260316.mbx

260316.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 16, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 53 Headlines ADVENTURE HOMES: Deseranno Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AG ADRIANO: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Dalton Says AGC BIOLOGICS: Lomibao Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit AHAAA LLC: Chamul Seek to Certify FMWA Class of Employees ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL: Reyes Sues Over Unlawful Data-Sharing ALLSTATE CORP: Court Tosses Brown Class Suit ALTRIA GROUP: Court Certifies IPP Classes in Reece Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 19, 2027 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Aslan Suit Removed to C.D. California AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Cal. Labor Suit AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Cal. PAGA Class Suit ANDOVER EYE ASSOCIATES: Brady Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. APEX CLASS: May 14 Scheduling Conference Set, Dismissal Sought AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Modica Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ARTHUR MAGLINGER: Must Release Perez from Unlawful Detention ASSOCIATED COURIERS: Court Partly OK's Bid to Strike in "Smith" BASF CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 11, 2027 BAY VISTA: Faces Mate Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices BEACH TRADING COMPANY: England Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey BETTERHELP INC: Continues to Defend Patient Data Class Suits BFS GROUP LLC: Hernandez Suit Removed to E.D. California BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit in Cal. BODY CONTOUR CENTERS: Anderson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CAL-MAINE FOODS: Phil-N-Cindy's Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Lehman Suit Removed to C.D. California CERNER CORPORATION: Long Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHEWY INC: Monaco Suit Removed to E.D. California CHICAGO BH HOSPITAL: Boyd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CHIQUITA BRANDS: Jimenez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Martinez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Osorio Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Peate Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CHIQUITA BRANDS: Ramirez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court CMC STEEL FABRICATORS: Miranda Suit Removed to C.D. California COCA-COLA COMPANY: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: $2.9MM Settlement Has Prelim Approval COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Harvey Suit Removed to E.D. California CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Ochoa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CORDOBA LEGAL GROUP: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama COREWELL HEALTH: Chaneyfield Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CORRECTIONS CENTER: Garcia Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Nixed COUPANG INC: Joint Status Report Due April 24 CRICUT INC: Bennet Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CURRENEX INC: Seeks to Seal Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Reply Papers D&B Supply: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Battle Says DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Poe Files Suit in S.D. New York DANAHER CORP: Hawkins Seeks Class Certification DESIGNITY INC: Russell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages DILLON ENVIRONMENTAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Butler Says DIMENSION 6 FITNESS: Tanner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DK HOUSEHOLD: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal DOLLAR TREE: Godines Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery ELON MUSK: Pampena Bid for Class Certification Tossed EMEND CORPORATE SERVICES: Arthur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Choi Shareholder Derivative Suit EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit EXPENSIFY INC: Final Hearing on Wilhite Settlement Set for June 30 FANTASIA TRADING: Hsu Balks at Unlawful Private Data Sharing FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Derivative Securities Suit FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Hadian Securities Class Suit FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend West Derivative Suit in Del. FLAGSHIP BRANDS: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FULTON AND ROARK: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GAP INC: Asercion Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. GEICO: Bid to Seal Information Partly OK'd GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Morales Labor Suit Removed to D. Mass. HARVEST RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Orcel Says HSN INC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INFINITY CUTTING: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind IQ DATA: Nelson Seeks to Stay Case Pending Sixth Circuit's Ruling ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Harris Alleges JAL EQUITY: Closes Facility Without WARN Act Notice, Carchidi Says JM & SONS INVESTMENT: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property JM SMUCKER: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid in Ringler JONES LANG LASALLE: Miller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lelchuk Derivative Suit LEGENDARY FOODS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTY: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LITTLE MARIO'S: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Calderon Says LUCID GROUP: Mangino Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MARTEN TRANSPORT: Courtney Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MERCURY ENVELOPE COMPANY: Aiello Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. META PLATFORMS: Misled Users on AI Glasses' Privacy, Bartone Says METROPOLITAN JEWISH: Arnold Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime MFD-NY LLC: Faces Zuniga Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. MIANOR RESTAURANT: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages MIANOR RESTAURANT: Shahriar Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages MICHELIN NORTH: Contreraz Sues Over Under Overtime Compensation MIKE LEWIS: Must Release Vicen from Unlawful Detention MOHAWK VALLEY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Broadbent Due May 15 MORGAN COUNTY, KY: Fails to Offer Appropriate Education Program MOSCOT.COM: Court Dismisses "Jones" ADA Website Accessibility Suit MOUNTAIN SUCCESS: Lacey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages NEW MONTCLAIR: Guaman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages NEW YORK, NY: Parties Must File Proposed Case Management Plan NEW YORK, NY: Telephonic Status Conference Set for April 6 NEXGEN ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Almardini Alleges NRRM LLC: CarShield Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration OREGON: Martin Challenges the Constitutionality of SB 1599A ORGAIN LLC: Ballard False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PA'QUE TIBY: Brito Files Suit Over ADA Violation PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY: Dell Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida PHIA GROUP: Fails to Implement Data Security Practices, West Says RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Williams Says ROKU INC: Moses Sues Over Unfair Business Practices SLICKDEALS LLC: Mejico Suit Removed to S.D. California SM PIER HOLDINGS: Marines Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STATE FARM: Alpha Car Putative Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. STATION CASINOS: Browning Sues Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY: Fortner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUN-MAID GROWERS: Class Cert Expert Disclosures Due March 16 SVB FINANCIAL: Bid to File Omnibus Class Cert Reply OK'd TAK BROADBAND: Mueller Files Suit in D. South Dakota TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Bibb Suit Removed to N.D. California THOM BROWNE: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Young Says TOMOCREDIT INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: Spoonauer Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Appeals Class Decertification Order UNITED STATES: Bauska Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit VENEZUELA: Appeals Class Cert. Order to Mazzaccone Suit to 4th Cir. VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend WDPA Indore Derivative Suit WHATABRANDS LLC: Grant Sues Over Termination Ff. Background Check WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Gonzalez Balks at Third-Party Data Trackers WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Carter Alleges ********* ADVENTURE HOMES: Deseranno Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Denver Deseranno, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ADVENTURE HOMES, LLC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00103 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for Defendant's failure to properly pay Plaintiffs earned overtime wages. The Defendant only paid the Plaintiff--and other Laborers--an overtime premium rated based on their stated hourly rate, not the overtime premium associated with each the Plaintiff's actual hourly rate of pay inclusive of the non-discretionary bonuses The Defendant knowingly, willfully or recklessly carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to fully compensate the Plaintiff properly under the FLSA. The Defendant acted knowingly, willfully, recklessly and in bad faith by failing to pay the Plaintiff the required overtime premium hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a Laborer who was assigned to the duties of material handling. The Defendant has manufactured over 18,000 homes and shipped them to twenty states over the last seventeen years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher S. Wolcott, Esq. THE WOLCOTT LAW FIRM LLC 450 East 96th Street Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: (317) 500-0700 Fax: (317) 342-2799 Email: Indy2buck@hotmail.com AG ADRIANO: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Dalton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AG Adriano Goldschmied, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01757-JMB-DJF (D. Minn., March 5, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.agjeans.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. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website, despite claiming to have an "Accessibility Mode from Accessible", has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. 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, asserts the complaint. 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 suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). 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 pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant AG Adriano Goldschmied, Inc. is a California Company that owns, operates, and/or controls its Website, offering apparel and accessories for sale including denim, tops, bottoms, jackets, skirts, shorts, dresses, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.co AGC BIOLOGICS: Lomibao Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EUFRONIO LOMIBAO is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Eufronio Lomibao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AGC Biologics, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00361-JHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation the Washington Industrial Welfare Act and related Washington Dept. of Labor & Industries ("DOLI"), the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA") and the Washington Wage Rebate Act ("WWRA"). On July 18, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge John H. Chun granted on Feb. 5, 2026. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring any of the claims asserted in the complaint on behalf of other employees, and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on such claims. The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice and the Plaintiff's putative class and collective action claims are dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Lomibao v. AGC Biologics, Inc., Case No. 26-1269, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 4, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 22, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant EUFRONIO LOMIBAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Craig Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Defendant-Appellee AGC BIOLOGICS, INC. is represented by: Erin Wilson, Esq. Jeffrey Michael Odom, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Ian T. Maher, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, OR 97204 AHAAA LLC: Chamul Seek to Certify FMWA Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSÉ 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 certifying of the following Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") class: Tip-Notice Class: "All current and former individuals employed by the Defendant at Harry's Bar & Restaurant in Palm Beach County, Florida, as servers (including those titled "server," "captains," "waiter," or "waitress") during the five (5) years preceding the filing of this action who were paid a direct cash wage below the full Florida minimum wage based on the Defendant's taking of a tip credit." The Plaintiff seeks appointment as Class Representative, appointment of USA Employment Lawyers — Jordan Richards, PLLC as Class Counsel, certification under Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance/superiority), and entry of an order approving notice to the Class. This is a single-location, single-policy case. At Harry's Bar & Restaurant in West Palm Beach, Defendant paid servers a sub-minimum "tipped" cash wage while taking a tip credit without first providing the required tip-credit notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 203(m) and 29 C.F.R. section 531.59(b). 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=EfBnTM 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 ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL: Reyes Sues Over Unlawful Data-Sharing --------------------------------------------------------------- John Reyes, Anthony Malko, and Eli Silva individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALIEXPRESS INTERNATIONAL (UNITED STATES) CORPORATION, Case No. 5:26-cv-00905 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought from that unlawful data-sharing of American citizens' sensitive information with a foreign adversary of the United States in direct violation of the "Bulk Data Transfer Rule," or BSDR. The Defendants have repeatedly faced scrutiny from regulators and Congress over concerns that their data practices facilitate surveillance by the Chinese government. These regulators have warned that Alibaba Group functions as a conduit for state directed data collection targeting Americans. In direct violation of the BSDR, The Defendants--through its automated advertising infrastructure and associated databases--transmits Plaintiffs' and potentially millions of other American consumers' data to China. The Defendants knowingly and systematically used communications and associated covered personal identifiers intercepted from American citizens for the purpose of sharing U.S. consumers' data with covered persons without the safeguards required by U.S. law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs visited https://www.AliExpress.com (the "Website") to browse for and purchase products AliExpress is a retail e-commerce platform enabling consumers to buy directly from manufacturers around the world. AliExpress is a subsidiary of Alibaba Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 534-5907 Email: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 437-6476 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com ALLSTATE CORP: Court Tosses Brown Class Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colin Brown, suing individually on his own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. The Allstate Corporation, et. al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05096-KAM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Matsumoto entered an order granting motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its entirety, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close 25 the case. Accordingly, because Brown's policy with Allstate Fire governs, the Court agrees with the R&R that the use of shared resources, through a shared worksheet or claims adjusters, is not enough, without more, for Brown to establish that Allstate Insurance's actions had a "determinative and coercive effect" on Allstate Fire. On de novo review, the Court is thus unconvinced that the R&R erred in failing to account for discretionary attorneys' fees or a "one-third of actual damages" attorneys' fees award in calculating the amount in controversy and overrules and denies Brown’s objection. Allstate is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RuUf7D at no extra charge.[CC] ALTRIA GROUP: Court Certifies IPP Classes in Reece Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al. (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order granting in part motions for class certification and denying motions to strike or exclude: The following class is certified: "All natural persons and entities in the United States that purchased e cigarette products directly from the Defendant Juul Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, from Oct. 5, 2018 to the present (the "Class Period"). The following Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPP") classes are certified with identified class representatives: Cartwright Act Class (All Plaintiffs): "All persons or entities in the Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin who purchased JUUL pods, excluding devices or JUUL kits containing devices ("JUUL Pods"), indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale, from Oct. 25, 2018 through March 29, 2024 (the "Class Period")." California Class (Daraka Larimore and Adam Matschullat): "All persons or entities in the State of California that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period." Florida Class (Allison Harrod): "All persons or entities in the State of Florida that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period." Hawaii Class (Michael Imai): "All persons or entities in the State of Hawaii that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period." Class (Kerry Walsh): "All persons or entities in the State of Massachusetts that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period." New York Class (Dylan Pang): "All persons or entities in the State of New York that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period." Rhode Island Class (Kurt Doughty): "All persons or entities in the State of Rhode Island that purchased JUUL Pods indirectly from JLI, for personal use and not resale during the Class Period." The following Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs ("IRPs") classes are certified with identified class representatives: Multistate Cartwright Act Class (Napht, Rose and Fifth, and Sofijon): A class, pursuing claims under the Cartwright Act, Sections 16700-16770 of the California Business and Professions Code ("The Cartwright Act"), defined as: "All businesses and entities in the States of Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from Dec. 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025 (the "Class Period"). California State Class (Napht, Rose and Fifth, and Sofijon). A class, pursuing claims under the Cartwright Act, Section 16700-16770 of the California Business and Professions Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et. seq. defined as: "All businesses and entities in the State of California that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from Dec. 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025." Florida State Class (Noor Baig). A class, pursuing claims under the Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade practices Act, Florida Stat. Sections 501.201 et seq. (the "FDUTPA"), defined as: "All businesses and entities in the State of Florida that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from Dec. 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025." Michigan State Class (Somerset Party Store). A class, pursuing claims under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 445.771 et seq., defined as: "All businesses and entities in the State of Michigan that purchased Juul pods (excluding Juul devices or Juul kits containing devices) indirectly from Juul Labs, Inc. for resale, from Dec. 1, 2018 through March 31, 2025." The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs), Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs (IRPs) bring antitrust and related state law claims against Altria and JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI) challenging an allegedly unlawful and anticompetitive agreement Altria entered into with JLI.2 The three sets of plaintiffs move for certification of nationwide, multistate, and single state classes for the different categories of purchasers. Altria manufactures and sells cigarettes and other tobacco products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cjVbck at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 19, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRIMAN BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00977-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to complete fact discovery and to modify the scheduling order: Event Deadline Completion of expert depositions: April 20, 2027 The Plaintiff's class certification May 19, 2027 motion: Amazon's class certification opposition June 22, 2027 and Daubert motion(s): The Plaintiff's class certification July 20, 2027 reply; the Plaintiff's Daubert motion(s); and the Plaintiff's opposition to any Daubert motion(s) Filed by Amazon: Amazon's opposition to the Plaintiff's Aug. 24, 2027 Daubert motion(s) and reply in support of Amazon's Daubert motion(s): The Plaintiff's reply in support of Sept. 14, 2027 their Daubert motion(s): Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rz59eS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Meredith Simons, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com merediths@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com The Defendant is represented by: Abraham M. Weill, Esq. Jennifer J. Nagle, Esq. Robert W. Sparkes III, Esq. Loly G. Tor, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 623-7580 E-mail: david.bateman@klgates.com abe.weill@klgates.com jennifer.nagle@klgates.com robert.sparkes@klgates.com loly.tor@klgates.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Aslan Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Umit Aslan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV03004 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02141. The Complaint alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"), and California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: chris.yates@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Cal. Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 Company continues to defend itself from the California Labor class suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. On October 30, 2025, a former employee initiated a class action litigation against Amphastar and IMS by filing a complaint for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to California’s PAGA, wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Cal. PAGA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 Company continues to defend itself from the PAGA class suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. On April 15, 2024, a former employee initiated an employment litigation against Amphastar and IMS by filing a complaint, as amended, having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, wage and hour, and other state laws. This complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, the plaintiff is seeking damages and related remedies under California law, as well as various penalty payments under the California Labor Code. In November 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to dismiss the individual and class claims, with only the PAGA claim remaining. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the complaint. Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and aseptic filling. ANDOVER EYE ASSOCIATES: Brady Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andover Eye Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Bradford Brady, individually and on Behalf of All other similarly situated vs. Andover Eye Associates, Inc., Case No. 2677CV00243 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage." Andover Eye Associates -- https://andovereye.org/ -- is a medical group practice located in Andover, Massachusetts that specializes in Ophthalmology and Optometry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Glennon, Esq. BRODY, HARDOON, PERKINS AND KESTEN, LLP 265 Franklin St 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 880-7105 APEX CLASS: May 14 Scheduling Conference Set, Dismissal Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fred W. Slaughter will hold a Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference for May 14, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in the case, MICHAEL SILVA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX CLASS ACTION LLC and IM DATA CENTERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01908 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2025). In the case, Silva seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendants failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class members, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on July 14, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that private information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. According to the complaint, the Defendants' investigation found that the private information compromised in the data breach included Plaintiff's and other Class Members information. The Defendants' failure to safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' highly sensitive private information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the data breach violates their common law duties, California law, and Defendants' implied contract with Clients to safeguard their private information, the suit said. The Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Records Act, and unjust enrichment, seeking an award of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive private information. On Feb. 9, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal, dropping Brooks Integrated Marketing, LLC d/b/a IMDataCenter as defendant. Apex has asked the Court to dismiss the complaint, asserting that: -- Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring his claims in the District Court because he has not suffered an injury-in-fact, his injuries are not traceable to Apex's conduct, and a favorable decision will not redress Plaintiff's alleged harms. -- Plaintiff fails to state a negligence claim because he was not owed a duty by Apex, nor has Apex breached any duty or proximately caused Plaintiff's alleged injuries because there was no evidence of unauthorized access to its systems. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for negligence per se because California does not recognize this claim as a standalone cause of action. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of third-party beneficiary contract because Plaintiff fails to allege facts establishing that a contract was created under which he was the intended beneficiary. Plaintiff further fails to plead allegations sufficient to show that Apex breached the alleged agreement and caused Plaintiff to suffer damages. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of implied contract because he has not shown that the requisite mutual assent and consideration to create an implied contract was provided. Further, without any evidence of unauthorized access to Apex's systems, Plaintiff's claim fails on the breach, causation, and damages elements. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for invasion of privacy, because Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show Apex committed an intentional interference. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty because there was no fiduciary relationship between him and Apex, nor has Apex breached any fiduciary duty or proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law because he has not set forth factual allegations that demonstrate he has standing. Additionally, because the cybersecurity incident was limited to Brooks Integrated Marketing d/b/a IMDataCenter's systems, Plaintiff further fails to show Apex engaged in any unlawful activities that would give rise to a UCL claim. -- Plaintiff fails to allege facts that establish he is a customer under the California Consumer Records Act. Even if Plaintiff is deemed to be a customer, a one-month period between discovery of the cybersecurity incident at issue and notification does not constitute a "delay," nor does the timeframe give rise to a valid claim under the CCRA. -- Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment because he has not conferred a benefit upon Apex. Plaintiff further fails to sufficiently allege that Apex has been unjustly enriched. Apex's Motion to Dismiss has been scheduled for hearing April 23. Apex Class Action LLC is a third-party class action settlement administration firm. IM Data Centers, LLC is a third party data center vendor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 Attorneys for Defendant Apex Class Action LLC: Allen E. Sattler, Esq. Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. Chasity Henry, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 949.743.3979 Fax: 949.743.3934 E-mail: asattler@constangy.com jlee@constangy.com chenry@constangy.com AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Modica Files Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT MODICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC. and DANIEL BARBER, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02317 (D.N.J., March 5, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive securities between June 16, 2025 to January 8, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Defendants provided investors with material information pertaining to the timeline for approval and launch for Aquestive's New Drug Application (NDA) for Anaphylm (Dibutepinephrine) sublingual film. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's NDA submission and optimistic claims that Anaphylm would be approved by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date, January 31, 2026. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Aquestive's NDA for Anaphylm; pertinently, Aquestive concealed or otherwise minimized the significance of the human factors involved in the use and deployment of its sublingual film, such as packaging, use, administration, and labeling. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Aquestive's securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth emerged on January 9, 2026, when Aquestive announced that the Company was in receipt of a letter from the FDA identifying deficiencies that precluded labeling discussions for Anaphylm. Moreover, Aquestive revealed that the letter from the FDA confirmed that the Agency's review of Anaphylm NDA was ongoing and no final decision had been made, which effectively delayed the approval of Anaphylm well beyond the January 31, 2026 PDUFA date. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Aquestive's revelation. The price of Aquestive's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $6.21 per share on January 8, 2026, Aquestive's stock price fell to $3.91 per share on January 9, 2026, a decline of over 37% in a single day, says the suit. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company offers medicines and therapeutic solutions, as well as engages on late-stage proprietary product pipelines for the treatment of central nervous system diseases. Aquestive Therapeutics serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com ARTHUR MAGLINGER: Must Release Perez from Unlawful Detention ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX ESTUARDO HERNANDEZ PEREZ, v. ARTHUR MAGLINGER, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00093-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Perez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as follows: The United States is directed to release Petitioner Perez immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of his due process rights. The United States must provide him with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by February 27, 2026. Petitioner Perez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. Mr. Perez has been present in the United States since 2011. Perez entered the United States without inspection. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qV8a1p at no extra charge.[CC] ASSOCIATED COURIERS: Court Partly OK's Bid to Strike in "Smith" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joseph L. Smith, Raushanah Smith, and Erick Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Associated Couriers, LLC and Matthew Silverberg, Defendants, No. 4:25-cv-01224-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' collective action allegations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The collective action allegations were struck as to Plaintiffs Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams, while Plaintiff Raushanah Smith was permitted to proceed with her collective claims on the current record. Associated Couriers, LLC specializes in the transportation of medical equipment and specimen. Matthew Silverberg is its CEO. Plaintiffs are delivery drivers who provided delivery services to Defendants from various times in 2024 to present. Defendants alleged that each Plaintiff, either individually or on behalf of a contractor, executed an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement (ICOA) with Associated Couriers. The ICOAs each contain a class and collective action waiver, written in all caps and bold font, providing that the Contractor and Contractor's Workers waive any right to initiate, join, remain in, or otherwise participate in any class action, collective action, consolidated action, or representative action brought against the Carrier, including those arising under the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed this action on August 13, 2025, alleging that Defendants paid them on a per-mile basis rather than as a percentage of adjusted gross revenue, as required under the ICOAs. Defendants filed their Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike on November 14, 2025. Plaintiffs urged the court to disregard the ICOAs attached to Defendants' motion because they were not attached to the Complaint. The court rejected this argument, finding that documents necessarily embraced by the complaint are not matters outside the pleading. Because Plaintiffs' Complaint stated that each Plaintiff contracted with Associated Couriers, and because Plaintiffs' FLSA claims rested upon the ICOA, the court found the ICOAs could properly be considered in ruling on the motion to strike. Plaintiffs attempted to distinguish Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., 999 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2021), arguing that it involved a motion to compel arbitration not present here and was not a FLSA case. The court found both arguments unpersuasive. Courts analyze collective action waivers the same regardless of whether an arbitration agreement is present. As to the FLSA argument, the Eighth Circuit held in Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013), that the right to collective action under the FLSA is waivable, a position shared by multiple other circuits. The ICOAs contain a choice-of-law provision mandating that Missouri law governs. Because no motion to compel arbitration invoking Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act had been filed, the court found it proper to apply Missouri substantive law to evaluate the validity and enforceability of the Waivers. Unconscionability The court analyzed unconscionability under Missouri law by examining both procedural and substantive aspects, considering the totality of the circumstances. On procedural unconscionability, the court found the Waivers were not procedurally unconscionable. Plaintiffs failed to provide any legal or factual support for their assertions of adhesion and bargaining inequality. The waiver language appeared in capital letters and bold font rather than unreadable fine print, and each Contractor acknowledged the right to seek legal counsel prior to entering into the contract. On substantive unconscionability, the court found the Waivers were not substantively unconscionable. The Waivers were limited to proceeding collectively and did not preclude or limit the recovery of attorney fees, costs, or damages. The right to proceed collectively under the FLSA is a procedural right and is therefore waivable. Accordingly, the Waivers did not impermissibly insulate Defendants from liability, and Plaintiffs remained free to pursue their FLSA claims individually. The court also rejected the argument that Plaintiffs' classification as independent contractors versus employees affected the validity of the Waivers. Even assuming Plaintiffs were employees, the court had already concluded the Waivers were not void on procedural unconscionability grounds. Each ICOA also contains a severability clause providing that if any provision is deemed invalid, only that provision is voided while the remainder of the agreement remains binding. Inasmuch as the Waivers were found valid, the classification question did not invalidate them. The court declined to enforce the Waiver against Raushanah Smith at this stage. Her ICOA was between Associated Couriers and Nori Transports, LLC. She signed solely on behalf of Nori Transports, not in her individual capacity, making her a non-signatory. Defendants had not yet advanced a theory binding her to the Waiver, and the record was not sufficiently developed to resolve that issue. The court therefore declined to strike the collective action allegations with respect to Smith. The court rejected the argument that the Waivers could not be enforced against putative opt-in plaintiffs without evidence that they had executed the same agreements. The unambiguous waiver language expressly covered individuals seeking to opt in to the collective action. Any putative opt-ins who signed an ICOA containing the Waiver in their individual capacity were presumably covered by it. The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike. Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams entered into valid and enforceable class and collective action waivers, and the terms of those Waivers are not unconscionable. Therefore, the court struck the collective action allegations as to Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams, permitting them to proceed solely in their individual capacity. The court denied the motion to strike the collective allegations as to Raushanah Smith on the current record. A copy of the Court's decision dated 5th March, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XVSMVH from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Associated Couriers, LLC Represented By Steven H. Schwartz Brown And James Pc - St. Louis 314-421-3400 sschwartz@bjpc.com Rebecca Sue Verble Brown And James Pc - St. Louis 314-242-5328 rverble@bjpc.com Defendant Matthew Silverberg Represented By Steven H. Schwartz Brown And James Pc - St. Louis 314-421-3400 sschwartz@bjpc.com Rebecca Sue Verble Brown And James Pc - St. Louis 314-242-5328 rverble@bjpc.com Plaintiff Joseph L. Smith individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated The Rolwes Law Firm, LLC 254 Court Avenue Suite 305 Memphis, TN 38103 Represented By Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm LLC 314-806-9626 erolwes@rolweslaw.com Philip Eric Oliphant The Rolwes Employment Law Firm 901-519-9135 poliphant@rolweslaw.com Plaintiff Raushanah Smith individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated The Rolwes Law Firm, LLC 254 Court Avenue Suite 305 Memphis, TN 38103 Represented By Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm LLC 314-806-9626 erolwes@rolweslaw.com Philip Eric Oliphant The Rolwes Employment Law Firm 901-519-9135 poliphant@rolweslaw.com Plaintiff Erick Williams individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated The Rolwes Law Firm, LLC 254 Court Avenue Suite 305 Memphis, TN 38103 Represented By Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm LLC 314-806-9626 erolwes@rolweslaw.com Philip Eric Oliphant The Rolwes Employment Law Firm 901-519-9135 poliphant@rolweslaw.com Plaintiff Brandon Drummer Represented By Edward J. Rolwes The Rolwes Law Firm LLC 314-806-9626 erolwes@rolweslaw.com Philip Eric Oliphant The Rolwes Employment Law Firm 901-519-9135 poliphant@rolweslaw.com BASF CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 11, 2027 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:18-mc-01001-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Hardy entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline Supplemental interrogatory responses by April 16, 2026 the Plaintiffs and the Defendants: Close of Fact Discovery: May 29, 2026 Motion for class certification, motion(s) Feb. 11, 2027 for summary judgment, and motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 deadline: Responses to class certification, motion(s) March 25, 2027 for summary judgment, and motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703: Reply briefs in support of motion for class April 29, 2027 certification, motion(s) for summary judgment, and motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703: A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DpnVZp at no extra charge.[CC] BAY VISTA: Faces Mate Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Kelstein Mate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bay Vista Healthcare & Wellness Center and DOES 1 TO 25, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV07092 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated state law because they failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work; failed to include bonuses/incentive payments/shift differentials in calculating employees' regular rate of pay for use in deciphering the correct overtime rate of pay; failed to provide 10-minute rest periods for every four hours of work; failed to provide the requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every five hours of work; failed to pay all wages due within any time period; failed to keep accurate and complete payroll records showing the actual hours worked per day and the wages paid; failed to pay earned and due wages upon separation of employment; failed to reimburse business-related expenses and costs; and failed to provide proper and correct/accurate sick pay. The Plaintiff started working at Bay Vista Healthcare & Wellness Center in the medical record department in 2024. She was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and her latest rate of pay was approximately $25 per hour. The Plaintiff's employment ended around later 2024. Bay Vista Healthcare & Wellness Center is a skilled nursing home and rehabilitation facility based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVE A. HOFFMAN 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3817 Telephone: (323) 406-6898 Facsimile: (323) 937-1539 E-mail: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net BEACH TRADING COMPANY: England Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beach Trading Company, Inc. The case is styled as James England, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beach Trading Company, Inc. doing business as: BUYDIG, Case No. 2:26-cv-02054-BRM-JBC (D.N.J., Feb. 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Beach Trading Company, Inc. -- https://beachtr.com/ -- is a pioneering retailer of consumer electronics. The Company offers digital cameras, lenses and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com BETTERHELP INC: Continues to Defend Patient Data Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company’s subsidiary, BetterHelp Inc., continues to defend itself from patient data class suits in California and Canada. There have been multiple putative class-action lawsuits filed against the Company's subsidiary BetterHelp, Inc. ("BetterHelp") in connection with the consent order that BetterHelp entered into with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in July 2023. The actions have been filed in California federal and state courts and in Canada. The cases are substantially similar, involving allegations of misleading patients as to BetterHelp's use of patient data and associated alleged violations of law involving privacy, advertising, contract, and tort. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. BFS GROUP LLC: Hernandez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Raul Estrada Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BFS GROUP, LLC; BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV001312 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00378. In the operative Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Authorize And Permit Rest Breaks; Failure To Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure To Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure To Timely Pay Final Wages At Termination; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew B. Golper, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 2 Park Plaza, Suite 470 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 Email: mgolper@brgslaw.com - and - Alec Dimario, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 Email: adimario@brgslaw.com BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Block 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 17, 2025, a putative federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A common stock between February 26, 2020 and August 1, 2024. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false or misleading statements regarding its anti-money laundering ("AML") and compliance programs and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. On June 18, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On January 6, 2026, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. It is reasonably possible that the Company will incur a loss in connection with these federal securities matter, and the loss could be material; however, the Company cannot estimate the amount of loss or range of loss at this time. Block is a financial technology conglomerate.[BN] BLOCK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Block 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A separate derivative action making similar claims with that of the shareholder derivative suits filed between February 5, 2025 and April 24, 2025 and requesting similar damages was filed on October 9, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that has not been consolidated. It is reasonably possible that the Company will incur a loss in connection with the derivative matters, and the loss could be material; however, the Company cannot estimate the amount of loss or range of loss at this time. Block is a financial technology conglomerate.[BN] BODY CONTOUR CENTERS: Anderson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Body Contour Centers, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello, Case No. 2:26-cv-02065 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Body Contour Centers, LLC doing business as Sono Bello -- https://www.sonobello.com/ -- is an industry leader in providing liposuction, body contouring and excess skin removal procedures to patients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Phil-N-Cindy's Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Phil-N-Cindy's Lunch, Inc., individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC., HILLANDALE FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC., ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC., VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00193 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Feb. 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00169-jdp to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- https://www.calmainefoods.com/ -- is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Nicole Veno, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter Anthony Barile, III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERGT, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com - and - Amanda Marie Williams, Esq. Daniel R. Olson, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE, P.A. 100 S. 5th St., Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-3000 Email: awilliams@bassford.com dolson@bassford.com The Defendants are represented by: Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-7075 Email: ccottrell@kirkland.com - and - Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. Elisabeth Callaghan Logan, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2198 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: dlaytin@kirkland.com elisabeth.logan@kirkland.com Jay Leonard Levine, Esq. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 2020 K Street, Nw Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 778-3000 Email: jlevine@porterwright.com - and - John I. Grossbart, Esq. Joshua Concannon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 876-8000 Email: john.grossbart@dentons.com joshua.concannon@dentons.com - and - Christopher E. Ondeck, Esq. Jared M. DuBosar, Esq. Stephen R. Chuk, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, Suite 600S 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 525-0865 Email: condeck@proskauer.com jdubosar@proskauer.com schuk@proskauer.com CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Lehman Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Lehman, individually and for others similarly situated v. CASCADIA HEALTHCARE, LLC DBA PACIFIC NORTHWEST HEALTHCARE, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Case No. 26-2-00167-34 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington in and for Thurston County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05193. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging violations of Washington state wage and hour laws, specifically: failure to pay overtime under the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA"); willfully withholding earned wages under the Washington Wage Rebate Act ("WWRA"); and failure to provide bona fide meal and rest periods under the Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("WIWA") and related Department of Labor and Industries ("DOLI") regulations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Darren A. Feider, Esq. SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: (425) 454-4233 Email: dfeider@sbj.law CERNER CORPORATION: Long Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Haley Long, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation, CGH Medical Center, Case No. 3:25-cv-50518 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00167-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Milici, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue Nw Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 663-6006 Email: Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com - and - Mark A. Olthoff, Esq. POLSINELLI - KCMO 900 W. 48th Place Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 753-1000 Fax: (816) 753-1536 Email: molthoff@polsinelli.com CHEWY INC: Monaco Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Thomas Monaco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chewy, Inc., Case No. CV-25-011699 was removed from the Stanislaus County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00612-AC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Chewy, Inc. -- https://www.chewy.com/ -- is an online retailer of pet food and other pet-related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Megan A. Suehiro, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 612-2500 Fax: (213) 612-2501 Email: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com CHICAGO BH HOSPITAL: Boyd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ora Boyd, individually and for all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. CHICAGO BH HOSPITAL, LLC, d/b/a MONTROSE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL, Case No. 2026CH00529 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02178. The Plaintiff alleges claims of unpaid overtime and earned wages under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") on behalf of herself and a class of dozens if not hundreds of other current and former employees of Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that she and the class members are entitled to "unpaid wages, treble damages, monthly statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and other penalties available under the IMWL and IWPCA" and "pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded at the highest rate allowable by law."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phillip M. Schreiber, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: Phillip.Schreiber@hklaw.com - and - Frederick L. Conrad, III, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 3721 Email: Trip.Conrad@hklaw.com CHIQUITA BRANDS: Jimenez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVILA JIMENEZ et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09023 (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=4Skv2V at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Martinez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEREIRA MARTINEZ et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09022 (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=NMElwA at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Osorio Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENGIFO OSORIO et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08990 (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=oKkbn0 at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Peate Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTERO-PEATE et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09041 (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=XAX4tq at no extra charge.[CC] CHIQUITA BRANDS: Ramirez Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CUBIDES RAMIREZ, et al., v. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08931 (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=ZX8Pvm at no extra charge.[CC] CMC STEEL FABRICATORS: Miranda Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Dorantes Miranda, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CMC STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. dba CMC REBAR, a Texas Corporation, Case No. CIVSB2511003 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00954. The Plaintiff's Initial Complaint asserts causes of action for: failure to pay all minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; rest period violations; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason A. Fischbein, Esq. Jasmine M. Samuels, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: jfischbein@fisherphillips.com jsamuels@fisherphillips.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Figueroa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2600411 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00938. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony G. Ly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: aly@littler.com - and - Sophia B. Collins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: scollins@littler.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: $2.9MM Settlement Has Prelim Approval -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jana Rabinowitz, Shana Denny, and Yolanda Pitre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company and Tom's of Maine, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06996 (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on March 6, 2026. Defendants manufacture and distribute over-the-counter oral care and personal care products nationwide. Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased toothpaste and other oral care products from Tom's of Maine. On November 5, 2024, the FDA issued a warning letter to Defendants following an inspection of Tom's of Maine's drug manufacturing facility conducted in May 2024, during which the FDA investigator observed specific violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Specifically, the investigator found that Tom's of Maine had used water that had repeatedly shown presence of bacteria, failed to investigate or assess the impact of the finished products or the performance of the water system, released products containing bacteria, acknowledged it was using insufficient criteria to evaluate its water systems, and failed to maintain its manufacturing facilities in a good state of repair. Plaintiffs argued that in purchasing the toothpaste and other oral care products, they relied upon representations by Defendants that the products were naturally sourced, good for you, and made with rigorous ingredient and packaging standards. Plaintiffs contended they would not have purchased the product had they known it was contaminated and had subsequently suffered economic injuries resulting from their purchases. Prior to filing this action, on May 28, 2025, the parties engaged in private mediation with the Hon. Suzanne H. Segal, which resulted in a nationwide resolution of all claims. Plaintiffs commenced this class action on December 19, 2025. The parties consented to the court's jurisdiction on January 5, 2026, and Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on January 9, 2026. No opposition was filed. The total settlement fund amount is $2,900,000. The Settlement Fund is to be used to pay all settlement expenses, including Notice and Other Administrative Costs, CAFA Notice, the Fee Award, Service Awards, and Class Members' Claims. The Settlement Class is comprised of all purchasers within the United States that, between November 21, 2020 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased for use and not for resale or distribution purposes, one or more of Tom's of Maine toothpaste products. The court found that the Settlement Class satisfies all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). As to numerosity, the estimated number of Class Members is in the tens of thousands, thereby easily establishing the requirement. As to commonality and typicality, the factual and legal theories underlying Plaintiffs' claims are the same as those of the class members, particularly whether Defendants were aware of the issues raised in the FDA warning letter, whether Defendants were negligent in preventing, maintaining, or remedying the concerns raised in the FDA letter, whether Defendants made misrepresentations on the products' labels, and whether Plaintiffs and other class members relied upon those representations when purchasing the products, resulting in economic harm. As to adequacy of representation, Plaintiffs' interests mirror those of the proposed class, and Class Counsel are highly experienced consumer class action attorneys. The proposed class is clearly ascertainable, as it can be defined with objective criteria -- individuals who purchased one or more of Tom's of Maine toothpaste products between November 21, 2020 through the date of preliminary approval. The court further found that common issues of Defendants' alleged failure to disclose the information they were provided within the FDA warning letter resulting in the alleged harm predominate over any varying factual or legal theories that may exist among the Class Members, and that a class action is the best and most efficient mechanism to fairly and efficiently resolve the claims. The court evaluated the settlement under both Rule 23(e)(2) factors and the Grinnell factors and found as follows: (a) Adequate representation: Plaintiffs' interests are adequately aligned with Class Members' interests, and proposed Class Counsel are sufficiently experienced and qualified to represent the Class. (b) Arms-length negotiations: The parties were engaged in extensive discovery during mediation through which they were able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, thereby allowing the parties an opportunity to negotiate a well-informed, reasonable settlement. (c) Adequate relief: The settlement provides a $2,900,000 fund for distribution to Class Members on a pro rata basis. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees totaling one-third of the Settlement Fund is well within the range of reasonableness. Service Awards of up to $1,000 each for the Class Representatives and Special Plaintiffs are routinely awarded to named plaintiffs. The release is not overbroad, as it is limited to claims arising out of Tom's of Maine's toothpaste and oral care products. (d) Equitable treatment: Each Settlement Class Member with an Approved Claim is entitled to a pro rata portion of the Settlement Fund. Claimants with Proofs of Purchase are entitled to a pro rata distribution based on the number of Class Products purchased, capped at three, and Claimants without Proofs of Purchase will still receive a distribution amounting to the manufacturer's suggested retail price. The court ordered as follows: (i) The settlement falls within the range of reasonableness and meets the requirements for preliminary class settlement approval. (ii) The court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class. (iii) Jana Rabinowitz, Shana Denny, and Yolanda Pitre are appointed as Class Representatives. (iv) Denlea and Carton LLP, The Wright Law Office, and Wilshire Law Firm are appointed as Class Counsel. (v) Epiq Systems, Inc. is appointed as Class Administrator. (vi) The proposed Notice Plan for distribution to Class Members is approved. (vii) The deadline for Class Members to opt-out or make objections to the Settlement is ninety days after the Settlement Notice Date. (viii) Class Counsel is directed to file a motion for final approval of the settlement on or before July 27, 2026. (ix) The court will conduct an in-person Final Approval Hearing on September 10, 2026, at 11:00 AM in the Central Islip Courthouse, Courtroom 1020. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 6, 2006 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BFN9Un from PacerMonitor.com Jeffrey I. Carton Denlea & Carton LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Will Wright The Wright Law Office, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Thiago Coelho Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, Class Action 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Craig Thomas McAllister Hannah Y Shay Chanoine Nexus Uzoma Sea O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019-6022 Attorneys for Defendants COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Harvey Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jacob Harvey, Nancy Louks, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Commonspirit Health, Dignity Health, Mortuary Support Services of Northern California, LLC, a limited liability company; Michael Robert Lofton, an individual; DOE 1-50, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV000587 was removed from the Sacramento Superior Court (Gordon Schaber), to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00380 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. CommonSpirit Health -- https://www.commonspirit.org/ -- is an American health system based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lorraine Fiset, Esq. RFZ LAW LLP 315 W. 9th Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone: (213) 266-5170 Email: rachel.fiset@zfzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Anna S. McLean, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON Four Embarcadero, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 434-9100 Email: amclean@sheppardmullin.com CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Ochoa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as GILBERT OCHOA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, L.L.C., and DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV03386, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02517 to the proceeding. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff Ochoa filed this class action complaint against Defendants for: (1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; (2) failure to authorize or permit meal periods; (3) failure to authorize or permit rest breaks; (4) failure to pay wages for accrued sick days at the regular rate of pay; (5) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; and, (7) unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Consolidated Disposal Service LLC provides waste and recycling collection services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shahram Samie, Esq. David S. Mao, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: ssamie@littler.com dmaoz@littler.com CORDOBA LEGAL GROUP: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cordoba Legal Group PLLC. The case is styled as Tiffany Harris, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Cordoba Legal Group PLLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00332-JHE (N.D. Ala., Feb. 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Cordoba Law Firm, PLLC -- https://www.cordobalegal.com/ -- provides high quality legal services to Lake Jackson, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com COREWELL HEALTH: Chaneyfield Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAKYRA CHANEYFIELD, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. COREWELL HEALTH, a Michigan nonprofit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00712 (W.D. Mich., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint states that the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt Hourly Employee with the job title of certified medical assistant. During her employment, Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its Corewell Family Medicine East facility in Warren, Michigan. Defendant paid its Hourly Employees at varying hourly rates. Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $22.47. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its payment structure, including a "Starting Bonus" and an "Appreciation Bonus (collectively "Bonus Pay"). The complaint alleges that throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As a result of its prima facie FLSA violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the suit. Plaintiff Shakyra Chaneyfield is an adult resident of Warren, Michigan and was employed by Defendant from approximately November 2024 to November 2025. Defendant Corewell Health is a nationally recognized health system, offering a full range of services for you and your loved ones so they can be strong and healthy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com CORRECTIONS CENTER: Garcia Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTHER GONZALES GARCIA, v. CORRECTIONS CENTER OF NORTHWEST OHIO, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00458-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Philip Calabrese entered an order dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition but if it had jurisdiction would require exhaustion as a prudential matter. Nonetheless, the federal district courts that have considered the issues raised in the petition have not hesitated to wade into interpretation of a statutory scheme where Congress has made clear they have little, if any, place. The Court fails to see how it has jurisdiction to consider the petition. Petitioner Garcia, a 46-year-old citizen and native of Honduras, unlawfully entered the United States. Since 2012, he has lived in Detroit, Michigan with his spouse, who is a U.S. citizen, and their six children. On Jan. 19, 2026, he was stopped while driving to work and taken into custody. Since then, he has been in immigration detention in the Northern District of Ohio. According to Petitioner, Mr. Gonzales Garcia has lived in the United States since entering illegally in 2012. He has no criminal history, either in the United States or Honduras. He and his wife, who is a U.S. citizen, co-own a roofing company, and he has consistently worked while in the country. The couple has six children, two of whom are U.S. citizens and two of whom are lawful permanent residents. On February 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LvqCYT at no extra charge.