party gained access to TriZetto's network systems and acquired files containing the PII/PHI of employees, plan members, and patients of TriZetto's clients, including Plaintiffs and Class members. TriZetto did not become aware of the data breach until October 2, 2025 -- approximately eleven months later. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the data breach occurred, and Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the data breach, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other Class members, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment. They seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. TriZetto is a company that provides complete revenue cycle management services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC 14824 Clayton Road, Suite 24 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 504-0979 E-mail: js@molawgroup.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com TROVE BRANDS: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Brown Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ZOEY BROWN and LA'SHAN POWELL, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TROVE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01774-LB (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated websites www.owalalife.com or www.blenderbottle.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc., Google, LLC, Klaviyo, Inc., and Attentive Mobile, Inc. According to the complaint, when Plaintiffs and other consumers visit the websites, they are presented with the opportunity to opt out of third-party tracking technologies including those which Defendant uses for targeted advertising and website performance. Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance that customers have control over the sale and sharing of their personal information, the Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers personally identifiable information and product purchase information to unknown third parties even when customers affirmatively disable the tracking technologies, says the suit. The Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables third parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiffs and Class Members on the websites that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain PII, asserts the complaint. By failing to procure consent -- and continuing to allow the third parties' tracking even after consumers reject the tracking technologies -- the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Constitution, the complaint contends. Trove Brands, LLC is a Utah corporation, headquartered in Lehi, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com UMASS MEMORIAL: Wins Bid to Toss "Progin" Patient Tracking Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Janice Progin, John Doe, and Lisa Colleton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc., UMass Memorial Community Entities, Inc., UMass Memorial Medical Center, Inc., UMass Memorial HealthAlliance-Clinton Hospital, Inc., Marlborough Hospital, and Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-40003-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend within 21 days. Defendants are health care and hospital entities located in Massachusetts that operate public-facing websites where users can research medical providers and treatments. Patients can also log in to a password-protected portal to communicate with providers, manage appointments, and access medical records. Progin and Colleton had been patients of Defendants for several years, and Doe was a patient for over ten years. All three Plaintiffs regularly used Defendants' websites and the patient portal, including numerous times in 2022. Across their webpages and patient portal, Defendants installed tracking tools in the form of invisible source code that allegedly funneled patients' individually identifiable health information, including that of Plaintiffs, to third parties without patients' knowledge or consent. These third parties included Facebook and Google, as well as Twitter, New Relic, Acquia, and ShareThis.com. The allegations focused on Defendants' use of Facebook's Meta Pixel, which tracked granular user interactions and automatically disclosed the resulting user interaction logs to Facebook. Defendants also deployed the Google Analytics pixel across their websites. The installation of that pixel within the patient portal resulted in the disclosure of Plaintiffs' patient status and their viewings of in-portal pages containing sensitive data like test results and prescription information. According to the Court, every time Defendants' patients like Plaintiffs visited the website, Defendants disclosed not only who those patients were, but also what medical treatments they reviewed, what doctors they reviewed, what search terms they typed into online forms, and whether they had logged into the patient portal. Facebook and Google used the granular, individualized data they collected to power their targeted online advertising businesses. In turn, Defendants who installed the tracking tools received advertising services and analytic metrics providing insight into their websites' functionality and users. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Sections 2510 through 2522, and the Massachusetts Right to Privacy Act, as well as breach of fiduciary duty and confidentiality, breach of implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The central issue before the Court was the applicability of the ECPA's crime-tort exception. Under this exception, the party-consent defense is unavailable if the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were liable under the crime-tort exception because they intercepted and then disclosed Plaintiffs' communications and personal information to third parties without consent and for criminal and tortious purposes. Plaintiffs identified those criminal and tortious acts to include: a. Defendants' violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); b. Invasion of privacy under Massachusetts law; c. Breach of confidentiality of medical records; and d. Breach of the common law duty of confidentiality. Defendants countered that the crime-tort exception was inapplicable because they did not install tracking tools for the distinct purpose of violating HIPAA or perpetrating a tort. The Court held that the purpose must be to commit an act, and that act must be criminal or tortious, without requiring a desire to commit a crime or tort as such. Therefore, Plaintiffs were required to plausibly allege that Defendants purposefully used or caused to be used Plaintiffs' unique health identifiers without authorization, purposefully disclosed Plaintiffs' individually identifiable health information to Facebook and Google without authorization, or purposefully invaded Plaintiffs' privacy. The Court further held that it is not enough to allege that Defendants knowingly committed such acts, because that omits the requirement that the acts be done for criminal and tortious purposes as required by the language of the statute. Upon careful examination, the Court found that although the allegations may support the inference that Defendants purposefully committed certain acts, such as the installation of the tracking tools or the disclosure of certain forms of information to Facebook and Google, they did not support the inference that Defendants purposefully committed the criminal and tortious acts specified by Plaintiffs. It is not enough that a crime or tort may have been a side-effect of the interception. