260318.mbx

260318.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 18, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 55 Headlines ADOBE INC: Discriminates Female Employees, Buntjer Suit Says ALEN CORP: Haviland Alleges Illegal Use of Data Broker Software ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Hubert Files Suit in D. Minnesota ALM CANE: Castro Files Employment Suit in Calif. Super. ALO YOGA: Faces Another Putative TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ALPHACENTRIC ADVISORS: $20M Class Settlement to be Heard on June 4 AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Labor Suit APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $4-Mil. BEBE STORES: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Botto Suit Claims BLAKE JONES: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Crocker Says BLUE DIAMOND: Hiley Sues Over Smokehouse Almonds' Deceptive Label BOMBAS LLC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Young Says CARGURUS INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Campbell Says CARNIVORE MEAT: Young Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHUKAR CHERRY: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CITIGUARD INC: Underpays Company Security Guards, Bamigbele Says CONNECTICUT WATER: Continues to Defend Water Contamination Suit COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Stockholders' Derivative Suits COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Warga Stockholder Derivative Suit CRONOS GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit DC WATER: Faces Class Suit Following Potomac River Sewage Spill DILLON COMPANIES: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Contaminated Fuel DOGIDS LLC: Faces Hippe Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EAGLE CREEK: Contreras Files Employment Suit in Calif. Super. EOS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Continues to Defend Water Advisory Class Suit EXP REALTY: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violation FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Federal Derivative Suit in Delaware FRANK'S SPORT: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Buick, Chevy Engine Failure HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 28 IGOURMET LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Says INTUIT INC: Bostick Files Suit Over Unlawful Lending Practices KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Rojas Balks at Diapers' Hypoallergenic Claims LIFESTYLE BARN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bahena Says LOCKTON INC: Benotti Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty LOCKTON INC: Fritts Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty LTIMINDTREE LIMITED: Pineda Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MADRIVER FARM: Frazee Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Wage Payments MEREO BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6 MITO RED: Faces Pou Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages MONSANTO COMPANY: Bartholomew Balks at Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Bartholomew Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Jendritza-Carr Balks at Defective Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Taubin Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over Prepayment Penalties Overcharges NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit NEWSMAX MEDIA: Penning Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. OFFICE DEPOT: Cross Suit Labor Removed to W.D. Wash. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Werner Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info OUTCOMES ONE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $1.7MM PLAYTIKA GROUP: Continues to Defend Shoshan Class Suit in Israel PLAYTIKA LTD: Continues to Defend Mills Class Suit in Alabama PROOF POSITIVE: Tatmon Files Non-Exempt Complaint in Cal. Super. QUALDERM PARTNERS: Karlson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Inmate Rights Class Action Suit Goes to Trial RISEUP FINANCIAL: Gutierrez Files Civil Suit in W.D. Tex. SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Dunn Class Suit in Maryland SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend LERS Fed. Securities Suit SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Martinez ADA Violations Class Suit SNC-LAVALIN GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit STELLANTIS NV: Continues to Defend 2024 Financial Guidance Suit STELLANTIS NV: Continues to Defend Takata Airbag Class Suit STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY: Sharon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUPERPLAY LTD: Faces Dice Dreams Suit Over Gaming Laws Violation TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Amitiza Price Scheme TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit TELADOC HEALTH: Court Stays Brigman Derivative Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over TPS Termination for Somalis in Minn. UNITED STATES: Phan Filed Writ of Habeas Corpus to E.D. Michigan UNITED STATES: Walsh Sues Over Erroneous Student Credit Reports UNIUNI LOGISTICS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Chasco Says VANCOUVER COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle Sexual Abuse Suit for $30MM VEILED COLLECTION: Hussein Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind VENEZIA BULK: Welsh Files Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Pa. VOLUMETRIC BUILDING: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Challis Sues Over Recalled Grill Brushes WILLIAMS BROTHERS: Faces Shipman Employment Suit in S.D. Tex. Z SUPPLY LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Henry Says ********* ADOBE INC: Discriminates Female Employees, Buntjer Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANNA BUNTJER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE, INC.; and TALENTBURST, INC. Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02019 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by Plaintiff against the Defendants alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint asserts that due to Defendants' policies, patterns, and practices, the Plaintiff and other female employees of Defendants receive less compensation and are promoted less frequently than their male counterparts. The Plaintiff was hired by TalentBurst, Inc. and performed work for Adobe, Inc. She began working with Defendants as a Scale Licensing Lead in America and was soon promoted to SMB Licensing Lead in America. She was informed by her manager Maurice D. that she was getting paid less than her male counterpart for substantially equal work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. As a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and/or practices, female employees have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and future income, compensation, and benefits, says the suit. Adobe, Inc. is a multinational computer software company specializing in content creation, publishing, and digital experience software. Talentburst, Inc. is a staffing, recruiting, and workforce management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. John Brown, Esq. Gabriella Sole, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com eugene.zinovyev@wilshirelawfirm.com john.brown@wilshirelawfirm.com gabriella.sole@wilshirelawfirm.com ALEN CORP: Haviland Alleges Illegal Use of Data Broker Software --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEN CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00555 (W.D. Tex., March 6, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Trap and Trace Law by using data broker software on its website, http://alen.comto secretly collect data about Plaintiff and other website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. According to the complaint, the data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the website user. The Defendant has partnered with at least one registered California data broker in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous visitors to the website. The Defendant has done this by installing at least one Data Broker Software Development Kit on the website. The Defendant's conduct of installing and using data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the state law, says the suit. Alen Corporation owns, operates and controls the website which sells air purifiers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Bvld., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com - and - Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 100 Crescent Court, 7th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (512) 456-8760 E-mail: wmiele@taulersmith.com ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Hubert Files Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Geraldine Amelia Hubert, Debra Eckerman Pitton, Jon Matthew Pitton, Jeffrey Krantz, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:26-cv-01697-KMM-JFD (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Frances Ivy Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq. Shashi K Gowda, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC-MN 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com ALM CANE: Castro Files Employment Suit in Calif. Super. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALM Cane CA, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as ROBERT CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALM CANE CA, LLC, et al., Case No. 26CUB00620 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., February 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for employment violations. ALM Cane CA, LLC is a limited liability company, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com ALO YOGA: Faces Another Putative TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Andres, writing for JDSupra, reported not too long ago that Alo Yoga was hit with a putative TCPA class action for marketing texts after a "stop" request. TCPA Putative Class Action filed Against Alo Over Marketing Texts After a "Stop" Request A new putative class action has just been filed (Case No.: 2:25-CV-10478) against none other than Alo Yoga, the popular athletic apparel brand loved by many. Unsurprisingly, Jibarel's office is behind this . . . https://tcpaworld.com/2025/11/02/oh-no-alo-tcpa-putative-class-action-filed-against-alo-over-marketing-texts-after-a-stop-request/ As a brief update on the case, it looks like shortly after Alo filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on January 20, 2026. And the dismissal was without prejudice which I find interesting. The case was filed from Jibarel's office -- a Plaintiff's shop known for filing lawsuits for purported violations of the quiet hours provisions. Well, in February, Alo Yoga was hit with ANOTHER TCPA class action. And this time it is brought by none other than the Godfather of the TCPA, Abbas Kazerounian. Talk about a heavy hitter. The allegations. Plaintiff Teresa Gray alleges she received unsolicited text messages from Alo despite her phone being registered on the National DNC Registry. Gray further alleges at no point did she provide prior express consent for any of the text messages that Alo sent to her. Which naturally raises the question: if she did not give Alo her phone number, where did they get it? Because this is a putative class action, Gray seeks to represent ALL individuals that were similarly texted despite their phone number being registered on the National DNC Registry: All persons within the United States (1) registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) who received more than one telephone solicitation (3) made by or on behalf of Defendant, (4) for the purpose of promoting Defendant's goods or services, (5) within any twelve-month period, (6) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Lets be real. When Kazerounian's firm shows up, they mean business. They are seasoned TCPA litigators who know this statute well. Hopefully Alo has a consent record stored somewhere. An EBR they can point to perhaps. Because this one may not disappear as quickly as the first case did. This is just a reminder to all the businesses out there to take TCPA compliance seriously. After getting hit with one TCPA suit, the plaintiff's bar smells blood. Since this case was just filed, we will of course keep you folks updated! Case No.: 2:26-CV-01484 [GN] ALPHACENTRIC ADVISORS: $20M Class Settlement to be Heard on June 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION SUSAN KOZA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, - v - MUTUAL FUND SERIES TRUST, ALPHACENTRIC ADVISORS LLC, NORTHERN LIGHTS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, GARRISON POINT CAPITAL, LLC JERRY SZILAGYI, BERT PARISER, TOBIAS CALDWELL, TIBERIU WEISZ, ERIK NAVILOFF, and FREDERICK SCHMIDT, Defendants. Index No. 655297/2020 Hon. Anar R. Patel, A.J.S.C. Part 45 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF THE ALPHACENTRIC INCOME OPPORTUNITIES FUND DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 27, 2018, THROUGH MARCH 22, 2020 (INCLUSIVE). THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on June 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, before the Honorable Anar R. Patel, A.J.S.C., Supreme Court of New York, County of New York: Commercial Division, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (i) the proposed settlement of the above-captioned action ("Action"), as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation" or "Settlement"), for $20,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Judgment, as provided under the Stipulation, should be entered; (iii) to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement ("Notice"), as discussed below), and, if so, in what amount; (iv) to award Plaintiff a service award for representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (v) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Any changes to the hearing date or time will be published on www.AlphaCentricSecuritiesLitigation.com. The Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund ("Fund") during the period from July 27, 2018, to March 22, 2020 (inclusive) ("Class Period"), pursuant to the Fund's July 27, 2018 Registration Statement and/or other offering materials subsequently issued by the Fund during the Class Period. Plaintiff alleges that the Fund's July 27, 2018 Registration Statement and other offering materials subsequently issued by the Fund, pursuant to which Fund shares were offered to the public during the Class Period, contained untrue statements and omissions of material fact about the Fund's liquidity. Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's allegations. IF YOU ACQUIRED CLASS A, CLASS C, OR CLASS I SHARES OF THE FUND (TICKER SYMBOLS IOFAX, IOFCX, AND IOFIX, RESPECTIVELY) DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than May 26, 2026) or electronically (no later than May 26, 2026). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by May 26, 2026, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement if it is approved and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Settlement Agreement dated January 20, 2026, and other settlement documents, online at www.AlphaCentricSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at AlphaCentric Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173017, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by email at info@AlphaCentricSecuritiesLitigation.com; or by phone at 877-888-4851. Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or a Proof of Claim, may be made to Class Counsel at Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Attention: Marc Greco, The Helmsley Building, 230 Park Avenue, 24th Fl., New York, NY 10169; by telephone at 212-223-6444; or by email at mgreco@scott-scott.com. IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION THAT IS POSTMARKED BY APRIL 27, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR SERVICE AWARD TO PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY APRIL 27, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. Dated: FEBRUARY 25, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend 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. 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. APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $4-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that ApolloMD has agreed to pay $4,020,000 to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare service group failed to adequately protect the private information of its patients, resulting in a data breach in May 2025. The proposed ApolloMD class action settlement is currently awaiting preliminary court approval and looks to cover all individuals in the United States who were sent notice that their private information may have been impacted by the May 2025 data breach. Court documents state that approximately 662,000 individuals were sent notice that their private information may have been affected by the data breach. According to the settlement agreement, ApolloMD settlement class members will be required to file a valid, timely claim form to receive settlement benefits. The agreement reports that class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the breach are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement, also referred to as "Cash Payment A." The agreement notes that this payment may be subject to a pro rata (equal share) increase or decrease depending on the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of all attorneys’ fees and administrative costs. The agreement explains that class members must submit documentation prepared by a third party, such as telephone records, emails and receipts to receive compensation for losses related to identity theft and fraud. Additionally, class members may not submit a claim for expenses that have already been reimbursed by another source, including from the credit monitoring offered by ApolloMD in its data breach notice. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim form to receive an alternative one-time cash payment of approximately $75, also referred to as "Cash Payment B." Cash Payment B may also be subject to a pro-rated increase or decrease, the agreement notes. In addition to either cash payment, all class members may also submit a claim to receive an enrollment code for one free year of CyEx medical data monitoring, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web scanning, victim assistance, identity theft insurance and access to fraud resolution agents, per the agreement. Should the proposed ApolloMD settlement receive preliminary approval from the court, class members cannot expect to receive benefits until final approval is granted to the settlement, which will be determined following a hearing on a later date. The ApolloMD class action lawsuit alleged that the physician-led healthcare practice that partners with specialists nationwide failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive patient information stored on its systems from a data breach between May 22, 2025 and May 23, 2025. The filing says that private patient information that may have been compromised during the breach includes names, dates of birth, addresses, diagnosis information, provider names, dates of service, medical and treatment information, health insurance information and Social Security numbers. [GN] BEBE STORES: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Botto Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIDGET BOTTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEBE STORES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01724-RGK-DSR (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights. Bebe Stores Inc. is a womenswear and accessories manufacturer based in Brisbane, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com BLAKE JONES: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Crocker Says ---------------------------------------------------------- SARAH CROCKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLAKE JONES LAW FIRM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00081-REW-MAS (E.D. Ky., March 9, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Blake Jones Law Firm, LLC is a personal injury law firm that provides legal services to clients across a range of practice areas, including trucking and motor vehicle accidents, product liability, workplace discrimination, construction accidents, and asbestos exposure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rose L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BLUE DIAMOND: Hiley Sues Over Smokehouse Almonds' Deceptive Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- LATASHA HILEY, VICTORIA KING, and LYNNE TALMADGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, Case No. 26CV171942 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., February 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Smokehouse Almonds product. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, packages, distributes, and/or sells packages of the product with "Smokehouse" emblazoned across a streaking red ribbon, with glowing orange borders, within a three-dimensional polygon, in darkening shades of orange, evocative of the combustion processes associated with fire, surrounded by what appear to be smoked almonds, with a light salt coating. However, the Product is "misbranded," because, based in part on the investigation of counsel, the Defendant does not own, operate, nor control any smokehouse facility, in California, or elsewhere. Had the Plaintiffs known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it. Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural cooperative and marketing organization in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com BOMBAS LLC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. BOMBAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1885 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://bombas.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 27, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Women's High Rise Underwear from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff LESHAWN YOUNG is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant, BOMBAS LLC, operates the Bombas online retail store, as well as the Bombas interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's underwear, socks, T-shirts, and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CARGURUS INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Campbell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TED CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGURUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11145 (D. Mass., March 6, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and at least 12,000,000 others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties in a data breach. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to CarGurus as a requirement to obtain services from Defendant. The data that CarGurus exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information, like: email addresses, IP addresses, full names, phone numbers, physical addresses, user account IDs, finance pre-qualification application data, finance application outcomes, dealer account details, and subscription information (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). Various media outlets reported on the Data Breach on February 24, 2026. CarGurus disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, asserts the complaint. CarGurus's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. Exacerbating the injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members, CarGurus failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, depriving them of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm. Plaintiff found out about the Data Breach from the media. Today, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members continue to be in jeopardy because of Defendant's actions and inactions. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come and now must constantly monitor their financial and other accounts for unauthorized activity. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was exposed and compromised in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff Ted Campbell is a resident, and citizen of Richmond, Virginia. Defendant CarGurus, Inc. is an online car marketplace, which describes itself as "the #1 most visited car shopping site." It connects dealers and consumers, enabling them to trade cars online in a process it describes as "more seamless [than] the dealership lot.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julien P. Gelly, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN BOSTON, PLLC 155 Federal St #1502, Boston, MA 0211 E-mail: julien.gelly@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com CARNIVORE MEAT: Young Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CARNIVORE MEAT COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1886 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.vitalessentials.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 27, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Freeze-Dried Minnows Dog Treats from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff, hence, 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 CARNIVORE MEAT COMPANY LLC operates the Vital Essentials online retail store, as well as the Vital Essentials interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's raw frozen and freeze-dried pet food, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CHUKAR CHERRY: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chukar Cherry Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02590 (N.D. Ill., March 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.chukar.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Henry and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff Henry searched online for dried cherries with the intention of purchasing the product and came across the Defendant's website. During her visit, Henry became interested in buying the ORGANIC Chocolate Rainier Cherries. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader and keyboard, she encountered several accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. Specifically, an automatic pop-up window appeared during navigation, disrupting her browsing experience and interfering with access to page content. In addition, the Search Suggestions drop-down expanded automatically upon receiving focus and could not be closed using the Esc key. These accessibility barriers significantly interfered with Plaintiff Henry's ability to navigate the website and finalize her order independently, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Chukar Cherry Company operates the website that offers dried cherries, chocolate covered cherries, berries, and roasted nuts as well as wine infused treats and gift sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CITIGUARD INC: Underpays Company Security Guards, Bamigbele Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEGUN BAMIGBELE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CITIGUARD INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-1058 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2026) is a class action brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Defendant's policies and/or practices with regard to Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards violated the FLSA, asserts the complaint. Defendant typically required its security guard employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. Plaintiff was required to perform "off-the-clock" duties that were an "integral part of [their] principal activity", including continuing to secure a location while waiting for a relief security guard to appear for work, completing paperwork, and briefing the relieving security guard. The time that Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards spent completing these pre- and post-liminary duties without pay was more than de minimis. The complaint contends that the Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards frequently earned either the applicable minimum wage or only slightly more than the applicable minimum wage. When they worked over 40 hours in a workweek, which happened frequently, Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards were eligible to receive overtime wages, it adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks all damages available under the law, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, recoverable costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled. Plaintiff Segun Bemigbele was an hourly-paid, non-exempt security guard employee of Defendant who worked at Defendant's customers' sites providing security services including patrolling, monitoring, and reporting suspicious activity. He was employed beginning in April 2022 through April 2023. Defendant Citiguard Inc. is a security guard services company that provides services to safeguard its customers' locations across California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com CONNECTICUT WATER: Continues to Defend Water Contamination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- H2O America 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, Connecticut Water Company (CWC), continues to defend itself from a water contamination class suit. In October 2023, CWC, a subsidiary of H2O America in its Water Utility Services segment, was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging that the water provided by CWC contained contaminants. CWC is vigorously defending itself in this lawsuit. There can be no guarantee that additional lawsuits will not occur in the future. Any environmental or product-related lawsuit, including the class action against CWC, may require the Company to incur significant legal costs and it may not be able to recover the legal costs from ratepayers or other third parties. Although Water Utility Services has liability insurance coverage for bodily injury and property damage, pollution liability is excluded from this coverage and its excess liability coverage. Pollution liability coverage is in place for the majority of the H2O America locations and operations but is subject to exclusions and limitations. In addition, any complaints or lawsuits against the Company based on water quality and contamination may receive negative publicity that can damage its reputation and adversely affect its business and trading price of its common stock. The Connecticut Water Company provides water services. The Company offers water systems and treatments plants that supplies water to residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal customers. Connecticut Water serves customers in the United States. COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Stockholders' Derivative Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Coupang, 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 stockholders' derivative actions. Between August and December 2023, three separate stockholders' derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and in December 2024 and March 2025, derivative actions were filed in Delaware Chancery Court, in each case against certain of Coupang's former and current directors and current officers. Coupang was named as a nominal defendant in the various derivative actions. Aside from the aforementioned actions, there have been additional Delaware Section 220 records inspection demands. These derivative actions and related demands purport to assert claims on behalf of Coupang and make substantially similar factual allegations to New York City Public Pension Funds v. Coupang, Inc. et al., bringing claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of securities laws. The actions seek compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Coupang, Inc. operates as a technology and commerce company that offers online retail, restaurant delivery, and video streaming services, among others. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CPNG." [BN] COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Warga Stockholder Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Coupang, 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 Warga stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 6, 2026, a stockholder derivative action, Warga v. Bom Kim, et. al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The derivative action, which is based on the Incident, was filed against Coupang's directors and certain of its officers, and against Coupang as a nominal defendant. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws and seeks various remedies, including damages and improvements to governance and procedures. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss resulting from the putative class actions or the stockholder derivative action cannot be made at this time. Accordingly, it can provide no assurances as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurances as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these related actions. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Coupang, Inc. operates as a technology and commerce company that offers online retail, restaurant delivery, and video streaming services, among others. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CPNG." [BN] CRONOS GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the Superior Court. On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. The court consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenue and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's disclosures relating to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors' review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. The defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021. On November 17, 2023, the court entered an order granting the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On December 1, 2023, the shareholder plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal, requesting that the court instead dismiss the action without prejudice and permit the plaintiffs to seek leave to further amend the complaint. On December 3, 2024, the court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and on January 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. On May 30, 2025, the parties jointly informed the court that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action and the court then stayed all deadlines in the action. On December 2, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement includes a payment of $10 million to be distributed, after fees and expenses, to members of the settlement class and a release by class members of their claims, including in the New York and Ontario actions, based on shares acquired on the Nasdaq or any other public U.S. market for trading stocks during the class period. The release would apply to claims relating to shares acquired on the Nasdaq or any other public U.S. market during the class period but would not resolve claims of persons who acquired shares on the TSX. The proposed settlement remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the court and certain other conditions not within the Company’s control. One of the shareholder plaintiffs in the Ontario action has informed the court that he intends to oppose approval of the settlement. On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim, as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified amount. The Amended Statement of Claim named (i) the Company, (ii) its Chief Executive Officer, (iii) former Chief Financial Officer, (iv) former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, and (v) current and former members of the Board as defendants and alleged breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleged that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenue and internal controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim did not quantify a damage request. On June 28, 2021, the Court dismissed motions brought by the plaintiff for leave to commence a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class action. The plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal of the motions only with respect to the Company, the Chief Executive Officer, and the now former Chief Financial Officer; the remaining defendants were dismissed from the matter with prejudice and the Company and all individual defendants agreed not to seek costs from the plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the motions. On September 26, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the leave and certification motions, granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to bring a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, and remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court. On April 11, 2023, the plaintiff filed a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, which reflected the dismissal of the defendants for which an appeal was not sought, the removal of the claims for oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation, as well as shortening the proposed class period. On October 10, 2023, the Superior Court certified the action on behalf of a class of persons or entities who acquired shares in the secondary market, including on the TSX and Nasdaq, during the period from May 9, 2019 to March 30, 2020, other than certain excluded persons. Cronos Group Inc. is a Toronto-based company into medicinal chemicals and botanical products. DC WATER: Faces Class Suit Following Potomac River Sewage Spill --------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Bonk, writing for WTOP News, reports that the class-action lawsuit claims D.C. Water failed to put adequate safeguards in place or monitoring protocols to prevent the failure of the pipeline. The group said they suffered mounting costs, business interruptions, property contamination and damage from the spill. "We seek losses for infrastructure failure, physical contamination and other economic damages for a failure of immense proportions," said Steve W. Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman, the law firm representing the class action lawsuit. "D.C. Water had 10 years to act to prevent this, and paid dearly for that oversight." The lawsuit said that costs included out-of-pocket costs for inspections, cleanings and decontamination. On Jan. 19, a 72-inch section of the pipeline collapsed along the Clara Barton Parkway near the Capital Beltway, causing about 243 million gallons of sewage to overflow into the Potomac River. D.C. Water estimated that about 194 million gallons of wastewater overflowed from the site of the collapse within the first five days. D.C. Water said after reviewing the data about the collapsed section of pipe, there was no indication that the Potomac Interceptor was in danger of imminent failure when it collapsed. They said they saw no reason to elevate that section for repair ahead of schedule, as it was planned to be repaired in June of this year. In a statement to WTOP, a spokesman with D.C. Water said the pipeline collapse was "serious and unexpected," and that their teams are continuing to work on environmental protection and restoration efforts. They added they can't comment on the lawsuit "because this matter is currently subject to ongoing litigation." The lawsuit includes claims of negligence, private nuisance and trespass, and is asking for a court-ordered injunctive relief at an amount to be determined at a trial. "The collapse caused massive volumes of raw, untreated sewage to overflow directly into the Potomac River," the lawsuit states." (The group of property owners) have suffered and continue to suffer concrete, measurable injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's tortious conduct." The lawsuit also states that the E. coli levels of the water near the collapse site were "well above" the "primary-contact threshold" used by agencies in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and consistent with EPA-referenced recreational water quality criteria. DILLON COMPANIES: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Contaminated Fuel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Lindsey DeHart filed a class action lawsuit against Dillon Companies LLC and HF Sinclair Corp. Why: DeHart claims the companies sold contaminated fuel that damaged consumers' vehicles. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Colorado federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses King Soopers and Sinclair of selling contaminated fuel that damaged consumers' vehicles. Plaintiff Lindsey DeHart filed the King Sooper class action complaint against Dillon Companies LLC (doing business as King Soopers Fuel Center, King Soopers Inc., King Soopers and City Market) and HF Sinclair Corp. on Jan. 27 in Colorado federal court, alleging violations of Colorado consumer protection law. The King Soopers class action lawsuit alleges the companies sold motor fuel represented as unleaded gasoline that was actually contaminated with diesel fuel, causing widespread economic damages to consumers across Colorado. The lawsuit claims that unleaded regular and plus grade gasoline was contaminated with diesel fuel at a terminal operated by Sinclair in Henderson, Colorado, and then delivered to retailers -- including King Soopers -- along the Front Range in Colorado. Lawsuit: contaminated fuel caused widespread and immediate economic damages The King Soopers class action alleges at least 400,000 gallons of contaminated fuel may have been affected. King Soopers sold the contaminated fuel to consumers from Jan. 7, 2026, through Jan. 8, 2026, at 13 locations, the lawsuit claims. The lawsuit alleges that the contaminated fuel caused immediate drivability issues, injector fouling, fuel system damage and catastrophic engine failure in gas-powered vehicles. Consumers reported that their vehicles began to sputter, hesitate, misfire or lose acceleration shortly after fueling, and many required towing to repair shops, the lawsuit says. The King Soopers class action alleges that the defendants acted negligently and recklessly by failing to implement reasonable quality control, inspection, testing, oversight, supervision and monitoring procedures to prevent the contamination. As a result, DeHart claims consumers suffered economic losses, including engine damage, engine failure, repairs and diminution of vehicle value. DeHart seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased unleaded regular or plus grade gasoline contaminated with diesel fuel from the Sinclair terminal, as well as a subclass of those who purchased the contaminated fuel at King Soopers gas stations. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and statutory damages, economic losses, consequential damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Currently, BP Products North America is still facing a class action lawsuit claiming that Amoco stations in New York are charging 70 cents per gallon more than advertised for consumers using a credit card. The plaintiff is represented by Alexandra K. Piazza, Shanon J. Carson, Justin D. Cole and Soledad Slowing-Romero of Berger Montague P.C. The Sinclair, King Soopers class action lawsuit is DeHart v. Dillon Companies LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00330, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. [GN] DOGIDS LLC: Faces Hippe Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dogids, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-371 (E.D. Wis., March 6, 2026) is civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.dogids.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Hippe and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On January 26, 2026, while searching online for personalized dog accessories, Hippe discovered Defendant's website. After reading customer reviews, she decided to visit the website to explore the available products and make a purchase. During her visit, she became interested in the Personalized Buckle Step-In Dog Harness and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website, Plaintiff Hippe encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the transaction. Specifically, the website did not provide a "Skip to Content" link, which made it difficult for her to bypass repetitive navigation and access the main content. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Dogids, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of customizable dog identification and safety products, including personalized dog harnesses, collars, leashes, and related pet accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law EAGLE CREEK: Contreras Files Employment Suit in Calif. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Creek Hydro Operations, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as NOE CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EAGLE CREEK HYDRO OPERATIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 26CECG00847 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., February 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for employment violations. Eagle Creek Hydro Operations, LLC is a company that owns and operates hydroelectric facilities in the United States, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq. EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW 1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 EOS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Eos Energy Enterprises ("Eos Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOSE) securities between November 5, 2025 and February 26, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Eos Energy investors have until May 5, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES (EOSE) INVESTMENTS, visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/eos-energy-enterprises/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On February 26, 2026, Eos Energy announced fourth quarter and full year 2025 results, reporting, among other things, full year 2025 revenue of $114.2 million, falling far short of the Company's previously issued guidance of $150 to $160 million. Management attributed these results to, in part, that "battery line downtime ran well above industry norms" and "the ability for the automated bipolar production to hit quality targets took longer than expected." The Company further disclosed it had "uncovered inefficiencies that result in longer end-to-end production times." On this news, Eos Energy's stock price fell $4.39, or 39.4%, to close at $6.74 per share on February 26, 2026, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was unable to achieve the ramp in production and capacity utilization required to achieve its previously set guidance; (2) the Company's battery line downtime was running well above industry norms, the design intent of the line, and internal forecasts; (3) the Company was experiencing delays in the ability for its automated bipolar production to hit quality targets; (4) the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate guidance and that its public disclosures were timely, accurate, and complete; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact to Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Eos Energy securities, wish to learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/eos-energy-enterprises/ or contact: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: 310-914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com[GN] ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Continues to Defend Water Advisory Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Essential Utilities, 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 water advisory class suit in the State Court in Will County, Illinois. On September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, commenced an action against the Company's Illinois subsidiary in the State court in Will County, Illinois related to this do not consume advisory. The complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees, and "damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages, and discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water provided by the Company’s subsidiary to a discrete service area in University Park, Illinois. The complaint contains allegations of damages as a result of supplied water. In December, 2024, the State court in Will County, Illinois dismissed the case against the Company, and plaintiffs have filed an appeal of that decision. In addition, plaintiffs commenced similar actions in federal court and in front of two state agencies. The Company has an accrual for the amount of loss asserted in the complaint that the Company determined to be probable and estimable of being incurred. The Company is vigorously defending against this claim. While the final outcome of this claim cannot be predicted with certainty, and unfavorable outcomes could negatively impact the Company, at this time in the opinion of management, the final resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Further, the Company submitted a claim for the expenses incurred to its insurance carrier for potential recovery of a portion of these costs and is currently in litigation with one of its carriers seeking to enforce its claims, and recently prevailed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which held that the insurance carrier possessed a duty to defend. In February 2025, the Company received $5,602 in related insurance proceeds for a portion of expenses incurred by the Company. The Company continues to assess the potential loss contingency on this matter. Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for regulated utilities providing water, wastewater, or natural gas services to what the company estimate to be almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands. EXP REALTY: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Eric "Czar" Troutman of TCPA World reports that not saying the sky is falling but eXp Realty seems to be facing a ton of TCPA heat lately -- and its not going well. Most recently in Soale v. eXp Realty, 2026 WL 653629 (March 9, 2026) a court refused to dismiss a TCPA class action against the realty giant based on calls allegedly made by an agent without consent. Apparently the Plaintiff had tried to sell her house on MLS back in 2024. An eXp agent with the Joshua Jackson real estate group apparently left "prerecorded voice[mail] messages," and texts related to the expired listing trying to convince Plaintiff to use his services. Unsurprisingly the texts included links that prominently referenced eXp. eXp moved to dismiss the complaint arguing it is not responsible for the actions of its independent contractor agents. The court actually agreed to some extent. Specifically, the Court found eXp could not be liable on a direct liability theory -- different than another court had found not long ago -- but it still found eXp could be liable on theories of both apparent authority and ratification. As to apparent authority the court concluded: Plaintiff received messages from someone purporting to work for Defendant and upon visiting Defendant's website, found that Defendant displayed Jackson as one of its real estate agents, purported to provide training for real estate agents like Jackson, and had given Jackson access to its branding and logos. Taken as true and considered cumulatively, these allegations of Defendant's manifestations would plausibly support a reasonable belief that Jackson was an authorized agent of Defendant. As to ratification the court found: Here, Plaintiff states a claim under her ratification theory. As an initial matter, because Jackson did purport to contact Plaintiff on Defendant's behalf (Doc. 1 at 5), the doctrine of ratification is applicable. Kristensen, 879 F.3d at 1014. Plaintiff does allege that Defendant accepted the benefits of Jackson's conduct by taking "a portion of commission proceeds derived from any representation of a consumer by its" real estate agents and by taking "separate and exclusive" ownership of all brokerage relationships and listings generated by its real estate agents. (Doc. 1 at 7-8). Further, she argues that Defendant's business structure is "set up to remain willfully ignorant of the conduct of one's contractor to avoid liability" (Doc. 16 at 15). She bases this willful ignorance on Defendant's knowledge that many other associates similarly situated to Jackson have generated leads using methods that violated the TCPA which are "materially identical" to Jackson's methods. Eesh, willful ignorance? Not good. As mentioned the case could get even worse for eXp because although the court concluded the current complaint was not satisfactory to allege theories of direct liability or actual authority the court allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to add more allegations -- so an amended complaint might keep eXp in the suit on all theories. Ultimately it doesn't matter, however, as success on any theory of vicarious liability would hold eXp liable for all calls at issue regardless. We'll keep an eye on this. Real estate agents (and brokers) should give serious thought to attending Law Conference of Champions in early May. Although the networking won't be as great for them as it will be for many others the ability to obtain critical knowledge of the law is unparalleled at this event. [GN] FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Figs, 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 consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 1, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements in its IPO in May 2021 and thereafter. An additional putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 8, 2022, making similar allegations to the previously referenced purported class action. On February 14, 2023, the court consolidated the two complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs. On April 10, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against us, certain of its executive officers and directors, stockholders and the underwriters to its IPO, alleging, among other things, violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false and misleading statements between May 27, 2021 and February 28, 2023 with respect to its ability to predict customer demand and to manage its supply chain, inventory, air freight usage and costs (the "Class Action Securities Litigation"). The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. On May 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 17, 2024, the court granted the motion in its entirety as to all defendants, dismissed the case without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On March 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act similar to those alleged in the previously dismissed amended complaint. On May 3, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 10, 2025, the court granted the motion in its entirety as to FIGS and the executive officer and director defendants, dismissed certain claims with prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint further as to the remaining claims. Thereafter, plaintiffs declined to file an amended complaint and the court entered judgment against the plaintiffs on February 13, 2025. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and briefing in that appeal is complete. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against such claims; however, it cannot be certain of the outcome of its ongoing proceedings and, if determined adversely to the Company, its business and financial condition may be adversely affected. FIGS Inc. is a company that owns and operates www.wearfigs.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] FIGS INC: Continues to Defend Federal Derivative Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Figs, 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 consolidated federal derivative suits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On June 2, 2023, a putative stockholder, Paige McMurtrie, filed a derivative lawsuit against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers, directors and stockholders in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The derivative complaint alleged factual allegations largely tracking allegations made in the Class Action Securities Litigation and sought, among other things, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, governance changes and attorney's fees and costs. On June 8, 2023, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that action brought in the Central District of California and re-filed it in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "McMurtrie Action"). On July 11, 2023, another putative stockholder, Andrew Wubben, filed a derivative lawsuit asserting claims and factual allegations that were materially equivalent to the McMurtrie Action (the "Wubben Action"). On July 31, 2023, the parties to the McMurtrie Action and Wubben Action filed a stipulation to consolidate those actions and any future actions that may be filed based on the same claims and factual allegations (collectively, the "Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action"). On September 25, 2023, the parties to the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action filed a stipulation voluntarily staying the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action until (1) the dismissal of the Class Action Securities Litigation, with prejudice, and exhaustion of all related appeals; or (2) the denial of any motion to dismiss the Class Action Securities Litigation in whole or in part; or (3) any of the parties to the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action provides 30-day notice that they no longer consent to the voluntary stay of the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action. On September 20, 2023, another putative stockholder, Osayi Lawani, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Central District of California asserting claims and factual allegations that were materially equivalent to the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action (the "Lawani Action"). The Lawani Action was then dismissed, re-filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and consolidated into the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action. On January 5, 2024, a putative stockholder, Lloyd Kimmen, filed a derivative lawsuit against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers, directors, and stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Kimmen Action”). On January 12, 2024, another putative stockholder, Cameron Carter, filed a derivative lawsuit that is materially equivalent to the Kimmen Action (the “Carter Action”). The Kimmen Action and the Carter Action allege factual allegations largely tracking allegations made in the Class Action Securities Litigation and the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action, except that the Kimmen Action and the Carter Action reference non-public documents that the Company previously produced to each of those shareholders pursuant to books and records requests made under Delaware General Corporation Law Section 220. The parties to the Kimmen Action and Carter Action have stipulated, and the court has entered an order, to consolidate those actions and any future actions that may be filed based on the same claims and factual allegations (collectively, the “Consolidated Delaware Court Derivative Action”) and to voluntarily stay the Consolidated Delaware Court Derivative Action on terms similar to the stay entered in the Consolidated Federal Court Derivative Action. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against such claims; however, it cannot be certain of the outcome of its ongoing proceedings and, if determined adversely to the Company, its business and financial condition may be adversely affected. FIGS Inc. is a company that owns and operates www.wearfigs.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] FRANK'S SPORT: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frank's Sport Shop, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02519 (N.D. Il., March 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://frankssports.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 17, 2025, while searching online for sports apparel, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's website. Encouraged by reviews, she decided to explore the site further with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the website using screen reader software, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers. Specifically, the website lacked a "Skip to Content" link, preventing her from bypassing repeated blocks of content and navigating directly to the main content of the page. As a result of these accessibility issues, she was unable to complete a purchase. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Frank's Sport Shop, Inc. operates the website which offers a range of sporting goods and apparel for different types of sports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Buick, Chevy Engine Failure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that General Motors (GM) has been hit with a class action lawsuit that alleges the automotive manufacturer knowingly sold vehicles with defective engine assemblies and related components, posing an unreasonable safety hazard to consumers. The 56-page defective product lawsuit claims that certain newer Buick and Chevrolet vehicles manufactured by General Motors are prone to "sudden and catastrophic" engine failure during normal operation, often involving a connecting rod ejecting through the engine block, leading to "rapid" loss of power and steering assistance, fluid leakage and potential fire. The vehicles at issue in the General Motors lawsuit include the following models equipped with a 1.2-liter turbocharged inline 3-cylinder gasoline engine, referred to as the "class vehicles": -- Buick Encore, model years 2024 to present; -- Buick Envista, model years 2024 to present; -- Chevrolet Trailblazer, model years 2024 to present; and -- Chevrolet Trax, model years 2024 to present. The case says that one of the "most concerning" consequences of the defective engine components is a "complete" loss of acceleration and steering assistance, particularly when the vehicle is on a highway or driving at high speeds, creating an "acute and unreasonable" safety risk to owners and lessees of class vehicles. Owners, the filing states, frequently report hearing a "knocking sound" or "loud mechanical bang" directly before the vehicle decelerates "uncontrollably." The case says class vehicles may "shudder violently" as the engine seizes or eject a connecting rod through the engine block, and smoke and fluid discharge may obscure visibility for other motorists. The case reports that some owners witness flames "emanating" from under the hood within seconds of the engine failure. According to the lawsuit, consumers have filed a multitude of complaints about class vehicles with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The following is a sample of the complaints cited in the lawsuit [sic throughout]: "Driving down the highway at a normal speed and the engine made a loud noise and then quit. We took it to a dealership and they said the engine is blown. They said there was a huge hole in the side of the engine." "[H]e and his friend heard a loud pop sound, followed by all the lights on the instrument panel flickering like crazy, smoke coming from under the hood, and then the car slowing to a stop, still in the road. Luckily they were able to get out because all the doors, except the driver door, locked including the trunk. …This could have been very detrimental and had a very different outcome." "While driving at approximately 60mph, the engine suffered a catastrophic failure. According to the licensed Chevy service repair shop, the engine ‘threw a rod that resulted in a hole in the engine block.’ The car immediately lost power while driving on the highway with my wife and young child. The result of this scenario was lucky enough to avoid serious injury." Per the lawsuit, General Motors has been aware of the engine defect since at least 2022, due to pre-release testing data and other sources "not available to consumers," but has taken no meaningful steps to address the "widespread and dangerous" problem. On the contrary, the company has allegedly concealed and continues to conceal the engine defect. Additionally, the filing states that General Motors sold the class vehicles with a 5-year/60,000-mile limited powertrain warranty intended to cover the engine, transmission, drive system and transaxle, along with a 3-year/36,000-mile "bumper to bumper" new vehicle limited warranty. The lawsuit contends that General Motors breached the requirements of its warranties by either refusing to cover sudden catastrophic engine failure or performing "superficial repairs" that fail to address the problem. Strangely, the suit says, the auto company’s authorized dealers in many cases claim the catastrophic engine failures are due to "normal operation." When consumers can find a dealership willing to replace the engine, the replacement engines are on a multiple-month-long backorder, the lawsuit says. "As a result," the case summarizes, "consumers are left with vehicles that suffer recurring failures, diminished safety, and substantial out-of-pocket expenses for engine replacement and related damage." The General Motors class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased or leased a class vehicle. [GN] HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII IN RE HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC., STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 1:24-CV-00164-MWJS-WRP SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT A-2 TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWHERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF HAWAILAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC. ("HE", AND TOGETHER WITH ITS SUBSIDIARY, HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., "HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF NOVEMBER 5, 2025 (THE "RECORD DATE") The shareholder derivative action (the "Action") and related derivative actions (collectively, the "Actions") are being settled on the terms set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement, dated December 29, 2025 (the "Stipulation" or "Settlement"). Under the terms of the Stipulation, in connection with the proposed Settlement, HEI will receive a cash payment in the amount of $100 million (the "Settlement Amount"), which is to be used in part for the settlement or defense of a pending securities class action case. On December 15, 2025, the HEI Board of Directors, including its independent members, approved a resolution reflecting their determination, in a good faith exercise of their business judgment, that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of HEI and its shareholders. In recognition of Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts in securing the $100 million cash payment for the benefit of Hawaiian Electric in accordance with the Stipulation Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to request Court approval of the Settlement including attorneys' fees equal to 25% of the Settlement Amount plus expenses not to exceed $475,000.00. Plaintiffs Counsel also intend to seek Court approval of service awards to each Plaintiff of $5,000.00 in recognition of their role in pursuing the derivative caims and securing the Settlement Amount for the benefit of Hawaiian Electric. IF YOU WERE A RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF HEI COMMON STOCK AS OF NOVEMBER 5, 2025, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY AS YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. On May 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") in the Action at the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Prince Kuhio Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., C-338, Honolulu HI 96850, or via Zoom or other video platform, or telephonically, before the Honorable Micah W.J. Smith, to (i) whether the terms of the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, including the amount of Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered and the Action be dismissed with prejudice on the terms set forth in the Stipulation; and (iii) such other matters as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances. Any HEI shareholder as of the Record Date that objects to the Settlement shall have a right to appear in person (or telephonically or via any video platform as may be designated by the Court) and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, provided that he, she, or it was a shareholder of record or beneficial owner as of November 5, 2025. Any HEI shareholder who satisfies this requirement may enter an appearance through counsel of such own choosing and at such shareholder's own expense, or may appear on their own. No HEI shareholder shall be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than May 7, 2026, such shareholder has filed with the Court, a written notice of objection containing the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number (In re Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:24-CV-00164-MWJS-WRP); 3. Proof of being an HEI shareholder as of the Record Date, November 5, 2025; 4. The date(s) you acquired your HEI shares; 5. A statement of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (you are not required to appear); and 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of the testimony. Only shareholders who have filed valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the written objection with the Court on or before May 7, 2026. All written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to: Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Prince Kuhio Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96850 or, by filing them in at the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii to the extent the Court is open for in-person filings. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS NUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN May 7, 2026. Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely filed with the Court. Any HEI shareholder as of the Record Date, who does not make his, her, or its objection in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall be forever foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as incorporated in the Stipulation, and/or to the Fee and Expense Amount, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but shall otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given. If you have any questions about matters in this Notice contact by telephone at 1-800-449-4900 or in writing Greg Wood, c/o Shareholder Relations, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, 665 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101. PLEASE 00 NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: March 9, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII IGOURMET LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Igourmet, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2589 (N.D. Ill., March 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://igourmet.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bennett's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on November 10, 2025, Bennett made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. Bennett was looking for European specialty foods and found Igourmet.com, which appeared among the top search results. Analyzing customer reviews praising the quality, flavor, and artisanal craftsmanship of the products, he decided to explore the offerings and proceed with a purchase. While attempting to do so, Bennett encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing a transaction. The access barriers denied Bennett full and equal access to the Website. Accordingly, Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Livingston Bennett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Igourmet, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of premium specialty foods, including cheeses, charcuterie, meats, pantry items, snacks, sweets, and gift baskets and other food assortments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law INTUIT INC: Bostick Files Suit Over Unlawful Lending Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY BOSTICK, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTUIT, INC. d/b/a TURBOTAX, INTUIT TT OFFERINGS, INC., CK PROGRESS, INC. d/b/a CREDIT KARMA LLC, MVB BANK, INC., FIRST CENTURY BANK, N.A. SANTA BARBARA TAX PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC, and GREEN DOT BANK, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01444-H-VET (S.D. Cal., March 6, 2026) is a class action seeking to protect active-duty military service members and their families from Defendants' unlawful lending practices which violate the Military Lending Act ("MLA"). The complaint relates that TurboTax markets and facilitates short-term refund-based consumer loans known as "Refund Advance" loans, allowing taxpayers to receive a portion of their anticipated federal refund shortly after filing, often the same day. These loans are repaid by a covered borrower's expected refund when the tax refund is received. The Refund Advance loans are issued by partner banks, including MVB Bank or First Century Bank, N.A., but are facilitated through Intuit subsidiaries, including Intuit TT Offerings Inc. and Intuit Financing Inc. Although Defendants represent that Refund Advance loans carry no interest or loan fees, the required Credit Karma Money Spend account imposes transaction-based fees, including ATM withdrawal charges, which are incurred incident to the extension of credit and must be included in the Military Annual Percentage Rate ("MAPR"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has used Defendants' tax services and, at relevant times, has obtained a Refund Advance Loan. By virtue of the unlawful arbitration agreement within each loan's relevant terms, as well as fees charged, Defendants extended consumer credit to Plaintiff on numerous occasions, in violation of the MLA, notes the complaint. The Defendants' loans violate the MLA in at least six ways: by (1) charging interest above the 36% statutory MAPR cap; (2) failing to provide credit disclosures required by the MLA; (3) including purported class action ban and jury trial waiver; (4) including a mandatory binding arbitration clause; (5) including unreasonable notice requirements imposed on borrowers as a condition for legal action, and (6) using a method of access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the borrower as security for the obligation. The Defendants' business practices violate the MLA and are part of a systematic nationwide policy and practice, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their actions and prevent their predatory lending practices from continuing. Plaintiff Zachary Bostick is a dependent spouse of a member of the United States Navy. Defendant Intuit, Inc. is the nation's largest provider of online tax return preparation and electronic filing services through its TurboTax platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: 708-437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Domenica M. Russo, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-833-4827 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com E-mail: drusso@peifferwolf.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Rojas Balks at Diapers' Hypoallergenic Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASMINE ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01331 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices by Defendant regarding its hypoallergenic-branded Huggies Little Movers Diapers, sold at various retailers including Amazon, Target, and Safeway online and in brick-and-mortar stores across the United States and New York. According to the complaint, the product claims on the label to be "hypoallergenic." Images on its sales page reaffirms this quality, prominently noting that the product is "made for sensitive skin," and free of "harsh irritants." These representations contribute to an overall impression that the product is designed to be chemical free and pose no risk of harming babies with and without sensitive skin. Unfortunately for consumers, however, the product contains ingredients -- within Defendant's knowledge -- that cause, or risk causing, severe allergic reactions. The Defendant promotes its product as meeting that desire when it does not to consumers, like Plaintiff. Scores of parents have alarmingly encountered rashes, burns, and other skin irritations on their children after using Defendant's product, says the suit. Kimberly-Clark Corporation is an American multinational consumer goods and personal care corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com LIFESTYLE BARN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bahena Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lifestyle Barn, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2512 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://modernblaze.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. According to the complaint, Bahena has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On November 26, 2025, Bahena was searching online for fireplace mantels. Her search led her to the Defendant's website, modernblaze.com. Bahena reviewed customer feedback praising the company's wide product selection, quality, and overall positive experiences with pricing and returns. Based on this information, Bahena decided to visit the Website and review the available products. Bahena selected a wood mantel shelf and attempted to add it to her cart. However, due to accessibility barriers encountered on the Website, Bahena was unable to effectively navigate the site or complete the purchase process. The Website denied Bahena full and equal access. Bahena seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Ashley Bahena is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Lifestyle Barn, LLC owns and operates the Website which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase modern electric fireplaces, gas fireplaces, fireplace inserts, mantels, fireplace accessories, as well as fire pits, tables, and BBQ grills.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law LOCKTON INC: Benotti Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------ ELIZABETH BENOTTI, Individually and on behalf of the LOCKTON, INC. 401(K) PLAN, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. LOCKTON, INC.; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00188-FJG (W.D. Mo., March 6, 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 Defendants control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan--a defined contribution plan covering all eligible employees of Lockton, Inc., and participating subsidiaries. The Defendants have fiduciary responsibility for the investment of the assets of the Plan. As fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this Complaint, 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 more than eight 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action to obtain the relief provided under ERISA, for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA. Plaintiff Elizabeth Benotti is a participant as defined by ERISA. Defendant Lockton, Inc. is the named fiduciary and sponsor of the Plan. John and Jane Does 1-30 as fiduciaries and members of the Committee, were fiduciaries of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. McSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com jhughes@milberg.com LOCKTON INC: Fritts Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH FRITTS, KRISTINA BAKER, and YVONNE SHINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOCKTON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00185-FJG (W.D. Mo., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Lockton, Inc. 401(k) Plan's fiduciary for breaches of its duties. During the Class Period, the Defendant caused the Plan to enter into an arrangement with Principal Trust Company, who was a party-in-interest engaging in party-in interest transactions. Specifically, Principal received millions of dollars in exchange for recordkeeping services and trustee services for the Plan. The Defendant's conduct was especially egregious given that Principal received additional income from certain of the Plan's investment securities, says the suit. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of Plaintiff and other participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence. Its actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), and violations of ERISA's prohibited transactions (Count II). Lockton, Inc. is the sponsor of the Plan and a named fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly M. Spann, Esq. FORTMANSPANN, LLC 250 St. Catherine Street Florissant, MO 63031 Telephone: (314) 522-2312 E-mail: kms@fortmanlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com LTIMINDTREE LIMITED: Pineda Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case ANTHONY PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LTIMINDTREE LIMITED, PEOPLE FUNCTION LLC, LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED, HEMANT RAGHAV, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV21333, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 3, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01080-PD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. LTIMindtree Limited is a global technology services company, headquartered in Mumbai, India. People Function LLC is a human resources services company based in New York. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited is a multinational conglomerate, headquartered in Mumbai, India. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michelle M. La Mar, Esq. Terry D. Garnett, Esq. Bradley J. Raboin, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2000 Facsimile: (310) 282-2200 Email: mlamar@loeb.com tgarnett@loeb.com braboin@loeb.com MADRIVER FARM: Frazee Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Wage Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE FRAZEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADRIVER FARM MARKET LLC, R FARM MARKET LLC, MICHELE HESS, SARAH HESS, DONNA OYER, DENNIE OYER, MARCELLA ROSTORFER, and DAVID ROSTORFER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00237-MRB (S.D. Ohio, March 6, 2026) is a collective action and class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime premiums and other wage payments from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Rev. Code. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Instead of paying overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, Defendants compensated Plaintiff using "comp time" in lieu of overtime pay. The Defendants also did not provide Plaintiff or other employees with paystubs or wage statements each week, preventing employees from knowing that these deductions had been taken, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Madriver Farm Market for approximately eight years as a server, bartender, and kitchen assistant. Madriver Farm Market, LLC is an Ohio limited liability company which operated the Mad River Farm Market, as a restaurant, pub, market and drive-thru until January 2026.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. Samantha B. Isaacs, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6650 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com samantha@finneylawfirm.com MEREO BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- National plaintiffs' law firm Berger Montague PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mereo BioPharma Group plc (NASDAQ: MREO) ("Mereo" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADS") issued by Mereo during the period from June 5, 2023 through December 26, 2025 (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased Mereo securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 6, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. To learn your rights, visit https://bergermontague.com/cases/mereo-biopharma-group-securities-fraud/ Mereo is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for rare and serious diseases. The Company is headquartered in London, UK. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued overwhelmingly positive statements to investors concerning the ORBIT and COSMIC Phase 3 programs, clinical trials to test setrusumab as a treatment for Osteogenesis Imperfecta. When, on December 29, 2025, Mereo disclosed that neither study achieved its primary endpoint of reducing the annualized clinical fracture rate, the price of its ADS dropped more than 87%, from a closing price of $2.31 per share on December 26, 2025 to a close of $0.29 per share on December 29, 2025. If you are a Mereo investor and would like to learn more about this action, visit https://bergermontague.com/cases/mereo-biopharma-group-securities-fraud/ or please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bergermontague.com or (215) 875-3015, or Caitlin Adorni at cadorni@bergermontague.com or (267)764-4865. About Berger Montague Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. With more than $2.4 billion in 2025 post-trial judgments alone, the Firm is a leader in the fields of complex litigation, antitrust, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For over 55 years, Berger Montague has played leading roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE. For more information or to discuss your rights, please contact: Andrew Abramowitz Berger Montague (215) 875-3015 aabramowitz@bergermontague.com - and - Caitlin Adorni Berger Montague (267) 764-4865 cadorni@bergermontague.com [GN] MITO RED: Faces Pou Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA POU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITO RED LIGHT LLC, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life. Mito Red Light LLC is a provider of red light therapy, doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rena A. Lerner, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 Email: rena@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bartholomew Balks at Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ JULIA BARTHOLOMEW, on behalf of the estate of JANICE WITHINGTON, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-165 MON (Del. Super., March 9, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Janice Withington's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of their injury, both Janice Withington and Julia Bartholomew have incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Bartholomew Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINE BUTLER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-160 MON (Del. Super., March 9, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Jendritza-Carr Balks at Defective Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN JENDRITZA-CARR, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-166 MON (Del. Super., March 9, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Taubin Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Sheryl Taubin, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-02-654 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Feb. 28, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over Prepayment Penalties Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tez Romero of MPA Mag reports that Mr. Cooper Group faces a class action lawsuit alleging it systematically overcharged mortgage borrowers on prepayment penalties by misreading its own contracts. The suit, filed on March 6, 2026, in federal court in California, centers on a deceptively simple question: what does "anniversary date" mean in a mortgage note? According to the lawsuit, a California-based borrower, Michael E Kasaba LLC, entered into a fixed rate mortgage on April 4, 2024, with Investor Mortgage Finance LLC for a property in Port Hueneme, California. The note carried a principal of $399,000 and included a tiered prepayment penalty schedule -- five percent within the first year, stepping down one percentage point each year, with no penalty after year five. The loan was later transferred to Mr. Cooper, one of the largest mortgage servicers in the country, which according to the filing manages a portfolio with $1.5 trillion in unpaid principal balance and serves over six million customers. When the borrower paid off the loan in full on May 27, 2025, Mr. Cooper -- operating under its Rushmore Servicing brand -- charged a prepayment penalty of $19,748.32, reflecting five percent of the outstanding principal. The borrower contends the correct rate should have been four percent, or $15,798.66, because the loan's first anniversary -- measured from its April 4, 2024 origination -- had already passed. The difference: $3,949.66. The crux of the dispute is that the note never defines "anniversary date." The borrower argues the term naturally refers to the date the loan was funded. Mr. Cooper, the lawsuit alleges, instead used the date of the first installment payment -- which was roughly two months later -- pushing the borrower into a higher penalty tier. The borrower says it contacted Mr. Cooper on June 5, 2025, to challenge the charge and was turned down. What makes this case worth watching for mortgage professionals is not the dollar figure on a single loan. It is the allegation that this was not a one-off mistake but a company-wide practice. The lawsuit seeks class certification on behalf of all borrowers who were assessed a prepayment penalty exceeding what would have applied if the anniversary had been calculated from the funding date. The filing estimates the proposed class runs into the thousands, with an aggregate amount in dispute exceeding $5 million. The case raises a question that mortgage servicers and originators may want to examine closely: how is "anniversary date" defined -- or left undefined -- in their own loan documents? If the term is ambiguous and a court determines it should be read in the borrower's favor, the effects could extend well beyond this single lawsuit. The suit brings claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. It seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. No court has ruled on the merits. The case is in its earliest stage, and the allegations have not been proven. [GN] NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nektar Therapeutics ("Nektar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKTR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 26-cv-01951, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Nektar securities between February 26, 2025 and December 15, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Nektar securities during the Class Period, you have until May 5, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Nektar is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing therapies that selectively modulate the immune system to treat autoimmune disorders. The Company's lead product candidate is rezpegaldesleukin (a/k/a REZPEG or NKTR-358), a novel, first-in-class regulatory T cell stimulator for the treatment of, inter alia, alopecia areata. In March 2024, Nektar initiated its Phase 2b REZOLVE-AA trial, which was purportedly designed to evaluate rezpegaldesleukin in ninety-four patients with severe-to-very severe alopecia areata who had not previously been treated with a Janus kinase inhibitor or another biologic. The trial's enrollment criteria purportedly included a diagnosis of severe-to-very severe alopecia areata as measured using the Severity of Alopecia Tool score at both screening and randomization, as well as exclusion of patients who had experienced an unstable course of alopecia areata over the prior six months, had inadequate washout of prior alopecia areata treatments within eight weeks, or who had diffuse alopecia or other forms of alopecia. In February 2025, Nektar announced that it had completed its target enrollment in the REZOLVE-AA trial. At all relevant times, Defendants maintained that enrollment in the trial had followed applicable instructions and protocol standards, while also touting the Company's purported drug development expertise and use of this expertise to advance its product candidates through clinical development. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) enrollment in the REZOLVE-AA trial had not followed applicable instructions and protocol standards; (ii) the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on the REZOLVE-AA trial's results; (iii) accordingly, the REZOLVE-AA trial's overall integrity and prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on December 16, 2025, when Nektar issued a press release during pre-market hours "announc[ing] topline results from the 36-week induction treatment period of the Phase 2b REZOLVE-AA trial of investigational rezpegaldesleukin[.]" The press release disclosed that the trial failed to reach statistical significance, which Nektar attributed to the inclusion of four patients who should not have been eligible to participate. On this news, Nektar's stock price fell $4.14 per share, or 7.77%, to close at $49.16 per share on December 16, 2025. [GN] NEWSMAX MEDIA: Penning Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case STACY EDMON PENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEWSMAX MEDIA, INC., Case No. C25-03688, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 3, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-01059-JST to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Newsmax Media, Inc. is a media company in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason Alan Orr, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 764-4026 Email: jorr@bakerlaw.com - and - Victoria Leigh Weatherford, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 659-2634 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com OFFICE DEPOT: Cross Suit Labor Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The case KATHERINE CROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 26-2-05375-3, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 18, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05171-BHS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations of Washington's Industrial Welfare Act (IWA), the Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMWA), and related regulations promulgated by Washington State. Office Depot, LLC is an office supply retailer headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Sieu Che, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-2308 Email: mmacario@fisherphillips.com sche@fisherphillips.com ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Werner Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY WERNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS, PC, Defendant, Case No. 2682CV00145 (Comm. Mass., February 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about January 17, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts, PC is a provider of surgical and non-surgical treatment for bone, joint, and muscle issues based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Andrew Ferich, Esq. Brian Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com OUTCOMES ONE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $1.7MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Outcomes One has agreed to a $1,700,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare technology service provider failed to protect the sensitive information stored on its systems from a data breach on or around July 1, 2025. The $1.7 million Outcomes One class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 30, 2026 and covers approximately 257,500 individuals residing in the United States whose private information may have been impacted by the July 2025 data breach. The court-approved website for the Outcomes One data breach settlement can be found at OutcomesOneDataIncident.com. According to the website, Outcomes One settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $3,500, also called "Cash Payment A” in settlement documents. The settlement agreement outlines that all documented loss claims must be accompanied by documentation such as bills, invoices, and receipts to support the claimed expenses. Class members may not receive payment for losses that have been previously reimbursed by another source, the agreement states, including the credit monitoring and identity theft protection offered by Outcomes One as part of the data breach notice. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, Outcomes One settlement class members may instead file a claim to receive a one-time alternative cash payment of approximately $75, also called "Cash Payment B” in court documents. This payment, the agreement explains, will be a pro-rated share of what remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of settlement administration costs, attorneys’ fees, lead plaintiff service awards and all other settlement benefits. Class members may receive their payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement adds, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all settlement class members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for one free year of medical data monitoring, which includes services such as one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web scanning and identity theft insurance, the agreement states. To file an Outcomes One settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed at the top of the document. All Outcomes One settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 5, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Outcomes One has also agreed to implement enhanced security measures to reduce the risk of any future breaches. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Outcomes One class action settlement following a hearing on May 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Outcomes One class action lawsuit claimed that the Florida-based healthcare services company failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the information of its clients, customers, subscribers, members and patients after a criminal third party gained access to its servers by way of a phishing scheme emailed to one of its employees. Per court documents, the private information that may have been compromised during the July 2025 data breach included names, demographic information, medical providers, health insurance information and medication information. [GN] PLAYTIKA GROUP: Continues to Defend Shoshan Class Suit in Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. 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, Playtika Group Israel Ltd., continues to defend itself from the Shoshan class suit in the District Court in Central Lod, Israel. On December 10, 2025, Maor Ben Shoshan filed a Motion for Certification of a class action lawsuit in the District Court in Central Lod, Israel, against Playtika Group Israel Ltd. ("PGI"), alleging misleading price presentation in connection with in-app purchases offered to Israeli users in U.S. dollars in several Playtika games, including Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Slots, and others, resulting in higher final charges due to undisclosed foreign currency conversion rates and related fees. The lawsuit seeks NIS 18,357 in personal damages to the petitioner and approximately NIS 28 million in damages to the tentative class or approximately USD $8.8 million, using the exchange rate of NIS 3.19: USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2025. A pre-trial hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 9, 2026, and PGI is required to submit its response to the motion within 90 days. As these claims are in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, they may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously. Playtika Group Israel Ltd. is an Israel-based mobile game developer and a subsidiary of Playtika Holding Corp. that develops and operates social casino and casual mobile games. PLAYTIKA LTD: Continues to Defend Mills Class Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. 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, Playtika Ltd., continues to defend the Mills class suit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. On June 6, 2025, plaintiff Stuart Mills filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., on behalf of all Alabama-based players of the Company's games in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. The suit, like the suit brought by Gayla Hamilton Mills, alleges that the Company's casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. The suit was filed by the same counsel who represent Gayla Hamilton Mills. The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court was filed on August 11, 2025. The court denied the motion to remand and compelled the parties to arbitration on January 20, 2026. Plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission for interlocutory review by the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of the denial of his motion to remand on January 30, 2026. The Company filed its response to the petition on February 9, 2026. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Playtika Ltd. operates online social casino available at www.slotomania.com and on various mobile apps.[BN] PROOF POSITIVE: Tatmon Files Non-Exempt Complaint in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proof Positive Fund I, LP, et al. The case is captioned as ANDREW TATMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROOF POSITIVE FUND I, LP, et al., Case No. CGC26634228 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., February 18, 2026). The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints. Proof Positive Fund I, LP is a limited partnership doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. ZAGHI & CHRZAN, LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 230-5353 Email: zach@zclawyers.