[CC] COUPANG INC: Joint Status Report Due April 24 --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAKRAE LEE et al., v. COUPANG INC et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00047-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement in class actions. The Court sets the following dates for initial disclosure and submission of the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan: Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: Mar. 27, 2026 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): Apr. 10, 2026 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Apr. 24, 2026 Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): If settlement is achieved, counsel shall immediately notify Natalie Wood, Courtroom Deputy, at natalie_wood@wawd.uscourts.gov. The parties are responsible for complying with the terms of this Order. The Court may impose sanctions on any party who fails to comply fully with this Order. Coupang is an American Delaware-incorporated technology and online retail company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4LHEvN at no extra charge.[CC] CRICUT INC: Bennet Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Malika Bennet and Mariah Meade, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CRICUT, INC., Case No. 26-2-03936-4 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00705. The Complaint alleges a single claim that Marten failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class overtime in accordance with RCW 49.46.130(f) and WAC 296-128-012(1)(a). The Complaint alleges a single claim that Marten failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class overtime in accordance with RCW 49.46.130(f) and WAC 296-128-012(1)(a).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Amit D. Ranade, Esq. Benjamin C. Woodruff, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 University Street, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Phone: 206.741.1420 Email: aranade@swlaw.com bwoodruff@swlaw.com CURRENEX INC: Seeks to Seal Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Reply Papers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al., v. Currenex, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to redact or seal various papers filed by Plaintiffs in support of their motion for class certification and appointment as class counsel. First, Goldman requests that portions of the following documents which reflect commercially sensitive, proprietary, and/or confidential information be redacted: ECF No. 445 (Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum); ECF No. 446-1 (Exhibit 56 -- Pirrong Reply Report); and ECF No. 446-2 (Exhibit 57 -- Woolcock Reply Report). Second, Goldman requests that the following document, which consists of excerpts from a deposition transcript marked "Highly Confidential," remain fully under seal: ECF No. 446-4 (Exhibit 59 -- Reiss Deposition Transcript). Each document contains commercially sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential material including, without limitation, information regarding Goldman's trading strategies and history and information about the fees that Goldman paid for use of the Currenex platform. The disclosure of the foregoing documents could cause competitive harm to Goldman. Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGf3ux at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 Facsimile: (212) 225-3999 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com rzutshi@cgsh.com D&B Supply: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Battle Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D&B Supply LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02429 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.dbsupply.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Dbsupply.com. On August 26, 2025, while searching online for outdoor boots to use while working in his garden, Plaintiff visited Dbsupply.com among the top results. However, while navigating the Website, Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his ability to complete the purchase. Dbsupply.com's access barriers deny the Plaintiff the full and equal access to the website, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in D&B Supply's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff ANDRE BATTLE is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant D&B Supply LLC provides to the public a website known as Dbsupply.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a broad range of products for farm and ranch needs, lawn and garden care, pet supplies, clothing and footwear, sporting goods, and general outdoor use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Poe Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DaMia Harris-Madden, et al. The case is styled as Patrick Poe, Rachel Roe, Veronica Voe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DaMia Harris-Madden, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services; Kristin Gleeson, as Director of Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, and Acting Associate Commissioner of Child Welfare and Community Services; Steven Connolly, as Director of the Bureau of Special Hearings; Case No. 1:26-cv-01606-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. DaMia Harris-Madden is the commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Suhana S. Han, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP(NYC) 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 558-4647 Fax: (212) 558-3588 Email: hans@sullcrom.com DANAHER CORP: Hawkins Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA HAWKINS, and DEREK EINERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DANAHER CORPORATION, RAINER M. BLAIR, MATT MCGREW, and EMMANUEL LIGNER, Case No. 1:23-cv-02055-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a Class consisting of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Danaher common stock between Jan. 27, 2022, and Oct. 23, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby," except for: (i) the Defendants and members of their immediate families; (ii) any person who was a director or officer of Danaher during the Class Period; (iii) any entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; and (iv) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. Appointing Pomerantz as Class counsel and Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC as liaison Class counsel. Danaher is an American healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HcYoaS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Justin D. D'Aloia, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com jdaloia@pomlaw.com - and - Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. Jan E. Messerschmidt, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. Rina Restaino, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 Facsimile: (213) 519-5876 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com rina@schallfirm.com DESIGNITY INC: Russell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Russell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DESIGNITY, INC. and SHAHROUZ VARSHABI, Case No. 1:26-cv-01648 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought to redress systematic and pervasive violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime premiums. All of Plaintiff's work was vetted, edited and approved by the Creative Director before the final product was sent to the client. The Plaintiff was forbidden from outsourcing her work to anyone else. Plaintiff and her fellow Creatives, along with Creative Directors, were required to attend mandatory "Designity Policy Training" and "AI Learning Sessions" once a month, for an hour each. The Plaintiff was not compensated for the time spent at these meetings--nor, on information and belief, were any other Creatives compensated for their time. The Plaintiff and all other Creatives also suffered unlawful deductions from their wages as a result of software subscriptions they were required to purchase, because Designity's clients required those specific software applications and/or the subscriptions were necessary for the Creatives to conduct their work for Designity, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Amanda Russell was hired by Defendants for the position of "Temporary Emerging Creative." Designity is a privately held company that provides on-demand creative services, like marketing, design, and brand work, to business clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Simpson, Esq. Raya F. Saksouk, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 509-1616 Email: ssimpson@nyemployeelaw.com rsaksouk@nyemployeelaw.com DILLON ENVIRONMENTAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Butler Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DILLON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00412-PRW (W.D. Okla., March 4, 2026) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members worked for Dillon at any time from March 4, 2023 through the final disposition of this matter, and have not been paid the correct amount of overtime, in violation of federal law. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Additionally, Dillon paid non-discretionary bonuses--commissions--to Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members, but failed to include these commissions in Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their correct rate of overtime compensation which violates the FLSA, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members did not and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA, says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members seek to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other damages owed under the FLSA as a collective action. The Plaintiff prays that all similarly situated workers be notified of the pendency of this action to apprise them of their rights and provide them an opportunity to opt-in to this lawsuit. Plaintiff Chad Butler was employed by Dillon during the relevant time period. Defendant Dillon Environmental Services, LLC is a domestic limited liability company, that is headquartered in, and licensed to do business in, the State of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noble K. McIntyre MCINTYRE LAW PC 8601 S. Western Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73139 Telephone: (405) 917-5250 Facsimile: (405) 917-5405 E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin 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 DIMENSION 6 FITNESS: Tanner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dimension 6 Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Quintin Tanner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dimension 6 Fitness, LLC, Case No. CU26-01883 (Cal. Super. Ct., CU26-01883 Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Other Tort." Dimension 6 Fitness, LLC is the official licensee of Nike, Inc., specializing in the design, development, and marketing of Nike-branded strength training equipment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com DK HOUSEHOLD: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DK HOUSEHOLD BRANDS CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-01183-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the settlement class and final approval of the class action settlement agreement. The Plaintiff submits the accompanying Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class and Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff asks that the Court find the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and enter the attached proposed order. DK distributes household appliances, grills, and entertainment electronics. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v2izy3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com DOLLAR TREE: Godines Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA GODINES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting modify the scheduling order to continue the upcoming class certification fact discovery deadline by 90 days. The Plaintiff requests that her motion be granted, and that the Court continue the deadline to conduct class certification discovery, from March 10, 2026, to June 8, 2026. Plaintiff Cecila Godines (“Plaintiff”) requests that this Court modify the scheduling order under Local Rule 233 to extend the fact discovery cut-off date by ninety (90) days from to March 10, 2026, to June 8, 2026. This request "does not affect dispositive motion filing dates, trial dates, or the final pre-trial conference," and therefore Plaintiff brings it as an administrative motion. The Plaintiff seeks this relief because the Plaintiff's counsel has not yet been able to obtain the information, testimony and documentation it needs to prepare for and file its motion for class certification. However, because the current class certification deadline is not until September 10, 2026, allowing the Plaintiff to continue obtaining discovery for another three months will not impact the existing class certification deadline. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. On June 20, 2025, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff's case to federal court. Dollar Tree is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xJRs12 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. Sara Pezeshkpour, Esq. Noam Y. Reiffman, Esq. Marissa M. Mayhood, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: kgold@blackstonepc.com spezeshkpour@blackstonepc.com nreiffman@blackstonepc.com mmayhood@blackstonepc.com ELON MUSK: Pampena Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, et al., v. ELON MUSK, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order denying ex parte motion to continue trial, motion for certification, and motion to reopen class certification. Seven days before trial, Musk asked this Court for a continuance on an issue that, frankly, should have been raised on his motion to dismiss. Musk takes issue with Plaintiffs' "scheme" liability claim because he believes it is barred by the Noerr Pennington doctrine and insufficiently pleaded. Indeed, Musk has filed a series of motions premised on these grounds: the aforementioned motion for a continuance, a motion to reopen class certification, and a motion for certification for interlocutory appeal. At the pretrial conference, the Court instructed the parties that scheme liability would be permitted but allowed supplemental briefing on Musk's fourth motion in limine on the topic, based on Musk’s request for reconsideration. Musk contends that he only learned the specifics of the scheme claim on August 12, 2025, after the close of discovery, when Plaintiffs again supplemented their interrogatory responses to describe their scheme claim. But Musk did not move to reopen discovery at that point. And he did not move to do so after the Court denied his motion for summary judgment on October 15, 2025. Musk has provided no explanation for why he failed to request that discovery be reopened until the eve of trial. “It is now too late for [Musk] to pursue discovery that could have been undertaken months ago." He cannot now reasonably contend that he would be prejudiced in his "ability to adequately prepare a defense" against a theory that was part of the complaint, brought up during discovery, permitted during summary judgment, and then permitted again after a pretrial motion in limine. Elon Musk is a businessman and entrepreneur. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLxwnx at no extra charge.[CC] EMEND CORPORATE SERVICES: Arthur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emend Corporate Services LP. The case is styled as Jeffrey A. Arthur, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Emend Corporate Services LP, Case No. 26STCV06469 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Emend Healthcare -- https://emendhealthcare.com/ -- offers compassionate mental health and addiction treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Choi Shareholder Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Expensify, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Choi shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. On July 23, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Choi v. Barrett, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-1300 (the "Choi Action"), purportedly on its behalf against the Derivative Defendants and asserting substantively the same claims as those asserted in the O'Halloran Action. On October 20, 2025, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the Choi Action pending final resolution of the Putative Class Action. The Derivative Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing and will continue to vigorously defend against the claims in the Derivative Action. Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management system for personal and business use. EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Expensify, 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 26, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon stayed the O’Halloran shareholder derivative suit pending resolution of any and all motion(s) to dismiss the Putative Class Action. On May 9, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned O'Halloran v. Barrett, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00775 (the "O'Halloran Action"), purportedly on the Company's behalf, naming it as nominal defendant, and its executive officers and several of its current and former directors as defendants (collectively, the "Derivative Defendants"). On August 14, 2024, the Court stayed the O'Halloran Action pending resolution of any and all motion(s) to dismiss the Putative Class Action. On December 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Da Silva v. Barrett, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02095 (the "Da Silva Action" and with the O'Halloran Action, the "Derivative Action"), purportedly on its behalf against the Derivative Defendants and asserting substantively the same claims as those asserted in the O'Halloran Action. On January 2, 2025, the parties to the Derivative Action filed a stipulation to consolidate the O'Halloran and Da Silva Actions and apply the stay entered in the O'Halloran Action to the Derivative Action. On February 10, 2025, the Court consolidated the O'Halloran and Da Silva Actions and applied the existing stay to the consolidated action under the caption In re Expensify, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00775-SI. The Derivative Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing and will continue to vigorously defend against the claims in the Derivative Action. Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management system for personal and business use. EXPENSIFY INC: Final Hearing on Wilhite Settlement Set for June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Expensify, 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 26, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon set the final approval hearing for the class suit settlement on June 30, 2026. On November 29, 2023, a putative securities class action (the "Putative Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR, naming the Company, its executive officers and several of our current and former directors as defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired its stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading statements in the offering documents filed in connection with our IPO. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On January 29, 2024, three shareholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Putative Class Action. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on March 11, 2024. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed May 10, 2024 (the "Amended Complaint"), naming six of its current board members as additional defendants (together with the Defendants, the "Amended Defendants"). Amended Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on July 9, 2024. The lead plaintiff's opposition was filed on September 6, 2024, and the Amended Defendants' reply was filed on October 18, 2024. On December 30, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation that the Amended Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The lead plaintiff and Amended Defendants each filed objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation on January 21, 2025, and responses to the objections on February 4, 2025. On March 24, 2025, the Court adopted, with limited modification, the magistrate's findings and recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On December 17, 2025, after conducting mediation within the current discovery phase of the lawsuit, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle all claims in the Putative Class Action for an aggregate sum of $9.5 million. As of December 31, 2025, this liability amount is included within Accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The settlement accrual will be partially offset by a receivable of $6.7 million for amounts recoverable under its applicable insurance policies, which was included within Other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2025. During the year ended December 31, 2025, the Company recorded an expense of $2.8 million for the proposed settlement, net of the Company's insurance receivable, within General and administrative on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. On December 30, 2025, the Court stayed further deadlines in the Putative Class Action as the parties had reached settlement in principle. On February 12, 2026, lead plaintiff filed a stipulation of settlement and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement. On February 23, 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set a final approval hearing for June 30, 2026. The defendants intend to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and vigorously defend against the claims in the Putative Class Action. Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management system for personal and business use. FANTASIA TRADING: Hsu Balks at Unlawful Private Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID HSU AND ISHWINDER SINGH individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FANTASIA TRADING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01874-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2026) is a putative class action lawsuit arising from the Defendant's unlawful data-sharing of American citizens' sensitive information with a foreign adversary of the United States in direct violation of the Bulk Data Transfer Rule (BSDR) of the Department of Justice. According to the complaint, Fantasia, and its Chinese parent, Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. have repeatedly faced scrutiny from state regulators and members of U.S. Congress over concerns that their data practices facilitate surveillance by the Chinese government. These regulators have warned that Anker functions as a conduit for state directed data collection targeting American residents. The complaint alleges that in direct violation of the BSDR, Fantasia -- through its automated advertising infrastructure and associated databases -- transmits Plaintiffs' and potentially millions of other American consumers' data to China. Fantasia knowingly and systematically used communications and associated covered personal identifiers intercepted from American citizens for the purpose of sharing U.S. consumers' data with covered persons without the safeguards required by U.S. law, says the suit. Fantasia Trading LLC is the U.S.