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the ECPA claim (Count I) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Defendants' motion to dismiss was therefore granted without prejudice and with leave to amend within 21 days. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 6, 2006 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=950aIK from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., Marlborough Hospital, UMass Memorial Community Entities, Inc., UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc., UMass Memorial HealthAlliance - Clinton Hospital, Inc., and UMass Memorial Medical Center, Inc., Represented By: James H. Rollinson Baker & Hostetler LLP 216-861-7075 jrollinson@bakerlaw.com Elizabeth Anne Scully Baker & Hostetler LLP 202-861-1698 escully@bakerlaw.com Plaintiff Janice Progin Represented By: Edward F. Haber Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 617-439-3939 ehaber@shulaw.com Ryan M. Hawkins Sweeney Merrigan Law, LLP 617-391-9001 rmh@sweeneymerrigan.com Patrick J. Vallely Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 617-439-3939 pvallely@shulaw.com Brett R. Corson Sweeney Merrigan Law, LLP 617-391-9001 brc@sweeneymerrigan.com Jonathan Tucker Merrigan Sweeney Merrigan Law 617-391-9001 tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com Michelle H. Blauner Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 617-439-3939 mblauner@shulaw.com UNITED STATES: Bourque Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE, RENEE BAUTISTA, MELISSA MIRABELLO, RON POZNANSKY, and JAMES WOODMANSEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, On May 14, 2026, at 1:30pm, will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify the following class: "All persons who paid the expedited passport processing fee from Oct. 4, 2018 through the date of final judgment in this matter." Excluded from the proposed Class are persons who received a refund of the expedited passport processing fee; counsel in this action; anyone employed by the Plaintiffs' counsel in this action; any judge to whom this case is assigned, his or her spouse; and members of the judge's staff. The Plaintiffs also move to appoint Chase Bourque, Renee Bautista, Melissa Mirabello, Ron Poznansky, and James Woodmansee as class representatives and current interim class counsel Geoffrey Graber of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as class counsel for the proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The proposed class readily meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a) as Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of over 37 million Americans that implicates numerous common issues. Moreover, common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) because the central issue in this litigation is the legality of the Government's conduct in charging the identical $60 fee to every American who paid the passport expedition fee. Because the Government has acted or refused to act on grounds that are generally applicable to the class, certification of an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) is also warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be granted. This case is a quintessential class action. the Plaintiffs challenge the unlawful action of the United States Department of State ("State Department" or "Government") in charging Americans a $60 fee for expedited passport processing. The $60 expedited passport fee is unlawful because it far exceeds the actual cost incurred by the Government to expedite passport processing. And the Government violated federal law by failing to provide required notice and justification for the challenged fee. United States is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lj1lT0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Madelyn Petersen, Esq. Rachael Flanagan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC  1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005  Telephone: (202) 408-4600  Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com  mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com  rflanagan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Charles Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN  16 Yale Circle  Kensington, CA 94708-1015  Telephone: (415) 373-8849  E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com  - and - Mariel LaSasso, Esq. LASASSO LAW GROUP PLLC 30 Wall St., Eighth Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 421-6000 E-mail: mariel@lasassolaw.com UNITED STATES: Perkins Seeks to Recover Overpayment Interest ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM O. PERKINS, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00012 (D.V.I., February 27, 2026) seeks to recover overpayment interest owed to the Plaintiff and the Class members from Defendant The United States Virgin Islands. The Plaintiff overpaid his taxes, filed a tax return during the relevant period, and received a refund of his overpayments. By applying the Interest-Limiting Exemptions to Plaintiff and the other Class members, the Defendant failed to pay the full amount of interest it was required by statute to pay Virgin Islands taxpayers, including the approximately $20,451.42 due to the Plaintiff. Allegedly, the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue excluded interest from April 15, 2021, to October 15, 2021. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The United States Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory belonging to the United States of America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. DiRuzzo, III, Esq. MARGULIS GELFAND DIRUZZO & LAMBSON 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 615-1676 Facsimile: (954) 827-0340 E-mail: jd@margulisgelfand.com UNITED STATES: Texas Farm Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEXAS FARM BUREAU, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00181-Z (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs further specifically request: 1. That the class certified be a single class as follows: "All farmers and ranchers in the United States who are encountering, or who will encounter, race or sex discrimination from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) based on their exclusion from its "socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher" designation, and have been or will be denied benefits or program access on that basis"; 2. That Timothy Assiter and Mark Cadra, who are the named individual plaintiffs in this action, be appointed class representatives; 3. That Southeastern Legal Foundation, which currently serves as counsel for the named plaintiffs, be appointed class counsel; 4. That no class notice be required; and 5. That no further discovery related to determining this motion be ordered. The US Department of Agriculture provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related issues. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VtyaA7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James V. F. Dickey, Esq. Benjamin I. B. Isgur, Esq. SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION 560 W. Crossville Road, Suite 104 Roswell, GA 30075 Telephone: (770) 977-2131 E-mail: jdickey@southeasternlegal.org bisgur@southeasternlegal.org - and - Mike Byrd, Esq. MICHAEL L. BYRD & ASSOCIATES 7816 Orlando Avenue Lubbock, TX 79423 Telephone: (806) 788-0181 Facsimile: (806) 788-0187 E-mail: mbyrd@byrdfirm.com UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: 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 University of Hawai'i Cancer Center 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 UH Cancer Center data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. UH Cancer Center Security Incident: What Happened? The University of Hawai'i Cancer Center's Epidemiology Division has disclosed a cyberattack that was discovered around August 31, 2025 and potentially affected approximately 87,493 Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) Study participants and around 1.15 million individuals from other records. According to the notice posted to the UH Cancer Center website, the affected data comes from files stored on servers that support the University of Hawai'i Cancer Center's epidemiology recruiting and research efforts. Two files held names paired with Social Security numbers. The first file contained driver's license numbers collected in 2000 from the State Department of Transportation. At the time these files were created, Hawaii driver's license numbers were typically based on SSNs. The second file contained voter registration data from 1998 from the City & County of Honolulu. At the time, government entities provided such lists to help researchers find participants for large health studies. Further, participants from MEC (from 1993 to 1996) and other dietary and cancer studies (from 1994-2007) were also impacted. These records included names with SSNs or driver's license numbers, as well as potentially health-related study data. Moreover, two files with SSNs and names from national and state public health registries, closed to new names by 1999 and the mid-2000s respectively, may have included additional health information. Notification letters were sent to identified MEC participants on February 23, and the university is reaching out to others via email, public announcements, and a dedicated Cyberattack Information and Resource Website. The UH Cancer Center is the only research organization in the Pacific designated by the National Cancer Institute. What You Can Do After the UH Cancer Center Data Breach If your information was exposed in the UH Cancer Center 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 UH Cancer Center to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] VALNET INC: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for July 1 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DASSAH MAKETA, et al., v. VALNET INC., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05517-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be July 15, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on July 1, 2027, at 1:30 PM., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. In putative class actions, prior to submitting any motion for approval of a class settlement, the parties shall review the guidelines at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidanceand tailor the motion appropriately. Valnet is a Canadian media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNrWDA at no extra charge.[CC] VIATOR INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Ramlogan" MSG Tour Ticket Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Corinna Ramlogan, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Viator, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-10509-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant is an online seller of tickets for a wide variety of tourist attractions and other activities. On or about March 28, 2024, Plaintiff purchased four tickets from Defendant's website for a backstage tour of Madison Square Garden in New York City. The tickets were purchased for $46 each, the same price available at MSG's website. MSG sold the same tickets at the box office for $37. The tour included backstage access to MSG rooms and facilities, with a tour guide providing commentary and information about the building's history and architecture. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not provide an itemized list of the base ticket price and additional fees as required under the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law of New York State and seeks to represent a putative class of ticket purchasers who have paid undisclosed fees to Defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss on three grounds: (a) Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4) does not require an itemized breakdown of the ticket price, (b) Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged an injury under Section 25.33, and (c) MSG does not qualify as a place of entertainment covered by the statute. Plaintiff alleges that the $9 difference between the price charged at the MSG ticket booth and the price charged by Defendant represents a surcharge that should have been identified in the ticket price. Under Section 25.07(4), covered entities must disclose the total cost of the ticket, inclusive of all ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket, and disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner the portion of the ticket price stated in dollars that represents a service charge, or any other fee or surcharge to the purchaser. The court found that Defendant frequently mischaracterized both the statute and Plaintiff's complaint. The statute prohibits conduct even where the price of the ticket does not increase during the purchase process. If the covered entity does not disclose, in a clear and conspicuous manner, any service charge, fee, or surcharge, it is a violation of the statute, even if the listed price remains unchanged. The court was unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments. Plaintiff's complaint gives rise to the reasonable inference that the $9 difference between the ticket price at the box office and Defendant's website is a surcharge. Accordingly, by the statute's plain language, Defendant was required to disclose the charge. While the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law assigns primary enforcement authority to the New York Attorney General, it also confers a private right of action to individuals who have been injured by reason of a violation of the statute under Section 25.33. Defendant contended that Plaintiff had not alleged that she was injured by the purported violation and thus could not bring a private action. The court declined to adopt Defendant's proposed interpretation. Plaintiff alleges that the price she paid for the ticket was $9 higher than its actual value, as represented by the price charged at the ticket booth. The price differential was a result of Defendant's failure to disclose that the ticket itself costs $37 and that the additional $9 was for fees. Therefore, even under Defendant's proposed interpretation of the statute, Plaintiff states a claim for a private cause of action. The court further noted that the injured by reason of a violation language does not lose independent meaning under Plaintiff's interpretation, as a consumer who browsed but did not purchase a ticket with an undisclosed fee would lack standing to bring a claim. Defendant contended that MSG is not a place of entertainment as required by statute because the tour was not a form of entertainment defined thereunder. The court rejected this narrow reading as pretentious. MSG is a facility which hosts sporting events, concerts, and other forms of entertainment. Defendant provided no case law to support its contention that a place of entertainment loses that status depending upon a given activity. The court also found that the tour for which Plaintiff purchased tickets was, in and of itself, entertainment. The tour involved exclusive access to private areas of the facility, with a guide providing commentary and historical lessons about the building. The Arts and Cultural Affairs Law defines entertainment as all forms of entertainment including, but not limited to, all other forms of diversion, recreation, or show. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7RJfy0 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Viator, Inc. Represented By: Christine M. Reilly Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 310-312-4237 creilly@manatt.com Kaela Athay Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 614-646-1449 kathay@manatt.com Prana A. Topper Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 212-790-4500 ptopper@manatt.com Plaintiff Corinna Ramlogan individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated Represented By: William H. Beaumont Beaumont LLC 504-220-6133 whb@beaumont-law.com Aaron S. Welo Beaumont LLC 860-834-6110 asw@beaumont-law.com VIRGINIA: Hardee Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN T. HARDEE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled John T. Hardee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Municipal Jail Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00088-MHL-MRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of prisoner's civil rights. On Jan. 13, 2026, Judge M. Hannah Lauck entered an Order dismissing the case for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is styled as John Hardee v. Municipal Jail Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office, Case No. 26-6272, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN T. HARDEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. VITAL CONTINGENT: Tropea Sues Over Unlawful Wages Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Jennae Tropea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VITAL CONTINGENT PLANNING LLC; and ATIF CHAUDHRY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01579-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"); challenging acts committed by Defendants against Plaintiff which amount to violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. Throughout the relevant time period, the Defendants promised the RNs a certain hourly rate of pay and reimbursement, per diem pay, and reimbursement of travel expenses. Throughout the relevant time period, the Defendants, however, paid the RNs a lower hourly rate than what was promised to them or nothing at all. The Defendants also did not pay all promised per diem pay or travel reimbursement. The per diem pay and travel reimbursement were wages as defined by the NYLL. The Defendants had knowledge of the FLSA's, the NYLL's, and the NYCRR's requirement to pay the RNs their overtime rate for all overtime hours worked. Defendants have this knowledge as they compensated the RNs an overtime premium for some overtime hours worked. The Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the NYLL, and NYCRR were willful. As a result of Defendants' violations above, Defendants did not issue the RNs wage statements that contained the correct number of hours worked and their correct hourly rate in violation of NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began her employment for Defendants and was staffed at Mount Sinai's main hospital in Manhattan New York on December 29, 2025. The Defendant VCP is a staffing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. White, Esq. Robert R. Barravecchio, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 Email: awhite@vkvlawyers.com rrb@vkv.law WESTLAKE CORP: Continues to Defend Caustic Soda Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Caustic Soda antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers, and were filed on behalf of certain named plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the United States. The plaintiffs in the direct purchaser putative class and the indirect purchaser putative class sought $861 and $500, respectively, in single damages from the defendants, in addition to treble damages and attorney's fees in each case. The District Court has denied class certification for both the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petitions for leave to appeal. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements. Westlake is a vertically-integrated global manufacturer and marketer of performance and essential materials and housing and infrastructure products for diverse consumer and industrial markets, including residential construction, flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, healthcare products, water treatment, wind turbines, coatings as well as other durable and non-durable goods. WESTLAKE CORP: PVC Pipe Antitrust Suits Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that in October 2025, the United States Department of Justice granted partial stay of the PVC Pipe antitrust class action civil suits due to its ongoing antitrust probe of PVC pipe manufacturers and others. The Company and other manufacturers of PVC pipe and fittings have been named as defendants in ten putative class action civil lawsuits filed in Illinois between August 2024 and June 2025 and in one lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada in September 2025 which generally allege that PVC pipe and fittings manufacturers conspired with each other and an industry publication (OPIS) to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of PVC pipe and fittings in the United States and Canada, resulting in the plaintiffs paying artificially high prices for PVC pipe and fittings. The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various U.S. federal and state competition and consumer protection laws and Canadian competition and common laws, and seek relief including injunctive relief, damages of undisclosed amounts, and equitable relief, plus attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened and was granted a partial stay of discovery in the U.S. litigation for six months due to its ongoing antitrust investigation of manufacturers of PVC pipe and others. A class certification hearing has not yet been scheduled in the British Columbia proceeding. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements. WIRX PHARMACY: Faces Caulker Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- TARA CAULKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WIRX PHARMACY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01339 (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2026) arises from a cyberattack that occurred between December 6 and December 7, 2025, resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant that affects thousands of current and former patients, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the data breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' highly personal information, including their personally identifying information as well as protected health information including but not limited to: names, diagnosis/conditions, medications, treatment information, Social Security number, address, date of birth, and other identifier, financial account, and claims information. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their sensitive information. But Defendant betrayed that trust and failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the data breach, says the suit. WIRX Pharmacy is a Pennsylvania pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com WIRX PHARMACY: Rader Sues Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- HERBERT RADER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WIRX PHARMACY II d/b/a WIRX PHARMACY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01308 (E.D. Pa., February 27, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class members, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that private information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. On or around December 7, 2025, WIRX detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems from December 6, 2025 to December 7, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Fort Washington, PA, WIRX provides pharmaceutical services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile,com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa's Subsidiaries Faces Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Some of Alcoa Corporation's subsidiaries as premises owners are defendants in active lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions on behalf of persons seeking damages for alleged personal injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and acquired companies all have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations. We have significant insurance coverage and believe that our reserves are adequate for known asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of Alcoa Corporation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/3z47a63c ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Faces 844 Pending PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Chemours Company reports that there are approximately 844 pending cases against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "With limited exception, the Company previously rejected EID’s demand for indemnity and defense of asbestos and product liability matters arising from an EID subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., ("SGPI"). EID brought an arbitration proceeding on this issue and in November 2024, the Company and EID reached an agreement in principle and adjourned the arbitration. The Company finalized the settlement agreement in March 2025. Per the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company assumed the current SGPI asbestos cases as well as all future SGPI asbestos and product liability claims. The agreement also includes that the Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/42wfv4xm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $136MM A&E Loss Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried $136 million loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims at year-end 2025, compared with $119 million at year-end 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for each respective year constituted less than 2.0% of total net loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates. "We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers. During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and environmental exclusion." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf8wkvt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 454 Cases as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Colgate-Palmolive states, "As of December 31, 2025, there were 454 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 308 cases as of December 31, 2024. During the year ended December 31, 2025, 253 new cases were filed and 107 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such period's results of operations. "The Company and its legal counsel believe that the Company has strong legal grounds to contest these cases and is challenging them vigorously. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending against it, and is only able to make an estimate for those cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal proceedings. For the remaining cases, the Company includes in the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities stated above an aggregated amount that takes into account historical outcomes of the Company’s cases. "As of December 31, 2025, a portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes will continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to exhaustion, deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy limits and insurance carrier insolvencies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/3632erd7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $120MM Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Constellation Energy Corporation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions at certain facilities that are currently owned by them or were previously owned by ComEd, PECO, or BGE, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At December 31, 2025 and 2024, we recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $120 million and $125 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. These amounts are primarily included in Other deferred credits and other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Current amounts included in Accounts payable and accrued expenses are not material in either of the periods presented. As of December 31, 2025, approximately $17 million of this amount related to 251 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $103 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/275y9nf4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNOW Inc. Faces 713 Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------- DNOW Inc. is a defendant in lawsuits involving approximately 713 claims, arising from exposure to asbestos-containing materials included in products that they are alleged to have distributed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Each claim involves allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing materials by a single individual, his or her spouse or family members. The complaints in these lawsuits typically name many other defendants. In the majority of these lawsuits, little or no information is known regarding the nature of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or their connection with the products we distributed. The potential liability associated with asbestos claims is subject to many uncertainties, including negative trends with respect to settlement payments, dismissal rates and the types of medical conditions alleged in pending or future claims, negative developments in the claims pending against us, the current or future insolvency