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Karlson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK KARLSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00268 (M.D. Tenn., March 6, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized third party gained access to a limited number of systems within its network between December 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025, and removed certain information stored within those systems. The Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard their private information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, the Defendant utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. The data breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. Through this wrongful conduct, the sensitive PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members is now in the hands of cybercriminals, who target this sensitive data for its value to identity thieves, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) Gross Negligence and Negligence Per Se, (2) Breach of Implied Contract; and (3) Unjust Enrichment. QualDerm Partners, LLC is a Nashville, Tennessee-based, private equity-backed management services organization that partners with dermatologists to provide administrative support, capital, and operational growth strategies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq. F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Hunter Phares, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com jtapley@corywatson.com hphares@corywatson.com RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Inmate Rights Class Action Suit Goes to Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Fairbanks, writing for Montana Free Press, reports that a jury will consider this week whether Ravalli County is violating the rights of impoverished people who have been arrested and are awaiting trial. The lawsuit filed in August 2021 on behalf of three indigent participants in Ravalli County's Jail Diversion Program describes it as "a wealth-based discrimination scheme" that requires pretrial arrestees who are not convicted to pay "exorbitant" fees to get out and stay out of jail, without regard to their ability to pay. Ravalli County denies that the program violates any civil rights and argues judges decide pretrial conditions, including monitoring or testing, and that detainees have an opportunity for a court hearing regarding their ability to pay. U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen will preside over the trial, which begins Monday in federal court in Missoula. Missoula attorney Timothy Bechtold and nonprofit law firm Equal Justice Under Law, based in Washington, D.C., represent the plaintiffs. In 2023, the case was granted class-action status for all indigent people placed in Ravalli County's Jail Diversion Program and charged pretrial fees without having been convicted of the crime for which the program was ordered. The plaintiffs argue the county violated their procedural due process rights by, among other things, charging pretrial supervision fees without the opportunity to contest them or assessing their ability to pay; requiring fees to be paid before release from detention; reporting non-payment as a violation of bail conditions, leading to detention; and requiring fees up-front, resulting in prolonged detention after individuals had posted bail. "It is unsurprising that, rather than ensuring pre-trial arrestees appear for court, Ravalli County's Jail Diversion Program functions to push pre-trial arrestees even further into the criminal legal system and entrap them in a cycle of debt-induced poverty," the lawsuit said. In January 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto dismissed claims against two Ravalli County District Court judges, two justices of the peace and Ravalli County Sheriff Stephen Holton, but allowed the claims against Ravalli County to move forward. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages of $5,549, the total in fees paid by the three named plaintiffs. Phil Telfeyan, executive director of Equal Justice Under Law, told Montana Free Press that, unlike other class-action lawsuits that often seek larger monetary awards for all affected people, the plaintiffs in this case are focused on changing the pretrial system in Ravalli County. "We want a fair system moving forward," he said. Ravalli County denies it violated the civil rights of the named plaintiffs or any class members. Under the program, which started in 2018, the Ravalli County Sheriff's Office provides court-ordered pretrial services for a fee. If someone says they can't pay the fees, the county does not provide services, and it notifies the court and the county attorney's office, according to court documents. The county argues that once referred to the court, detainees have an opportunity for a hearing on whether they can pay for pretrial services and to obtain court-ordered testing and monitoring through other providers. The sheriff's office doesn't put people in jail for not paying the fees, but will report a violation to the county attorney's office if they don't take a drug or alcohol test or for removing monitoring equipment, according to court documents. The prosecutor may make a written motion for revocation, and the court may revoke bail and order detention. In declarations submitted to the court, Ravalli County District Court Judges Howard Recht and Jennifer Lint state that although a revocation order may include failure to pay fees, it is always based on another violation of pretrial conditions, such as failure to appear, alcohol or drug use or another criminal act. The court regularly works with people who have difficulty making payments to help them adjust their payments during times of financial hardship, according to the affidavit from Ravalli County Justice of the Peace Jennifer Ray. The sheriff sets the pretrial supervision fees and doesn't profit from them, according to court documents. In November, the Ravalli County commissioners approved Sheriff Holton's request to increase the pretrial supervision fees by 17% in January and another 17% in January 2027 to keep up with increased program costs. Holton said during the Nov. 13 meeting that without the program, the detention center would be "pushing 80 inmates." The jail has about 88 beds and held 60 inmates. It's unclear how many people are regularly enrolled in the diversion program. Holton declined to answer MTFP's questions about the program ahead of the trial, citing concerns about affecting the jury selection. Telfeyan, with Equal Justice Under Law, told MTFP that the program likely leaves more people in jail because, if someone can't afford bail, they can't afford the pretrial supervision fees. Ravalli County's system is not common, as many jurisdictions rely on bail, including cash or other conditions set by the judge, to ensure defendants show up to court, Telfeyan said. Other pretrial supervision programs do not typically charge fees, he said. Conditions, including drug or alcohol testing, are not uncommon for charges like a DUI, but are happening "across the board" in Ravalli County, Telfeyan said. According to information submitted by the county, District Court judges impose pretrial conditions when appropriate and consider costs. Justices of the Peace do not order all arrestees to obtain pretrial services; they do so in cases involving aggravating circumstances. While the outcome of the trial is yet to be determined, Ravalli County Sheriff Holton said in his affidavit that if the county is prohibited from collecting pretrial supervision fees, his office would stop providing those services and refer criminal defendants to private service providers. "There are private companies in Ravalli County and across the state of Montana, which also provide pretrial services," Holton said. "To the best of my knowledge, all those providers charge for their services." The trial is scheduled to conclude Friday, March 13. [GN] RISEUP FINANCIAL: Gutierrez Files Civil Suit in W.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RiseUp Financial Group, LLC. The case is captioned as ELIAS GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RISEUP FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2026DCV0954 (W.D. Tex., February 18, 2026). The case type is stated as other civil. RiseUp Financial Group, LLC is a financial consulting firm in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. BRIAN R. RODRIGUEZ LAW PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Dr., Suite 110 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (915) 247-6455 Email: Brian@YourLawyerBrian.com SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Dunn Class Suit in Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dunn class suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. A putative class action complaint, which also includes a claim for individual relief, was filed May 7, 2025 against Six Flags America LP and IBCCES in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. Plaintiff alleges that in violation of Prince George's County Code and the common law of negligence and unjust enrichment, disabled persons seeking reasonable accommodations at the Six Flags America park in Bowie, Maryland must first undergo a pre-approval process managed by IBCCES 48 hours in advance of a park visit to obtain an IAC, and as part of the process applicants must submit sensitive personal and medical information. Plaintiff further alleges that in June 2024, she entered the park with her service dog without incident but was informed that without an IAC, she could either leave the park, put her service dog in her car and return, or get a rain check for a return visit, after which plaintiff chose to leave. Plaintiff seeks to certify several classes covering individuals affected by the IAC process or by in park denials of accommodations. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in June 2025, following which Six Flags America moved to compel arbitration and stay the action, or alternatively to dismiss, stay, or transfer the case. The case is currently stayed until May 2026, and mediation is currently scheduled for April 2026. The Company is vigorously defending the action. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation operates regional theme parks. The Company has parks comprised of theme, water, and zoological parks. [BN] SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend LERS Fed. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On November 5, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint was filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation and certain current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 3:25-cv-02394 (N.D. Ohio) (the "Securities Action"). The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and alleges, among other things, that the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the July 1, 2024 merger of Former Six Flags and Cedar Fair, L.P. contained untrue statements of fact and/or was materially misleading because it failed to disclose that Former Six Flags had underinvested in its parks and operations and that, as a result, the financial plans in the registration statement were not reasonably achievable or rooted in facts existing at the time of the July 1, 2024 merger. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, but intend to defend the action vigorously. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation operates regional theme parks. The Company has parks comprised of theme, water, and zoological parks. [BN] SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Martinez ADA Violations Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Martinez ADA violations class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. A putative class action complaint alleging claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and two California statutes was filed December 26, 2023 against Former Six Flags Entertainment Corporation and Magic Mountain LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Subsequent to filing, two additional named plaintiffs replaced the original plaintiff, and defendants Park Management Corp. and Six Flags Concord LLC were added as parties. Plaintiffs allege that in violation of the ADA and the California statutes, defendants require a guest with a disability to register with and obtain from the International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards ("IBCCES") an Individual Accessibility Card ("IAC") at least 48 hours in advance of their park visit in order to receive an "Attraction Access Pass" at the park, which identifies accommodations for the guest. Plaintiffs further allege that in violation of the ADA and the California statutes, a disabled guest must submit on the IBCCES website medical documentation as a result of impermissible inquiries as part of their IAC application. Defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations. Plaintiffs moved to certify two nationwide classes for claims under the ADA seeking injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, and two corresponding California subclasses for claims under the California statutes seeking injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees. After hearing class-certification arguments in November 2025, the magistrate judge recommended to the district judge in February 2026 that one of the nationwide classes seeking injunctive relief and attorneys' fees under the ADA be certified and that certification of any other class or subclass be denied. The Company is vigorously defending the action. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation operates regional theme parks. The Company has parks comprised of theme, water, and zoological parks. [BN] SNC-LAVALIN GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a proposed shareholder class action has been filed in the Superior Court of Quebec against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. (now known as AtkinsRealis Group Inc.) (TSX: "SNC", now "ATRL"), its former CEO Neil Bruce and its former CFO Sylvain Girard. The proposed class action is brought on behalf of investors who acquired SNC shares in the secondary market during the period from November 1, 2018, when SNC released its financial results for the third quarter of the 2018 financial year, through to the release of SNC's news release entitled "SNC-Lavalin provides update on new facts about the Mining & Metallurgy project" before markets opened on February 11, 2019. The action alleges that SNC made material misrepresentations and failed to disclose material information to investors relating to: -- substantial budget overruns and a massive schedule delay on an EPC fixed-price contract that SNC entered into with Chilean state-owned copper producer Codelco, leading to a $346 million loss on the project for SNC; and -- the loss of SNC's business prospects in Saudi Arabia as a result of the Royal Order proclaimed by the King of Saudi Arabia on August 6, 2018, which prevented SNC from winning lucrative contracts with government and semi-government entities in Saudi Arabia as SNC had in the past. It is alleged that following corrective disclosures on January 28, 2019 and February 11, 2019, in which SNC belatedly revealed the truth to its investors, SNC's market capitalization fell by approximately $2.4 billion on January 28, 2019 and approximately $0.4 billion on February 11, 2019. The class action seeks to recover compensation for class members for the investment losses that were caused by the alleged misrepresentations. The Plaintiffs are represented by a Class Counsel team of Kugler Kandestin LLP, Siskinds LLP, Rochon Genova and Kalloghlian Myers LLP, which collectively have decades of experience prosecuting shareholder class actions on behalf of retail and institutional investors. Class Member Inquiries: If you wish to receive updates on this class action, we encourage you to complete the information form on the website of Siskinds LLP or Kugler Kandestin LLP by clicking "Join". Your information will be held in strict confidence. By completing the form, you do not incur any obligations in connection with the class action. Your communications with our firms are free, strictly confidential, and are covered by privilege. About Class Counsel Kugler Kandestin LLP is a prominent Québec-based law firm renowned for its class action practice. The firm has a track record of success, both in terms of litigating and settling class actions and has obtained numerous significant monetary awards for class members. https://kklex.com/ Siskinds LLP is a pioneer in class action lawsuits and has been recognized as a top-tier Canadian firm by the Chambers and Partners, a global legal review organization, in their 2026 guide. The class actions team, comprised of 25 lawyers admitted to practice in Québec, Ontario and British Columbia, act exclusively for plaintiffs. www.siskinds.com Rochon Genova is a leading Canadian securities class action law firm which has achieved for its shareholder clients among the largest recoveries ever approved by Canadian courts. Its lawyers have appeared before trial and appellate courts across Canada including in Quebec, and before the Supreme Court of Canada. Rochon Genova and its lawyers have received peer-reviewed recognition by Chambers and Partners, Best Lawyers, and Lexpert, among others. Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a Toronto law firm specializing in plaintiff class actions, whose lawyers have won precedent setting decisions in investor protection, competition, product liability and government liability cases. [GN] STELLANTIS NV: Continues to Defend 2024 Financial Guidance Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Stellantis N.V. disclosed in its Form 20-F 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 2024 Financial Guidance securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2024, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against Stellantis N.V. and certain of its former officers, alleging that the defendants made material misstatements relating to the Company's 2024 financial guidance. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 2025 and a motion to dismiss was filed by Stellantis N.V. and the individual defendants in June 2025. Stellantis designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes and sells vehicles across five portfolios: (i) luxury vehicles under the Maserati brand; (ii) premium vehicles covered by Alfa Romeo, DS and Lancia brands; (iii) global sport utility vehicles under the Jeep brand; (iv) American brands covering Dodge, Ram and Chrysler vehicles and (v) European brands covering Abarth, Citroën, Fiat, Opel, Peugeot and Vauxhall vehicles.