-based operating subsidiary of Anker, a Chinese electronics manufacturer that focuses on smart devices used for entertainment, travel, and smart homes, and is centered around five key brands: Anker Solix, Anker, Soundcore, eufy, and Nebula.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Ste 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Derivative Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 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 Company continues to defend itself from consolidated securities derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On June 2, 2023, a derivative complaint, captioned Guarino v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the Guarino Action). On June 12, 2024, an additional derivative complaint, captioned Horrobin v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the same district (the Horrobin Action). On December 2, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the Guarino Action and the Horrobin Action under the caption In re Fate Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation (the Derivative Action) and staying the Derivative Action pending the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Action. On September 22, 2025, the stay of the consolidated case automatically expired when the decision dismissing the second amended complaint in the Securities Action was issued. On October 24, 2025, the court extended the stay pending the court's decision on its anticipated motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court's ruling on the motion is pending. The Derivative Action names members of its board of directors and certain officers as defendants. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions assert derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action. The Guarino complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of federal securities laws. The Horrobin complaint asserts substantially similar claims in addition to a claim of breach of fiduciary duty for insider trading. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Derivative Action. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to bringing off-the-shelf, multiplexed-engineered, iPSC-derived natural killer and T-cell product candidates to patients for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune disease. FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Hadian Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Hadian securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On January 20, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers captioned Hadian v. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the Securities Action). On May 4, 2023, the court appointed a different purported stockholder of the Company to serve as lead plaintiff in the Securities Action. On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back to August 2020 relating to its collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc. (the Janssen Agreement), potential product candidates subject to the Janssen Agreement, and the termination of the Janssen Agreement. On September 22, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 19, 2024, the court granted its motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On October 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging substantially similar facts and claims as in the prior amended complaint. It filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 18, 2024, and briefing on the motion was completed on January 21, 2025. On September 22, 2025, the court granted its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, with leave for plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. On October 17, 2025, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The Compny filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on November 17, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on December 18, 2025. On January 15, 2026, it filed it reply in support of its motion to dismiss. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to bringing off-the-shelf, multiplexed-engineered, iPSC-derived natural killer and T-cell product candidates to patients for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune disease. FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend West Derivative Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fate Therapeutics 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the West derivative suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On December 17, 2025, a derivative complaint, captioned West v. Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the West Action). The West Action names certain current and former members of the Company's board of directors and certain current and former officers as defendants. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff in the West Action asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action. On January 16, 2026, the court entered an order staying the West Action until the earliest of the following events: (i) the public announcement of any settlement in the Securities Action; (ii) a ruling on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Action; or (iii) the dismissal of the Securities Action with prejudice and exhaustion of all related appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the West Action. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to bringing off-the-shelf, multiplexed-engineered, iPSC-derived natural killer and T-cell product candidates to patients for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune disease. FLAGSHIP BRANDS: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSHIP BRANDS, LLC, D/B/A FEETURES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02411 (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.feetures.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 29, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's performance socks, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Flagship Brands, LLC operates the website that offers performance-oriented apparel or 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 FULTON AND ROARK: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fulton and Roark LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02427 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://fultonandroark.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. On August 26, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website with the intention of making a purchase of a portable fragrance. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader software, he encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his ability to complete a purchase. Specifically, the Plaintiff encountered multiple non-interactive elements that were improperly included in the keyboard tab order and were focusable using the Tab key. This prevented him from accessing certain areas and functionality of the website and left him unaware of content and controls that were skipped during keyboard navigation. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Fulton and Roark'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. Fulton and Roark LLC operates the website that offers a variety of perfumes, solid fragrances, deodorants, soaps, and fragrance oils.[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 GAP INC: Asercion Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ARNY ASERCION, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 26-CIV-00755, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02014-TSH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant utilized various technologies on its publicly-available website to obtain and/or track Plaintiff's personal information when he accessed the website, and transmitted the collected data to third parties. The Plaintiff asserts these causes of action on behalf of himself and the putative class: (1) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (2) violations of the Federal Wiretap Act; (3) violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; (4) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution; and (5) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Gap, Inc. is an Omni-channel retailer. The company merchandises apparel, accessories and personal care products for men, women and children.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Roth, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Lennette Lee, Esq. Samuel C. Cortina, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: mroth@kslaw.com lkiser@kslaw.com llee@kslaw.com scortina@kslaw.com GEICO: Bid to Seal Information Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Holland entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to seal information submitted as part of the briefing on Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. The Defendant may redact the information it has designated as personally identifiable information of a putative class member, corresponding to sealing. All other sealing requests are denied. Within seven days of the entry of this Decision and Order, the parties shall submit to the Court their papers in connection with Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification and the parties' motions to limit and/or exclude witnesses consistent with the procedure outlined in the Third Amended Scheduling Order and this Decision and Order. Having carefully reviewed the unredacted copies of the documents submitted to the Court, the bulk of the information that Defendant has designated as relating to GEICO's processes/procedures related to total loss coverage, GEICO's processes/procedures related to leased vehicles, and how GEICO's data is maintained and accessed is simply too generic for a competitor to use it to GEICO’s detriment. The Court is not persuaded that a competitor could meaningfully utilize this sort of generic information to determine, as Defendant asserts, "if their total loss data is commensurate with the marketplace." In this putative class action, plaintiff John Marcelletti asserts a claim for breach of contract based on defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's failure to pay sales tax as part of the "actual cash value" for total loss vehicles. Geico operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y67gdH at no extra charge.[CC] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Morales Labor Suit Removed to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled LUIS MORALES, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO) Defendant, Case No. 2584CV03201, was removed from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk Superior Court to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-11130 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Morales claims that GEICO violated the Massachusetts Wage Act by allegedly failing to pay him for some of the hours he worked as a GEICO employee. He also asserts that GEICO violated the Massachusetts Overtime Law by failing to pay him at the overtime rate of one and a half times his regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American vehicle insurance company headquartered in Fredericksburg, Virginia.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Bannon, Esq. Molly C. Mooney, Esq Erin Chow, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210-2028 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: pbannon@seyfarth.com mmooney@seyfarth.com echow@seyfarth.com HARVEST RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Orcel Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARVEST RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02247-MEF-JSA (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thehuntleytaverne.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website with the intention of making a reservation at the Defendant's restaurant. He was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on September 15, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website and was thus denied the benefit of making a reservation in order to visit the restaurant, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Harvest Restaurant Group LLC operates the website that offers a varied selection of seasonal dishes, beverages, and dining experiences.[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 HSN INC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01724 (D. Minn., March 4, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.hsn.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. According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated the ADA by, without limitation, failing to make its website's services accessible by screen reader programs, thereby denying Plaintiff and other individuals with visual disabilities the benefits of the website, providing them with benefits that are not equal to those it provides others, and denying them effective communication. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under 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; and a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. HSN, INC. is an online marketplace which offers apparel and home goods for sale including, but not limited to, clothing, shoes, electronics, beauty supplies, jewelry, kitchenware, health products, crafts, toys and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com INFINITY CUTTING: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Infinity Cutting Tools, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02430 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against Infinity Cutting Tools for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://infinitytools.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. On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff Battle searched online for wood-cutting tools to purchase as a gift for a friend who works with wood and discovered the Defendant's website. While browsing the website's offerings, he attempted to navigate the Saw Blades category. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that interfered with his ability to complete a purchase. Specifically, submenu elements within the website's drop-down navigation menu were not operable via keyboard, preventing Plaintiff from accessing and interacting with the available options. These access barriers have caused Infinitytools.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 Infinity Cutting Tools' 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. Infinity Cutting Tools, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of woodworking tools and accessories, including sawing, drilling, shaper cutters, sanding, hand tools, paints, glues and other related products.[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 IQ DATA: Nelson Seeks to Stay Case Pending Sixth Circuit's Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons defined herein, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-12710-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to stay pending the Sixth Circuit's ruling on IQ Data's Rule 23(f) Petition for permission to appeal order granting class certification. On Feb. 23, 2026, the Honorable F. Kay Behm's case manager asked if the parties were going to jointly seek a stay of proceedings and counsel for IQ Data confirmed that this Motion would be filed by the end of the week. The Plaintiff consents to the relief requested in this Motion. On Feb. 18, 2026, IQ Data filed its Petition for Review of the Order Granting Class Certification. The Plaintiff filed her Answer in Opposition on Feb. 27, 2026. In the interest of judicial economy, the parties agree to a stay of this matter pending a decision from the 6th Circuit on IQ Data’s Rule 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ylOnD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Evanchek, Esq. KELLY AND EVANCHEK,PC 43695 Michigan Ave. Canton, MiI 48188 Telephone: (734) 397-4540 E-mail: John@kelawpc.com - and - Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM,LLC 85 Denison Parkway E. #186 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (607) 438-3011 E-mail: Cwarner@warner.legal The Defendant is represented by: Paul Gamboa, Esq. Luke D. Wolf, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI,LLP 37000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (313) 756-6404 E-mail: lwolf@grsm.com pgamboa@grsm.com ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Harris Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ITG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00030 (E.D. Va., March 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. During the Class Period, the Defendant classified Named Plaintiff and more than 40 other similarly situated Virginia field technicians whom Defendant scheduled, directed, assigned, or suffered or permitted to perform FT job duties for or on behalf of Defendant as non-employee contractors. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and Class members worked overtime exceeding 40 hours and did not receive their full overtime premium wages at required the time-and-one-half rates for all overtime hours worked under the state and federal laws. ITG Communications, LLC provides outsourced infrastructure services. The Company offers fulfillment, project management, installation, upgrade, construction, and maintenance services supporting infrastructure and networks. ITG Communications serves cable and telecommunications industries in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com JAL EQUITY: Closes Facility Without WARN Act Notice, Carchidi Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY CARCHIDI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAL EQUITY CORP., MARKETING.COM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00358 (W.D. Pa., March 4, 2026) arises under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The complaint relates that the Defendants jointly operated, and jointly employed the workforce of, a facility known as Knepper Press, located at 2251 Sweeney Dr., Clinton, PA 15026, ("the Clinton Facility") where Plaintiff was employed. On February 17, 2026, Defendants terminated the employment of approximately 60 full-time employees at the Clinton Facility, including Plaintiff, as part of a plant closing or mass layoff that will result in the Clinton Facility's permanent closure. The complaint alleges that the Defendants provided no notice to affected employees at the Clinton Facility, including Plaintiff, of this plant closing or mass layoff, in violation of the WARN Act. Moreover, Defendants have failed to pay wages due and payable to the employees at the Clinton Facility, including Plaintiff, in violation of the Wage Payment Law, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated former employees of Defendants to remedy Defendants' violations of the WARN Act and the Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff Gregory Carchidi was an employee of the Defendants residing in New Kingstown, Pennsylvania. Defendant JAL Equity Corp. is a corporation incorporated in Nevada with its principal place of business at 17209 Chesterfield Airport Rd., Ste. 292, Chesterfield, MO 63005. Defendant Marketing.com, LLC, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Missouri with its principal place of business at 101 Workman Ct., Eureka, MO 63025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Bendesky, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: lbendesky@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com JM & SONS INVESTMENT: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. JM & SONS INVESTMENT LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-21248-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 32 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial plaza to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial plaza. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial plaza has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. JM & SONS INVESTMENT LLC owned and operated a commercial plaza in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com JM SMUCKER: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid in Ringler --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADINA RINGLER, KRISTA ROBLES, JAY SMITH, and JANA RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01138-AH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on March 25, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move for a 60 day extension to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion to a new deadline of June 8, 2026, and an extension of the Opposition's word limit to 14,000 words. The Defendant requests that its deadline to complete any expert reports upon which the Defendant relies in its motion, and its deadline to file any Daubert motion as to the Plaintiffs' experts, also be set for June 8, 2026. Additionally, pursuant to Local Rule 6–1, Defendant requests the Court order a shorter timeline to serve notice of this motion upon Plaintiffs and allow for a March 25, 2026, hearing on this motion, or another date in advance of April 8, 2026. JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5adjZc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ronald Rothstein, Esq. Jared Kessler, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 North LaSalle Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 E-mail: RRothste@winston.com JRKessler@winston.com SObi@winston.com JONES LANG LASALLE: Miller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. The case is styled as Dustin Miller, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., Case No. CU26-01891 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. -- https://www.jll.com/en-sea/ -- provides commercial real estate and investment management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Robert Doidge, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 400 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 700 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818-275-5799 Email: m.doidge@d.law LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lelchuk Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lantheus Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lelchuck shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 17, 2025, another alleged stockholder filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court, styled Lelchuk v. Heino et al., nominally on behalf of the Company and naming as defendants the current directors of our Board and the same officers named in the consolidated securities class action described above (a similar derivative complaint styled Jones v. Markison et al., was previously filed on October 31, 2025 but was voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice). The derivative complaint largely repeats the allegations asserted in the consolidated securities class action, and asserts claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief on behalf of the Company. Because the outcome of litigation is uncertain, the Company cannot predict how or when these matters will ultimately be resolved. These actions, or any other stockholder litigation against the Company, could cause it to incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of its management from its business, which could significantly harm its profitability and reputation. Lantheus Holdings, Inc. is a global company that develops, manufactures, sells, and distributes certain diagnostic and therapeutic products in three categories: Radiopharmaceutical Oncology, Precision Diagnostics, and Strategic Partnerships and Other Revenue.