of co-defendants, adverse changes in relevant laws or the interpretation of those laws and the extent to which insurance will be available to pay for defense costs, judgments or settlements. In addition, applicable insurance policies are subject to overall caps on limits, which coverage may exhaust the amount available from insurers under those limits. In those cases, the Company is seeking indemnity payments from responsive excess insurance policies, but other insurers may not be solvent or may not make payments under the policies without contesting their liability. Further, while we anticipate that additional claims will be filed against us in the future, we are unable to predict with any certainty the number, timing and magnitude of future claims. Therefore, pending or future asbestos litigation may ultimately have a material adverse effect on us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysjxbv3c ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Defends 17,000 PI Cases as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 2025, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any Company product." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyk4wybr ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Has $312.1MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- ESAB Corporation reported asbestos liabilities of $312.1 million at December 31, 2025, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ESAB Corp states, "certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. The Company records an asbestos liability for probable pending and future claims over the period that the Company believes it can reasonably estimate such claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddd2kv8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Has $317MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genuine Parts Company is subject to asbestos-related product liability lawsuits resulting from its distribution and sale of asbestos-containing brake and friction products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company accrues for asbestos-related product liabilities if it is probable that the Company has incurred a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount accrued for the asbestos-related product liability as of December 31, 2025 was $317 million. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z9k7npu ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Reports $10.5MM A&E Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2025, had $10.5 million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised of $8.3 million of direct reserves and $2.2 million of assumed reinsurance pool reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "This compares to net reserves of $10.9 million at December 31, 2024, comprised of $8.7 million of direct reserves and $2.2 million of assumed reinsurance pool reserves. "As of December 31, 2025, we had gross loss and LAE reserves for our assumed reinsurance pool business of $2.2 million compared to $29.9 million in December 31, 2024. These assumed reinsurance pool reserves relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation, however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in which we were a participant. Results of operations from these pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our gross pool reserves at December 31, 2024 was related to our participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association ("ECRA") voluntary pool for our ECRA claim liability participations. During 2025, we completed an insurance business transfer of our ECRA liabilities to a third-party, which novation has fully relieved us of our obligations to ECRA policyholders. This transaction had no significant impact on our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2025." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrdc7d86 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,126 Exposure Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2025, is a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 1,126 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other lung cancers. Asbestos use in welding consumables in the United States ceased in 1981. "Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 57,272 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,023 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. "The long-term impact of an asbestos loss contingency, in the aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims are in many different stages of development and we benefit significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims, there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/yn35vpm7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Defends 610 Cases as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Merck & Co., Inc. is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to talc in Dr. Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2025, approximately 610 cases were pending against Merck in various state courts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/fua737wy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 914 Cases at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc., as of December 31, 2025, had 914 open cases related to certain talc products previously sold by Oldco, which is an increase in volume from previous years, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These claims typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, but most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of these lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require the plaintiff to identify the amount of the claimed damage. The Company's position, as stated publicly, is that the talc products sold by Oldco are safe and do not cause cancer." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/34hewcjs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Defends Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Frequently, the proceedings alleging injurious exposure involve claims made by numerous plaintiffs against many defendants. Defense of these claims can be costly and time-consuming even if ultimately successful. Because of the inherent uncertainties of legal proceedings, we are unable to predict their outcome and therefore cannot determine whether the financial effect, if any, will be material to our business." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/36jm2279 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Skydance Faces 17,490 Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Skydance Corporation is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2025 (Successor), we had pending approximately 17,490 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 18,310 as of December 31, 2024 (Predecessor). For the period from August 7 - December 31, 2025 (Successor) and for the period from January 1 - August 6, 2025 (Predecessor) we received approximately 1,300 and 1,890 new claims, respectively, and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 1,810 and 2,200 claims, respectively. We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax, were approximately $23 million for the Successor period from August 7 - December 31, 2025, $11 million and $34 million for the Predecessor periods from January 1 - August 6, 2025, and the year ended December 31, 2024, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/28xrxa85 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Has 795 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair plc's subsidiaries, along with numerous other companies, are named as defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, substantially all of which relate to its discontinued operations, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2025, there were approximately 795 asbestos-related claims pending against our subsidiaries, substantially all of which relate to our discontinued operations. These cases typically involve product liability claims alleging manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third parties or to which asbestos insulation was applied after installation. It is possible that cases could be brought against us alleging that asbestos was present at facilities we own or used to own. Each case typically names a large number of product manufacturers, service providers and premises owners. Historically, our subsidiaries have been identified as defendants in asbestos-related claims. Our strategy has been, and continues to be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and settling claims before trial only where appropriate. We cannot predict with certainty the extent to which we will be successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits in the future, and we continue to evaluate different strategies related to asbestos claims filed against us. Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, while most of the asbestos claims against us are covered by liability insurance policies from many years ago, not all claims are insured. As our insurers resolve claims relating to past policy periods, the aggregate coverage provided by those policies erodes. If we exhaust our coverage under those policies, we will be exposed to potential uninsured losses. Over time, the uninsured portion of our asbestos docket may increase, which may require us to set greater reserves to resolve future asbestos cases." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b4666hx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 290 Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to alleged asbestos contamination of the raw material talc, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The majority of these cases involve legacy talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999. As of the date of these financial statements, the Company has been named in approximately 290 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Nationwide the number of new cases against manufacturers and retailers of talc-containing products alleging injury related to asbestos-contaminated talc has increased. The Company has several defenses and continues to vigorously defend these lawsuits as well as explore various means of expeditiously resolving these claims before trial. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2026 and 2027. There are currently over 41 trials set for these cases. The Company continues to evaluate this docket of cases and vigorously defend itself against such claims while exploring resolution of certain of the claims, including through dismissals and settlement. Some of the Company's retailer customers are seeking indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability relating to these cases. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ffk2my9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Faces Numerous Personal Injury Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Numerous lawsuits against Pfizer Inc. and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer Inc. and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In addition, between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. "There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/2exma7zp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Tech Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Teledyne Technologies Incorporated has been joined, among a number of defendants (often over 100), in lawsuits alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In addition, because of the prominent "Teledyne" name, we may continue to be mistakenly joined in lawsuits involving a company or business that was not assumed by us as part of our 1999 spin-off from Allegheny Teledyne Incorporated. To date, we have not incurred material liabilities in connection with these lawsuits. However, our historical insurance coverage, including that of our predecessors, may not fully cover such claims and the defense of such matters. Coverage typically depends on the year of purported exposure and other factors. Nonetheless, we intend to vigorously defend our position against these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/hnh3en8f ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 405 Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2025, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 405 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. We have a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional funding from settlement agreements with other insurers. Overall, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/48f4xmke ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Reports 945 Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., at December 31, 2025, had approximately 945 cases outstanding for which they may be responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through December 31, 2025, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately $105.2 million. A substantial increase in the number of new claims, or increased settlement payments, or awards of asbestos-related damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. "In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2025. The results of the August 31, 2025 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs, ranging from $127.5 million to $275.9 million for the period through 2065. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2025 actuarial study, in September 2025 we increased our asbestos liability to $127.5 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $44.4 million in loss from discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in loss from discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations, are estimated, according to the August 31, 2025 study, to range from $48.5 million to $115.3 million for the period through 2065." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/563c6fva ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Faces Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of defendants and do not identify any of our particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to any of our products and no judgments have been entered against us. Based on information currently known to it, management believes that these matters are not likely to have a material adverse effect on the business or financial condition of the Company, or to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operating results for any particular period." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/27vyx5at ********* 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 ***