[BN] LEGENDARY FOODS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Legendary Foods, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01758 (D. Minn., March 5, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.eatlegendary.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other 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. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under 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. Legendary Foods, LLC operates the website that offers high protein and low carb snacks for sale including, but not limited to, protein donuts, pastries, sweet rolls, chips, 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 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTY: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse Property Management, Inc. The case is styled as Alfredo Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Lighthouse Property Management, Inc., Case No. 26STCV06351 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Lighthouse Property Management -- https://www.lighthousepropertymanagement.com/ -- is the most agile real estate operator of high-quality residential housing in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com LITTLE MARIO'S: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Calderon Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Edwin Calderon, Rudis Omar Calderon a/k/a Rudies Calderon and a/k/a Omar Calderon, Julio Cesar Velasquez, Olmar Manuel Velasquez a/k/a Holman Velasquez, Olvin Onan Velasquez, Misael Velasquez, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. Little Mario's Pizza Inc. d/b/a Mario's Restorante and Pizzeria and d/b/a Mario's Pizzeria, Demetres Spanos a/k/a Demitri, and Basily DOE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01264 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay workers at a rate at least equal to the minimum wage, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants Little Mario's Pizza Inc., Spanos and Basily owned and operated two Italian restaurants Mario's Restorante and Pizzeria, located at 635 Old Country Rd, Plainview, NY, and Mario's Pizzeria located at 659 Old Country Rd, Plainview, NY. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to provide each Plaintiff with weekly records reflecting his total compensation and total hours worked, in violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, causing Plaintiffs financial harm resulting from the failure of Defendants to inform Plaintiffs of their hours worked and hours paid. The Defendants also applied the same employment policies, practices, and procedures to all Collective Action Members, including policies, practices, and procedures with respect to the payment of minimum wages, overtime and spread-of-hours premiums. The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to receive from Defendants, jointly and severally: (i) compensation for unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA because Defendants’ violations were willful lacked a good faith basis. The Plaintiffs further assert that they are entitled to recover from Defendants: (i) back wages for unpaid minimum wage, and overtime premium for overtime work, each of which Defendants willfully failed to pay as required by the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations; (ii) unpaid spread-of-hours compensation for shifts worked lasting in excess of 10 hours from start to finish in violation of the NYLL; (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the NYLL for these violations; and (iv) statutory damages for Defendants’ violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, each of which violations caused Plaintiffs financial harm. Plaintiff Jose Edwin Calderon was employed by Defendants at Mario's Pizzeria from approximately 2003 to May 2023, with duties that included making deliveries, packing boxes, preparing salads, stocking sodas, and working at the counter. Plaintiff Rudis Omar Calderon, a/k/a Rudies Calderon, a/k/a Omar Calderon was employed by Defendants at Mario's Pizzeria from approximately August 2005 to February 3, 2023, with duties that included making deliveries, packing boxes, preparing salads and stocking sodas. Plaintiff Julio Cesar Velasquez was employed by Defendants at Mario's Restaurants from approximately October 2019 to August 13, 2024, with duties that included making deliveries, packing boxes, preparing salads, stocking sodas, and washing dishes. Plaintiff Olmar Manuel Velasquez a/k/a Holman Velasquez has been employed by Defendants at Mario's Pizzeria from approximately November 2021 till present, with duties that included making deliveries, packing boxes, preparing salads, stocking sodas, and washing dishes. Plaintiff Olvin Onan Velasquez was employed by Defendants at Mario’s Pizzeria from approximately October 2022 till July 2024, with duties that included cook helping, making deliveries, packing boxes, stocking sodas, and washing dishes. Plaintiff Misael Velasquez has been employed at Mario's Pizzeria, from approximately September 2019, up to the present, with duties that included packing boxes, preparing salads and pizzas, and working at the counter. Defendant Demetres Spanos a/k/a Demitri is the owner or part owner and principal of Little Mario's Pizza Inc. Defendant Basily DOE is the owner or part owner and principal of Little Mario's Pizza Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com LUCID GROUP: Mangino Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mangino v. Lucid Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 30, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court for an order: (i) certifying a class action on behalf of itself and all other persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between Nov. 15, 2021 and Aug. 3, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Class") pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (ii) appointing AP7 as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Lead Counsel Kessler Topaz as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). This is a securities fraud action against Lucid and its Class Period CEO, Peter Rawlinson, arising from the Defendants' materially false or misleading statements and omissions about Lucid's ability and readiness to meet its 2022 vehicle production guidance and the main obstacles to achieving that goal. Lucid is a US-based luxury electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=89ogS3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. David A. Bocian, Esq. Margaret E. Mazzeo, Esq. Evan R. Hoey, Esq. Farai Vyamucharo-Shawa, Esq. Aubrie L. Kent, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com gcastaldo@ktmc.com dbocian@ktmc.com mmazzeo@ktmc.com ehoey@ktmc.com fshawa@ktmc.com akent@ktmc.com MARTEN TRANSPORT: Courtney Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Harley Courtney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., Case No. 26-2-02542-8-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King at Seattle, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00703. The Complaint alleges a single claim that Marten failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class overtime in accordance with RCW 49.46.130(f) and WAC 296-128-012(1)(a). The Complaint alleges a single claim that Marten failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class overtime in accordance with RCW 49.46.130(f) and WAC 296-128-012(1)(a).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy E. Roller, Esq. ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC 600 University St., Suite 2420 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 428-3250 Facsimile: (206) 428-3251 Email: jroller@aretelaw.com - and – Michael E. Brewer, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 101 California St., Suite 4100 San Francisco, CA 94111-3802 Phone: (415) 576-3000 Facsimile: (415) 576-3099 Email: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com - and – Kimberly F. Rich, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 1900 North Pearl Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 978-3000 Facsimile: (214) 978-3099 Email: kimberly.rich@bakermckenzie.com MERCURY ENVELOPE COMPANY: Aiello Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against MERCURY ENVELOPE COMPANY, INC. The case is styled as Edward Aiello, Anthony Aiello, individually and on behalf of themselves as shareholders of MERCURY ENVELOPE COMPANY, INC. and on behalf of all other shareholders of said corporation similarly situated v. MERCURY ENVELOPE COMPANY, INC., Alison Deutsch, Case No. 605383/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Business Entity. Mercury Envelope -- https://www.mercuryprintingcorp.com/ -- is the leading envelope manufacturer and printing company since 1974. Contact us today for a free quote.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Barnes, Esq. BARNES & BARNES, P.C. 445 Broadhollow Rd Suite #226 Melville, NY 11747 META PLATFORMS: Misled Users on AI Glasses' Privacy, Bartone Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GINA BARTONE and MATEO CANU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01897 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Meta responsible for its affirmatively false advertising and failure to disclose the true nature of surveillance and its connection to the company's AI data collection pipeline. The complaint relates that Meta marketed its new line of AI "smart" Glasses as responsible, safe, and engineered to address the privacy concerns that define the AI era. It did so by centering its campaign around a simple, reassuring promise: the Glasses were designed for privacy, controlled by users. However, that promise is false, notes the complaint. Recent whistleblower accounts reveal that when consumers use the Meta AI Glasses' AI features, the footage is not processed privately or locally. Instead, videos captured through the Glasses, including highly sensitive moments inside homes and other private spaces, are transmitted to Meta's servers and then routed to a subcontractor in Kenya, where human workers manually view and label the footage to train Meta's AI models. By affirmatively claiming that the Glasses were designed to protect privacy, Meta assumed a duty to disclose material facts that would inform a reasonable consumer's decision to purchase the product. Instead, Meta hid the alarming reality: that use of the AI features results in a stranger halfway around the world watching the most private moments of a person's life. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs Mateo Canu and Gina Bartone purchased the Meta AI Glasses relying on Meta's pervasive marketing campaign and believing that the Meta AI Glasses were "designed for privacy" and would not transmit their private data without their consent. The Plaintiffs seek a monetary award for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law in damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class members for said monies, as well as injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants' misconduct to prevent ongoing and future harm that will result. Plaintiff Mateo Canu is a citizen of California and has resided in Los Angeles County, California. Canu purchased the Meta AI Glasses from a Sunglass Hut store. Plaintiff Gina Bartone is a citizen of New Jersey and has resided in Millstone, New Jersey. Bartone purchased the Meta AI Glasses from the Meta Store. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. is a global technology company that provides social media platforms and communication services to users worldwide as well as advertising services to millions of companies. Meta is comprised of several well-known platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. Cassandra Rasmussen, Esq. Jiaming Zheng, Esq. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 METROPOLITAN JEWISH: Arnold Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Karlene Arnold, individually and for others similarly situated v. METROPOLITAN JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01127 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant pays the Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours after 40 in a workweek (the Defendant's "straight time for overtime pay scheme"). The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme deprives the Straight Time Employees of the "time and a half" overtime premium wages owed for hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Registered Nurse (RN) employed by the Defendant. METROPOLITAN JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., "engaged in the operation of a hospital" and/or operated "an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com MFD-NY LLC: Faces Zuniga Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- MARIO ZUNIGA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MFD-NY LLC d/b/a VIKING AUTO SPA, MUSTAFOKUL MURTAZOEV a/k/a MUSTAFA MURTAZAEV, FURQAT A. ABDURAUFZODA, a/k/a FRANKLIN ABDURAUFZODA, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01250 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the federal and state laws, he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day his work shift exceeded 10 hours, (d) liquidated damages, (e) statutory damages, (f) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (g) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt laborer for Defendants from June 2021 until December 25, 2025. MFD-NY LLC, owns and operates a car wash and auto detailing business doing business as "Viking Auto Spa," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com MIANOR RESTAURANT: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Haydee Sofia Hernandez, Gilda Oliveira, Emerald Hernandez, Sarra Roussou and Alice Basovsky, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. A PEACEFUL CORNER, INC. d/b/a EVOL NIGHTCLUB and CHENG ("DANNY") LIN, Case No. 1:26-cv-01637 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages. The Defendants knew that nonpayment of minimum wage and misappropriation of tips would economically injure Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, and violated federal and state laws. The Defendants did not distribute to service staff the entirety of the recovered tips and instead retain sizable portions of the tips for themselves. Defendants retain portions of both the mandatory gratuities and voluntary cash tips. In fact, former managers at the club informed Plaintiffs that this was the case and that the club regularly skimmed a significant portion of the nightly tips for itself. Further, Defendants regularly failed to pay Plaintiffs any wages or tips at all until weeks after the pay periods they were due, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as bartenders. A Peaceful Corner, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and operates EVOL Night club located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 MIANOR RESTAURANT: Shahriar Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Salim Shahriar and Juan Coronado, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MIANOR RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a LATITUDE 39, and NOUREDDINE ACHBANI, Case No. 1:26-cv-01589 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages. The Defendants paid all tipped employees, including Plaintiffs, the then-current New York's foodservice worker's minimum wage, which was less than the full New York Minimum Wage. However, the Defendants were not entitled to pay tipped employees the lower foodservice workers' minimum wage because the Defendants failed to provide them with written notice that Defendants were taking a tip credit from the minimum wage. The Defendants were required to provide written notice of the tip credit at the beginning of the Plaintiffs' and the other tipped employees' employment, but the Defendants failed to do this. For some of the hours that Plaintiffs worked, the Defendants did not pay them at all. Specifically, at the end of each week, Defendants "shaved time" off of the Plaintiff's clock-in reports and paid them less than their clocked-in time. This type of time shaving occurred virtually every single week that the Plaintiffs worked, and often in greater increments. The Plaintiffs' paystubs listed the lower number of hours for which they were paid, rather than their actual hours worked. As a result, the Plaintiffs were underpaid. The Defendants knowingly committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective members, and members of the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as servers. Mianor Restaurant Group, LLC, is a New York limited liability company that owns and operates Latitude 39 restaurant located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 MICHELIN NORTH: Contreraz Sues Over Under Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Contreraz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-00787-TMC (D.S.C., Feb. 25, 2026), is brought as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") the Indiana Wage Payment Act ("IWPA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees had the same and/or substantially similar job duties and/or responsibilities and were subjected to the same policies and procedures. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees of Defendant were classified as non-exempt. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees of Defendant were paid an hour wage. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were regularly scheduled to work 40 or more hours per week, but regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. As a result of Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees not being paid for all hours worked, Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manufacturing employee at Defendant's manufacturing plant located in Woodburn, Indiana. The Defendant is a tire manufacturer that owns and operates approximately 15 tire manufacturing plants in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beattie B. Ashmore, Esq. BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, P.A. 650 East Washington Street Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 467-1001 Email: beattie@beattieashmore.com - and - Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com MIKE LEWIS: Must Release Vicen from Unlawful Detention ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR URIEL MEDINA VICEN, v. MIKE LEWIS, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00090-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting the Petitioner Hector Uriel Medina Vicen's Writ of Habeas Corpus. -- Respondents responded on February 23, 2026. -- Petitioner replied on February 25, 2026. The parties agreed no evidentiary hearing was necessary. The United States has violated Vicen's due process rights. The Court grants Vicen's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and orders the following: The United States is directed to release Petitioner Vicen immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of his due process rights. The United States must provide him with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by Feb. 27, 2026 A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3eWjb6 at no extra charge.[CC] MOHAWK VALLEY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Broadbent Due May 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broadbent, et al., v. Mohawk Valley Health System, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00443 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C Coombe entered an order granting motion to extend discovery deadlines as follows: The Defendants Deadline to produce outstanding discovery is March 16, 2026. The Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is April 3, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is May 1, 2026. Class and Collective Certification Motions due by May 15, 2026. The deadline for the defendants to file any opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification, if any, will be set when plaintiffs file their motion. Discovery due by July 24, 2026. Non-Dispositive Motions to be filed by Aug. 7, 2026. Dispositive Motions to be filed by Aug. 28, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mohawk Valley is a non-profit health system.[CC] MORGAN COUNTY, KY: Fails to Offer Appropriate Education Program --------------------------------------------------------------- C.W. and H.W., individually and as parents and next friends of B.W., a minor, Plaintiffs v. MORGAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; RALPH HAMILTON, Superintendent, in his individual and official capacities; LARISSA JOHNSON, Principal, in her individual and official capacities; AMANDA LEE, Chief Academic Officer in her individual and official capacities; KATLIN HANEY, Deputy Superintendent, in his individual and official capacities; SHELLEY COLE, teacher individually; SARA LIESEGANG, teacher individually; MEGAN RISNER, assistant principal in her individual and official capacities; AMANDA DICKERSON, teacher, individually; GWENNA PATRICK, assistant, individually; DANIEL GRIFFITH, assistant, individually; CRYSTAL MONTGOMERY, assistant, individually; and STACIA BLACKBURN, assistant, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-00045-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky., March 5, 2026) is a civil rights action arising from the systemic failure of Morgan County Public Schools to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to Plaintiff B.W., then six-year-old child, with disabilities, and from Defendants' retaliation against his parents for exercising federally protected rights. For years, the Defendants had notice that Plaintiff B.W. exhibited significant anxiety, emotional dysregulation, communication breakdown when overstimulated, and elopement behaviors. Rather than evaluate him in all suspected areas of disability or implement positive behavioral supports as required by federal law, the Defendants ignored documented data, refused to revise his Individualized Education Program, and instead responded with punishment, contends the complaint. On August 28, 2024 and August 29, 2024, the Defendants subjected Plaintiff B.W. to multiple unnecessary and dangerous physical restraints -- including airway-compromising holds -- despite the absence of any imminent danger. The force used shocked the conscience and violated clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiff B.W., says the suit. When Plaintiff B.W.'s parents filed an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) due process request and state complaints -- including a class complaint on behalf of similarly situated students -- Superintendent Ralph Hamilton retaliated by spreading false and defamatory information within the community about B.W.'s parents and interfering with Plaintiffs' and their family members' employment relationships, the complaint asserts. Morgan County Board of Education is a public entity in Kentucky receiving federal funding. Ralph Hamilton was at all relevant times Superintendent of the Morgan County School District and final policymaker/enforcer of Morgan County Board of Education's policies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marianne S. Chevalier, Esq. 2216 Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017 Telephone: (859) 581-3030 E-mail: mchevalier@lawcg.com MOSCOT.COM: Court Dismisses "Jones" ADA Website Accessibility Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Clay Lee Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Moscot.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-CV-1843 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Clay Lee Jones, who is visually impaired and legally blind, brought this putative class action against Defendant Moscot.com, LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Jones, who requires screen-reading software to read digital content, alleged that he attempted to access Moscot's website multiple times, most recently on June 8, 2024, from his home in New York, in an effort to purchase Gelt Sun sunglasses. Jones was unable to complete the purchase because of access barriers on the website that prevented his free and full use of the website through his keyboard and screen-reading software. These barriers included missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, and a host of broken links. Jones commenced this action on March 5, 2025, seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the question of Article III standing, the Court found that Jones adequately alleged standing. Jones sufficiently alleged past injury, as he described with specificity how he tried to visit Moscot's website to buy a pair of sunglasses on June 8, 2024, and that access barriers deprived him of the ability to use and enjoy the website. The Court further found that Jones's stated intention to return to the website once the issues were remedied was sufficient to satisfy this prong of standing, as websites are already easily accessible at any moment. On the question of mootness, the Court granted dismissal. Defendant submitted a declaration from its Director of E-Commerce, Alara Aktan, stating that Moscot had worked with Level Access, a leading provider of digital accessibility services, since May 2023, and that Moscot continued to work with Level Access to test its website and enhance its accessibility. Level Access concluded that no accessibility barriers prevented users employing the same screen reader and operating system as Jones from purchasing the Gelt Sun sunglasses. The investigation did identify a single low-severity issue -- hidden elements -- which Moscot remedied. According to the Court, the record established that prior to the litigation, Defendant had invested time and resources in improving the website's accessibility, that Defendant had remedied each of the violations alleged by Plaintiff, and that going forward, Defendant would ensure accessibility remained a central aspect of its website. Jones failed to rebut this evidence and offered no declarations or exhibits in response. Accordingly, the Court determined that Moscot met its burden of demonstrating that it was absolutely clear that its website had been brought into compliance and would remain in compliance. The ADA claim was therefore dismissed as moot. Having dismissed the federal cause of action, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The declaratory judgment claim was dismissed as moot. A Copy of the court's Opinion and Order dated March 5, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p93mCi from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Moscot.com, LLC, is Represented By: Anna Iskikian Lewis & Lin LLC 332-777-3080 anna@ilawco.com Brett Evan Lewis Lewis & Lin, LLC 718-243-9323 brett@ilawco.com Plaintiff Clay Lee Jones is Represented By: Rami Salim Stein Saks PLLC 201-282-6500 rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MOUNTAIN SUCCESS: Lacey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL LACEY, ROSALIE GIAMBANCO and DEBRA L. DARGE, individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs v. MOUNTAIN SUCCESS, LLC, RIVERA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC and ABELARDO RIVERA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00097 (E.D. Tenn., March 5, 2026) is brought against the Defendants as a multi-Plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated tipped employees. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a compensation system applicable to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated in which they were to receive a substandard base wage but, when credited with their earned tips, would equal to an average of at least the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay on a weekly basis. However, the Defendants compromised their pay system and in turn, violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly situated at least the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay per hour when their earned tips combined with their base pay did not equal to at least the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay within any weekly pay periods during all times material. The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid tipped employees of Defendants at one of their franchised restaurants in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. Mountain Success, LLC, is a Tennessee limited liability company which owns and operates several Denny's franchised restaurants in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. Landry Smith, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com lsmith@jsyc.com NEW MONTCLAIR: Guaman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Aida Isabel Guaman, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Montclair Nail and Spa Inc., GHK Beauty Corp., Gheunhee G Kim, Joy Kim and Jane Doe a/k/a Loi (real name unknown), Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02280 (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) is an action brought by Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each week. The Plaintiffs allege pursuant to the state and federal laws, that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime wages, (3) liquidated damages, (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Guaman was hired by Defendant New Montclair Nail and Spa Inc. to work as a general support staff from June 2023 until present. New Montclair Nail and Spa Inc. is managed by the corporate Defendant GHK Beauty Corp., a company based in Montclair, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongjin Bae, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: ybae@hanglaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Parties Must File Proposed Case Management Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaintiffs 1-3 v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02397 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered an order directing the parties to file a proposed case management plan, in order: (1) a deadline for class discovery; (2) a class certification briefing schedule; and (3) a deadline for all fact discovery. The suit alleges violation Civil Rights Act. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Telephonic Status Conference Set for April 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL PHILLIPS, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08149-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order as follows: 1. By Friday, April 10, 2026, the parties shall respond to the recently-served merits discovery requests. 2. A telephonic status conference regarding (1) the proposed topics for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendants' representative for class certification discovery purposes, and (2) the status of class certification discovery is scheduled Monday, April 6, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. ET on the Court's conference line. The parties are directed to call: (855) 244-8681; access code: 2308 226 4654, at the scheduled time. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=inDSIS at no extra charge.[CC] NEXGEN ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Almardini Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMAD Z ALMARDINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXGEN ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01250-MLB (N.D. Ga., March 5, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly pay Plaintiff and similarly situated technicians overtime wages and misclassifying them as independent contractors during the period three years prior to the filing of this complaint, March 5, 2023, through the present. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's primary job was to perform technical services and operations in connection with Defendant's energy services and utilities operations, including installation, maintenance, and repair services related to power generation and energy systems. However, the Defendant incorrectly classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated technicians as independent contractors rather than employees. The Plaintiff and other Technicians regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, including 43.0 hours and 59.25 hours during certain pay periods. The Defendant maintained records of hours worked. Despite this, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Technicians at a straight hourly rate with no overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and members of the NexGen Collective Class, seeks relief on a collective basis for Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Mohamad Z Almardini is a resident of Georgia and was employed by the Defendant as a Technician during the approximate period July 2025 through at least January 2026. Defendant NexGen Energy Services LLC operates a multi-state business engaged in support activities for oil and gas operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 telephone Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 facsimile E-mail: gordon@hallandlampros.com NRRM LLC: CarShield Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as April Lindsey-Evans, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NRRM, LLC, doing business as CarShield, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-CV-363-ZMB (E.D. Mo.), Judge Zachary M. Bluestone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed all proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. American Auto Shield, LLC develops and administers automobile service agreements known as Vehicle Service Contracts (VSCs). These third-party warranties are sold by NRRM, LLC, doing business as CarShield. Plaintiffs are representatives of a putative class who allegedly were harmed by Defendants' failure to honor their VSCs. The named Plaintiffs are April Lindsey-Evans, a citizen and resident of North Carolina, and Brenna Sebek and Kevin Sheehan, a couple who are citizens and residents of Illinois. All three purchased VSCs over the phone and gave authorization for agents of CarShield to sign the VSCs for them.While the VSCs contain materially similar arbitration provisions, the wording differs slightly. Plaintiffs brought this action in March 2025. Two months later, Defendants filed their motion to compel arbitration. The VSCs contain materially similar arbitration provisions. Plaintiffs contended that the VSCs were an improper, after-the-fact modification of the oral agreements because North Carolina and Illinois require that terms like an arbitration clause be clearly disclosed to form part of any oral contract. Plaintiffs also argued that the arbitration clauses were unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The court disagreed on both fronts. Validity of the VSC Arbitration Provision Both North Carolina and Illinois courts have recognized that arbitration agreements do not require a signature to be enforceable. The named Plaintiffs each consented to a sales representative signing the VSC on their behalf. CarShield's affidavit confirmed that it sent the named Plaintiffs a digital copy of the VSC the same day they purchased the contract, and also mailed Sebek and Sheehan a physical copy three days after their purchase. Sheehan and Sebek continued to make payments on their VSC for approximately 8 months, and Lindsey-Evans made payments for 4 years, until they opted out through nonpayment. Lindsey-Evans also submitted claims under the VSC at several points over the course of her contract. The court held that the named Plaintiffs accepted the terms of the contract, including the arbitration clause. Unconscionability Both North Carolina and Illinois examine whether a provision is procedurally or substantively unconscionable. North Carolina requires proof of both elements, whereas Illinois requires proof of only one. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden under either standard. Under North Carolina law, the court found that the VSC was emailed to Lindsey-Evans the day she signed up, and her VSC instructed the reader in bold font to read the arbitration provision carefully. Combined with a one-month cancellation period for a full refund, those facts counseled against finding unfair surprise or lack of meaningful choice. On substantive unconscionability, both parties were bound by the arbitration clause, and the agreement was therefore not one-sided. Under Illinois law, the Contract Quick Reference Guide at the front of Sebek and Sheehan's VSC explicitly called out an Alternative Dispute Resolution and Class Action Waiver. Illinois law does not consider contracts of adhesion containing arbitration clauses to be procedurally unconscionable, and the one-month refund provision further cut against any assertion of unconscionability. Illinois courts have consistently recognized the public policy favoring arbitration. Accordingly, the court found the VSCs were not unconscionable under either North Carolina or Illinois law. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RGBpDo from PacerMonitor.com Defendant American Auto Shield, LLC Represented By James Matthew Goodin Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-0472 matt.goodin@troutman.com Brandon Calderon Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-0544 brandon.calderon@troutman.com Troy A. Bozarth Hepler Broom Llc - Edwardsville 618-656-0184 tab@heplerbroom.com Charles N. Insler Hepler Broom Llc - St. Louis 314-241-6160 cni@heplerbroom.com Phillip Russell Perdew Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-1712 rusty.perdew@troutman.com Defendant Does 1-100 Represented By James Matthew Goodin Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-0472 matt.goodin@troutman.com Brandon Calderon Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-0544 brandon.calderon@troutman.com Phillip Russell Perdew Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-1712 rusty.perdew@troutman.com Defendant NRRM, LLC Represented By James Matthew Goodin Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-0472 matt.goodin@troutman.com Brandon Calderon Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-0544 brandon.calderon@troutman.com Troy A. Bozarth Hepler Broom Llc - Edwardsville 618-656-0184 tab@heplerbroom.com Charles N. Insler Hepler Broom Llc - St. Louis 314-241-6160 cni@heplerbroom.com Phillip Russell Perdew Troutman Pepper Locke Llp - Chicago 312-443-1712 rusty.perdew@troutman.com Plaintiffs April Lindsey-Evans, Brenna Sebek, Kevin Sheehan are Represented By: Domenica Russo One Us Bank Plaza 314-314-9384 drusso@peifferwolf.com Joseph G. Sauder Sauder Schelkopf LLC 610-200-0580 info@sstriallawyers.com Brandon Michael Wise Peiffer Wolf Llp - St. Louis 314-833-4827 bwise@peifferwolf.com OREGON: Martin Challenges the Constitutionality of SB 1599A ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY MARTIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOBIAS READ, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00433-SI (D. Ore., March 5, 2026) asserts the Defendant's violation of the U.S. First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit challenges a change in the timing of a statewide referendum vote related to a major transportation tax increase in Oregon. Oregon lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1599, which moved the vote on the measure from the November 2026 general election to the May 2026 primary election. Plaintiff Martin is a 73-year-old woman and Oregon resident who resides in Klamath Falls, Oregon. She uses a wheelchair due to severe mobility impairments and qualifies as an individual with a disability under the ADA. She argues that this change creates unfair barriers to political participation, especially for low-income and disabled voters. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, defined as: All low-income and/or disabled Oregon voters who wish to submit a ballot argument for or against Referendum Petition 2026-302 in the official Voters' Pamphlet but are unable to pay the $1,200 fee and cannot realistically gather 500 original wet-ink signatures by March 12, 2026 due to indigency, disability, geographic location, or other barriers. Tobias Read is the Secretary of State of the State of Oregon and is sued herein in his official capacity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Adams, Esq. FIR LAW GROUP, LLC PO Box 35 Silverton, OR 97381 Telephone: (503) 383-1640 E-mail: Ryan@FirLawGroup.com ORGAIN LLC: Ballard False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DWAYNE BALLARD and TAMMY SMIRIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORGAIN, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV03757, was removed from the Superior Court for Los Angeles County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02494 to the proceeding. In this putative class action under the Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law, the Plaintiffs claim that Orgain affirmatively misrepresented the nature and characteristics of certain of its protein bars and powders. The Plaintiffs contend that Orgain deceptively advertised that the Products provide "clean nutrition," "better nutrition," "good health," "maximum nutrition," and "higher standards," when in fact the products contain erythritol, a sugar alcohol that has been linked to a significant increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke. The Plaintiffs assert claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Orgain, LLC provides nutritional products. The Company produces and markets protein shakes, bars, and powders.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E. Borders, Esq. Rebecca B. Johns, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: dgiali@kslaw.com kborders@kslaw.com rjohns@kslaw.com PA'QUE TIBY: Brito Files Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. PA'QUE TIBY CORAL GABLES LLC D/B/A PUNTO CRIOLLO, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21460-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the subject commercial restaurant is open to the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial restaurant, to include a visit to the business on December 20, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA. These barriers have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the restaurant and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Plaintiff CARLOS BRITO is an individual over eighteen years of age with disabilities, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. He is, among other things, a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk or stand. Plaintiff requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. Defendant PA'QUE TIBY CORAL GABLES LLC D/B/A PUNTO CRIOLLO owns, operates and oversees the commercial restaurant, to include all areas open to the public to its commercial restaurant business therein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY: Dell Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Dell, Jirandy Lahitte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., Asura Technologies USA, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-03329 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-21266-KMW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- https://www.calmainefoods.com/ -- is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Mark Garabedian, Jr., Esq. Victor G. Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 SW 8th St., Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-6450 Email: charles@markmigdal.com victor@mfh.law The Defendants are represented by: Angelique Kristel Howard, Esq. FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: (904) 359-8703 Email: akhoward@foley.com PHIA GROUP: Fails to Implement Data Security Practices, West Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRODRICK WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11101 (D. Mass., March 4, 2026) arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from TPG's alleged failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect Plaintiff and other patients' personal identifying information, including private information. According to the complaint, TPG failed to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, causing Plaintiff and Class Members actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries that data breaches cause, including (a) loss of value of Private Information, (b) loss of time spent dealing with the data breach, (c) imminent threat of and actual theft of private information by cybercriminals (d) financial loss, such as purchasing protective measures including credit monitoring, credit freezes, credit reports, and other means of detecting and mitigating identity theft and (e) any other types of quantifiable harm that stem from the breach, including out-of-pocket losses. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action, seeking to recover damages and non-monetary relief, as well as any other relief the Court may deem just and proper, as a result of Defendant's actions and/or non-actions that led and/or allowed the data breach to have occurred. The Phia Group is a Massachusetts limited liability company that operates as a healthcare cost containment provider company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Tucker Merrigan, Esq. Brett R. Corson, Esq. Ryan M. Hawkins, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP 268 Summer Street, LL Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 391-9001 Facsimile: (617) 357- 9001 E-mail: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com brc@sweeneymerrigan.com rmh@sweeneymerrigan.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Williams Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00505 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's RSU pay and other remuneration as required by the FLSA, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately August 2023 through February 2025 with the job title of Manufacturing Team Member. Rivian Automotive, LLC is headquartered in Irvine, California, and employs thousands of hourly employees in numerous locations throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park E. #860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-0600 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com ROKU INC: Moses Sues Over Unfair Business Practices --------------------------------------------------- LOUIS MOSES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROKU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01422-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, unfair, deceptive, and misleading consumer practices, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and trespass to chattels at the expense of Plaintiff and the Classes. The Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit for damages and equitable relief against Roku, Inc., on behalf of himself and all persons worldwide who purchased, owned, used, or leased one or more of Roku's Smart Home Cameras prior to July 16, 2025. On October 17, 2022, Roku launched a suite of smart home products, including indoor and outdoor security cameras and video doorbells for home monitoring. Every Roku Camera came with a motion and sound detection feature, which sent users alerts within seconds of the Roku Camera detecting motion or sound through the Roku Smart Home mobile app. Despite marketing Motion Recordings and Motion Snapshots corresponding with Motion Alerts as a key surveillance feature for home security, Roku quietly removed the Motion Snapshot feature from all Roku Cameras. Thus, users without a Roku Subscription can no longer review what motion or sound triggered the Motion Alert, unless they purchase a Roku Subscription. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's unfair conduct caused Plaintiff and other purchasers of Roku Cameras to lose this critical feature from their Roku Cameras. Without this Motion Snapshot feature, Roku Cameras are worth less than they were when originally purchased. Moreover, Roku improperly coerced its customers into purchasing a Roku Subscription to maintain the utility of their Roku Cameras. Had Plaintiff and other purchasers known that they would lose access to this feature, they would not have purchased Roku Cameras, or would have paid significantly less for them, says the suit. Roku, Inc. is a consumer technology company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Phillip M. Black, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com SLICKDEALS LLC: Mejico Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Brittany Mejico, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SLICKDEALS, LLC, a Delaware entity; and BOOKING HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26CU002714C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01231-CAB-MMP. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Teresa H. Michaud, Esq. COOLEY LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 561 3250 Facsimile: +1 213 561 3244 Email: tmichaud@cooley.com - and - Kristine A. Forderer, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Floor 20 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: +1 415 693 2128 Facsimile: +1 415 693 2222 Email: kforderer@cooley.com SM PIER HOLDINGS: Marines Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SM Pier Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gabriel Marines, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SM Pier Holdings, LLC, Earl Enterprises Corporate LLC, Romana Pier LLC, Case No. 26STCV06465 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com STATE FARM: Alpha Car Putative Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ALPHA CAR CARE INC, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 602083/2026, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01301 to the proceeding. In the Complaint, Plaintiff -- an automobile repair shop -- alleges that State Farm has engaged in a pattern and practice of unfair and deceptive claims handling practices in violation of New York Insurance Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth A. Buckel 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 E-mail: elizabeth.buckel@alston.com STATION CASINOS: Browning Sues Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BROWNING, Individually and on behalf of the Station Casinos LLC & Affiliates 401(k) Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. STATION CASINOS LLC; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-603 (D. Nev., March 4, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The complaint relates that the Defendant was and is the named fiduciary and sponsor of the Plan; a party in interest; and a Plan fiduciary to the extent that it appointed members of the Committee and co-fiduciaries and otherwise exercised discretion over the administration and management of the Plan and/or control of Plan assets. As fiduciaries to the Plan, the Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. However, the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff brings this action to obtain the relief, for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under the ERISA. Plaintiff Brian Browning is a former employee of the company. Defendant Station Casinos LLC is an American hotel and casino gaming company. The Doe Defendants, as fiduciaries, were fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA, to the extent that they had or exercised discretionary authority respecting the administration or management of the Plan, and/or control of Plan assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 335 W 1st Street Reno, NV 89503 Telephone: (775) 299-4284 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY: Fortner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc. The case is styled as Danette Fortner, on behalf of herself individually and all other similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2026-0001373 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort." Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides care to improve and maintain heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] SUN-MAID GROWERS: Class Cert Expert Disclosures Due March 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGarity v. Sun-Maid Growers of California et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00714 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 19, 2024) the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete expert discovery. The Court extends the deadline for class certification expert disclosures from March 2, 2026, to March 16, 2026. Class certification rebuttal expert disclosures from March 30, 2026, to April 13, 2026. All other deadlines remain as previously set. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Sun-Maid is an American farmer-owned cooperative of raisin growers.[CC] SVB FINANCIAL: Bid to File Omnibus Class Cert Reply OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group, et al, IN RE SVB FINANCIAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:23-cv-01097-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed administrative motion to file omnibus reply in further support of motion for class certification. Having considered the papers and arguments related to Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Motion To File an Omnibus Reply in Support of Class Certification, the Court finds good cause to and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to file their three reply briefs in support of class certification as an omnibus brief of up to 40 pages in length. SVB is a financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6jNCUt at no extra charge.[CC] TAK BROADBAND: Mueller Files Suit in D. South Dakota ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TAK Broadband, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Mueller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TAK Broadband, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-04039-ECS (D.S.D., Feb. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TAK Broadband -- https://www.takbroadband.com/ -- is a nationwide fiber broadband construction partner operating acrosss the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela R. Reiter, Esq. REITER LAW FIRM, PROF. LLC 5032 S Bur Oak Place, Suite 205 Sioux Falls, SD 57108 Phone: (605) 705-2900 Email: pamela@reiterlawfirmsd.com TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Bibb Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Bibb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TECHNICAL EDUCATION SERVICES, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV160325 was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01748. The Complaint asserts the following seven causes of action: failure to pay wages including overtime as required by California Labor Code; failure to provide meal periods as required by California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; failure to provide rest periods as required by California Labor Code; failure to pay timely wages required by California Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses as required by California Labor Code; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brooke S. Hammond, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: bhammond@littler.com - and - Michael R. Minguet, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: mminguet@littler.com THOM BROWNE: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. THOM BROWNE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1764 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.thombrowne.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 23, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Mackintosh High Armhole Chesterfield Overcoat 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. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. For this reason, 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 THOM BROWNE, INC. operates the Thom Browne online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Thom Browne interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's apparel, accessories, and fragrances, as well as other types of goods, pricing, locations and hours of operation of their physical stores and directions thereto, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. Defendant's interactive Website advertises, markets and/or operates in the State of New York and across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. 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 TOMOCREDIT INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tomocredit, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tomocredit, Inc., John Does #1-5, Case No. 4:26-cv-01662 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Tomocredit, Inc. -- https://tomocredit.com/ -- offers AI platform tools that delivers and disputes financial credit loans score with tracking subscriptions and instant personalized answers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: Spoonauer Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Spoonauer and Benjamin Foster, individually and for others similarly situated v. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01304 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). The Plaintiffs regularly worked 8 to 18 hours a day and 5 days a week. But Traffic Management does not pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, in violation of the FLSA, NYLL, PMWA, WPCL, NJWHL, VWPA, and VOWA. Instead, Traffic Management required Plaintiffs to collect equipment from the company yard, pick up a company vehicle, drive to the job site prior to his shift and then return the company vehicle to the company yard, off the clock and without compensation(Traffic Management's "off the clock policy"). Traffic Management's failure to provide accurate, complete, and/or compliant itemized wage statements and/or written notices cause its employees (including Spoonauer) to suffer concrete and cognizable injuries, including obscuring the wages they are lawfully owed and preventing them from determining the wages they are lawfully owed, preventing them from noticing improper deductions from their wages, and by delaying their ability to remedy Traffic Management's underpayment of their wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as traffic controllers. Traffic Management touts that "thousands of employees in locations across the country using cutting-edge technology make it a leader in the traffic engineering industry. It can produce plans of any size to keep your project moving on schedule."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. HADDOX LAW 1203 Texas Street Salem, VA 24153 Phone: 540-765-4284 Facsimile: 540-380-0065 Email: brittany@haddox.law - and - Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 Email: zev@butlercurwood.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Appeals Class Decertification Order -------------------------------------------------------------- CHERISHA LOVEJOY is taking an appeal from a court order decertifying classes, denying her motion for approval of notice and staying action and granting the Defendant's motion to stay in the lawsuit entitled Cherisha Lovejoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Transdev Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for unpaid wages in violation of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On Oct. 7, 2025, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. On Nov. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for order approving class notice and notice plan. On Nov. 14, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to stay. On Jan. 27, 2026, Judge Battaglia entered an Order decertifying classes, denying the Plaintiff's motion for approval of notice and staying action and granting the Defendant's motion to stay. The appellate case is styled as Lovejoy v. Transdev Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1277, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 4, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 13, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHERISHA LOVEJOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Justin Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 1001 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendants-Appellees TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., et al. are represented by: A.J. Weissler, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 UNITED STATES: Bauska Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BAUSKA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class and granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Brian Bauska, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Postal Service, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10732, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On July 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Jan. 31, 2026, Judge Karen M. Williams entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In sum, because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that their claims arise out of the Defendant's contacts with New Jersey, and because the Court lacks general personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant with respect to all the Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Brian Bauska, et al. v. United States Postal Service, Case No. 26-1471, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 4, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN BAUSKA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE is represented by: Alex D. Silagi, Esq. Office of United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Room 700 Newark, NJ 07102 VENEZUELA: Appeals Class Cert. Order to Mazzaccone Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Massimo Mazzaccone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168-DLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is filed for breach of contract arising from the Republic's failure to make certain contractually mandated payments of principal and interest on certain of the Republic's debt securities. On Sept. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Denise L. Cote granted on Feb. 17, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements. The Plaintiff is appointed as class representative, and Duane Morris is appointed as class counsel. The appellate case is styled as Massimo Mazzaccone v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 26-491, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MASSIMO MAZZACCONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. Jillian Marie Dreusike, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (215) 979-l506 Email: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com jdreusike@duanemorris.com - and - Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 960-2214 Email: hwgurland@duanemorris.com Defendant-Petitioner THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA is represented by: Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 Email: ccardozo@velaw.com mantonelli@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend WDPA Indore Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Viatris 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from WDPA Indore stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In November 2025, a stockholder derivative action purportedly on behalf of Viatris was filed in the WDPA against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors alleging that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company was making truthful and accurate statements in connection with the disclosures alleged in the WDPA Indore Class Action Litigation. Viatris is also named as a nominal defendant in this derivative action. The Complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including damages, disgorgement, restitution, equitable relief, and costs and fees. Viatris is a global healthcare company that supplies medicines to about 1 billion patients across more than 165 countries and territories via its 26 manufacturing and packaging sites worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] WHATABRANDS LLC: Grant Sues Over Termination Ff. Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMAL GRANT, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHATABRANDS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00082 (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2026) is a class action complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In early September 2025, the Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was being considered for a promotion to Team Leader because of his good work performance. The Defendant never informed Plaintiff that passing a new or additional background check was a condition of the promotion. The Plaintiff was aware a Team Leader employed by Defendant had a criminal background, which led Plaintiff to believe that he would also be promoted. The suit asserts that the Defendant completed the background check relating to Plaintiff on November 7, 2025, at approximately 11:00 a.m. Later that same day, at approximately 2:00 p.m., a manager employed by Defendant informed Plaintiff by telephone that the Defendant had terminated his employment effective immediately, based on the results of the Consumer Report. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. Whatabrands LLC is engaged in the business of operating and franchising the Whataburger fast-food restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanner Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Direct: (929) 274-2944 Main: (888) SIRI-LAW E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Gonzalez Balks at Third-Party Data Trackers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSELIA GONZALEZ, JOSH BROTHEIM, NATHANIEL GRIFFIN, DEBBIE PADGETT, MICHELLE COX, MILTON KING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a KINETIC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00227-LPR (E.D. Ark., March 4, 2026) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated website visitors harmed by Defendant's deceptive and unlawful surveillance practices in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant begins placing and transmitting third-party tracking technologies, including cookies and web beacons, immediately upon a visitor's initial visit to the website, www.windstream.com before visitors receive any meaningful notice or opportunity to control the interception or dissemination of their data. The Defendant's definition of web beacons omits its use of pixels, web beacons that appear as small graphic images, but actually contain code that call to third-party code libraries which are injected into the user's browser, allowing Kinetic to transmit visitors' electronic communications and online activity via URLs, metadata, and cookies to third-party advertising and analytics companies (the "Tracking Entities"), including Meta (also referred to as Facebook), and Google. The Defendant's use of cookies, web beacons, and similar tracking tools (the "Tracking Tools") enables Tracking Entities to monitor visitors' activity, including webpage browsing activity, viewing specific products, and initiating checkout to purchase products, across the website in real time and associate that activity with persistent identifiers. These practices constitute an unlawful interception of electronic communications, and deprive visitors of control over their sensitive information, says the suit. Windstream Holdings, Inc. owns and operates the website which allows visitors to browse information about Internet and telecommunications services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 1 Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: sjackson@cbplaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Carter Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00610 (D. Nev., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information ("PII"), which includes names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, and other sensitive personal information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information in the regular course of business. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant has a resulting 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 this, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised on February 20, 2026, by the hacker group using the online moniker "ShinyHunters," who posted on its official dark web leak website that it stole 800,000 records containing Private Information from the company. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Brandon Carter is a resident and citizen of the State of Nevada and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Wynn Resorts Holding, LLC develops, owns and manages luxury casino resorts and related properties both in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MARK J. BOURASSA, ESQ. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP 2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 851-2180 Facsimile: (702) 851-2189 E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Telephone: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***