[BN] STELLANTIS NV: Continues to Defend Takata Airbag Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Stellantis N.V. disclosed in its Form 20-F 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 Takata Airbag Inflators class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Takata Airbag Inflators Putative class action lawsuits were filed in March 2018 against FCA US LLC ("FCA US"), a 100 percent owned subsidiary of Stellantis, in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida and the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting claims under federal and state laws alleging economic loss due to Takata airbag inflators installed in certain of our vehicles. The cases were subsequently consolidated in the Southern District of Florida. In November 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in FCA US's favor against all claimants except those in Georgia and North Carolina. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint to add additional states to the pending action. Plaintiffs' appeal of the grant of summary judgment was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction. In May 2024, the Court entered an order to allow FCA US's renewed motions for summary judgment to address the remaining amended claims. In June 2023, the Court entered an order preliminarily granting class certification for the amended complaint. In July 2023, the Court revisited its class certification order and further narrowed the classes based on a recent Court of Appeals decision. FCA US’ appeal of the Court's preliminary order was denied. Stellantis designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes and sells vehicles across five portfolios: (i) luxury vehicles under the Maserati brand; (ii) premium vehicles covered by Alfa Romeo, DS and Lancia brands; (iii) global sport utility vehicles under the Jeep brand; (iv) American brands covering Dodge, Ram and Chrysler vehicles and (v) European brands covering Abarth, Citroën, Fiat, Opel, Peugeot and Vauxhall vehicles.[BN] STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY: Sharon 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 Sergio Antonio Galvez Perez, Hugo Valadez Valenzuela, and Sharon, Horn, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2026-0001512 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 2, 2026). Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides the care you need to improve and maintain your heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] SUPERPLAY LTD: Faces Dice Dreams Suit Over Gaming Laws Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. 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 SuperPlay Ltd., develops social and casual mobile games and famous for Dice Dreams, faces Dice Dreams class suit over violation of Washington state gambling laws and consumer protection laws. In December 2025, a similar class action complaint was filed in the State of Washington against SuperPlay Ltd. alleging that Dice Dreams, a "Luck Battle" game, violates Washington State gambling laws and consumer protection laws. SuperPlay Ltd. is a mobile game developer based in Tel Aviv that specializes in creating social and casual games for mobile devices that are designed to appeal to players around the world. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Amitiza Price Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased or paid for some or all of the purchase price of Amitiza and/or generic versions of Amitiza (Lubiprostone) as a third-party payor, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights. Your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit regarding the price paid for brand and generic Amitiza by third-party payors filed against Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively "Takeda" or "the Defendants"). The lawsuit, which is pending in the District of Massachusetts, alleges Defendants engaged in a scheme to delay generic competition in the market for lubiprostone. Plaintiff alleges Defendants' scheme delayed the entry of generic competition for Takeda's brand name prescription pharmaceutical drug Amitiza for up to five years, causing TPPs to pay supra-competitive prices for Amitiza and its AB-rated alternatives during the relevant time period, and Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from Defendants. The lawsuit asserts that, as a result of Takeda's alleged unlawful conduct, the prices paid for the at-issue drugs were higher than they otherwise would have been. This is only a summary. The Court has not decided whether Defendants did anything wrong. There is no money available now, and no guarantee there will be. For additional details, please read the Long-Form Notice available at www.AmitizaTPPLitigation.com. Who Is Included? You are a member of the Class(es) if you are a TPP and you purchased or paid for prescription drugs as described as follows: (1) Damages Class. From October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2024, you purchased or paid for Amitiza and/or AB-rated generic versions of Amitiza in California, Connecticut (11/30/2020 or later), District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland (10/1/2017 or later), Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont, from any of the Defendants or any other generic manufacturer, or their subsidiaries or affiliates; (2) Unjust Enrichment Class. From October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2024, you purchased or paid for some or all of the purchase price of Amitiza and/or AB-rated generic versions of Amitiza in California (11/30/2021 or later), Connecticut (7/10/2017 or later), District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland (10/1/2017 or later), Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia, from any of the Defendants or any other generic manufacturer, or their subsidiaries or affiliates. You are not a member of the Classes if you are among the following: -- natural person consumers; -- Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; -- all federal and state governmental entities except for cities, towns, municipalities, or counties with self-funded prescription drug plans; -- all persons or entities who purchased Amitiza or their AB-rated generic versions for purposes of resale; -- fully insured health plans (i.e., health plans that purchased insurance covering 100% of their reimbursement obligation to members); and -- pharmacy benefit managers. A more detailed notice is available at www.AmitizaTPPLitigation.com. Your Rights and Options DO NOTHING: If you are a member of a Class, by doing nothing you will remain in that Class and may be entitled to share in any recovery that may come from a trial or settlement with the Defendants for that Class. You will be bound by any decision of the Court in this lawsuit (including a judgment in favor of the Defendants) as to that Class, and you will give up your rights to sue any of the Defendants about the same set of facts, series of transactions, or legal claims involved in this lawsuit as to that Class. EXCLUDE YOURSELF: This is the only option that allows you to file or be part of another lawsuit against the Defendants relating to the claims in this case. If you exclude yourself from the Classes, you will not be bound by any of the Court's orders in this case as to those Classes' claims against the Defendants, nor will you be entitled to participate in and benefit from a recovery, if any, on behalf of those Classes. Any dispute about your request to be excluded will be resolved by the Court. The deadline to exclude yourself from the Classes is April 10, 2026. Specific instructions on how to request exclusion are included in the Long-Form Notice available for download at www.AmitizaTPPLitigation.com. The Trial The trial is scheduled to commence on April 13, 2026, at the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, One Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Any changes to the date or location of the trial will be posted to the case website. Want More Information? Go to www.AmitizaTPPLitigation.com, call 1-877-543-8491, email info@AmitizaTPPLitigation.com, or write to Amitiza TPP Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170800, Milwaukee, WI 53217. DATED: March 3, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [GN] TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 6, 2022, a purported securities class action complaint (Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period October 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2022, a duplicative purported securities class action complaint (De Schutter v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which was consolidated with the Schneider case in the Southern District court under the caption In re Teladoc Health, Inc. Securities Litigation. The lead plaintiff subsequently filed amended complaints that expanded the alleged class period to February 11, 2021 to July 27, 2022. On July 5, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, and on September 24, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the Southern District court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On March 21, 2025, the court granted the defendant's renewed motion to dismiss, and on July 25, 2025 the lead plaintiff filed an appeal of the Southern District Court’s dismissal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Teladoc is a multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company. The company offers comprehensive care including talk therapy, diagnosis and medication support. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls www.livongo.com.[BN] TELADOC HEALTH: Court Stays Brigman Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------- 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Brigman stockholder derivative suit. On October 1, 2024, a duplicative verified stockholder derivative complaint (Brigman, et al. v. Daniel, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims and parties in Brigman are substantially similar to those in Roy, and also alleges insider trading violations and misappropriation of information against certain defendants. On April 7, 2025 the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, to stay all proceedings until any motion to dismiss filed in the purported securities class action complaint described above is granted with prejudice and any appeals therefrom are resolved, or any defendant files an answer in the purported securities class action. The named directors and officers have not yet responded to the complaints. Teladoc is a multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company. The company offers comprehensive care including talk therapy, diagnosis and medication support. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls www.livongo.com.[BN] UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over TPS Termination for Somalis in Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------------- AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER, PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF NEW AMERICANS, ALEXANDER DOE, MOHAMED DOE, TYSON DOE, and NINA DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-11201 (D. Mass., March 9, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violation of both the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution due to their decision to terminate Somalia's Temporary Protected Status designation. On November 21, 2025, President Donald Trump posted on the social media website Truth Social that he was terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis in Minnesota effective immediately. The complaint asserts that Defendant Noem's official termination of Somalia's TPS designation, which she issued less than two months after President Trump's November 21, 2025, social media announcement, contravened the clear procedural requirements of the TPS statute by relying on selective and discriminatory facts to justify the termination of Somalia's TPS designation. Due to the termination, over a thousand Somali TPS holders are set to lose their humanitarian protections, says the suit. Individual Plaintiffs are four Somali TPS beneficiaries and/or applicants who have established deep ties to the United States and their local communities. Each individual Plaintiff is a member either of Plaintiff African Communities Together or of Plaintiff Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. ACT is a non-profit, membership-based organization that represents and empowers African immigrants, their families, and their communities across the United States. Kristi Noem is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DHS, together with its component agencies, is responsible for administering and enforcing the TPS program.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nargis Aslami, Esq. Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq. Sadaf Hasan, Esq. Collin Poirot, Esq. Abbey Rutherford, Esq. MUSLIM ADVOCATES 1032 15th Street N.W. #362 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 897-2622 E-mail: Nargis@muslimadvocates.org Golnaz@muslimadvocates.org Collin@muslimadvocates.org Abbey@muslimadvocates.org - and - Erik Crew, Esq. HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE 4560 Alvarado Canyon Road, Suite 1H San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-7411 E-mail: ECrew@haitianbridge.org - and - Kacey Mordecai, Esq. Mide Odunsi, Esq. LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 700 14th Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 682-1300 E-mail: Kmordecai@naacpldf.org Modunsi@naacpldf.org - and - Morenike Fajana, Esq. Lauren Carbajal, Esq. LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 40 Rector Street #5 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (202) 965-2200 E-mail: Mfajana@naacpldf.org Lcarbajal@naacpldf.org UNITED STATES: Phan Filed Writ of Habeas Corpus to E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUAN SY PHAN filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled Quan Sy Phan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Troy Goodnough, et al., Respondents, Case No. 4:26-cv-10376-FKB-KGA, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff-Petitioner appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Walsh Sues Over Erroneous Student Credit Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIANA WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01358-JPO (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. The case arises from the Defendant's directive to original servicer of student loans to place a suppression on their accounts, which caused erroneous credit reports. According to the complaint, the Defendant's directive regarding suppression results in reporting to the consumer reporting agencies the full pre-servicing transfer account balance as open and due, when it should be reported at $0 under industry-standard credit reporting procedures in order to avoid the duplicate reporting of accounts. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated student loan borrowers suffered injury and damages in the form of harm to credit reputation and credit score, lost credit opportunities, and waste of time and resources lodging futile disputes and trying to correct the Defendant's false credit reporting. United States Department of Education is a federal agency in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com - and - John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 Email: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com UNIUNI LOGISTICS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Chasco Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ABIGAIL CHASCO, KEANUA GUEVARRA, and CHRISTOPHER HALEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNIUNI LOGISTICS, INC., and JOYBOX, LLC, SHAWN GRAY, and BROOKE GRAY, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-1514 (W.D. Tex., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay their employees as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint relates that UniUni and Joybox are joint employers of the plaintiffs and similarly situated workers. UniUni and Joybox both retained the right to hire and fire employees, maintained supervisory control over all plaintiffs and similarly situated workers, set the rate of pay, and determined the schedule and work rules. The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate a business that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act in a way that gives them an illegal and unfair advantage against their competitors. Specifically, the Defendants refuse to pay the drivers any pay or overtime pay for overtime hours they work while requiring these employees to work more than 40 hours per week. Defendants' failure to pay means that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees did not receive the required overtime premium for the hours they worked over 40. These illegal pay practices allow Defendants to unfairly compete against their competitors who follow the law. The Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct result of Defendants' illegal actions, says the suit. Plaintiff Abigail Chasco worked for UniUni and Joybox from June of 2025 through December 28, 2025. Ms. Chasco was a delivery driver and required to sort and route packages prior to beginning her route. Plaintiff Keanua Guevarra worked for UniUni and Joybox from August of 2025 through December 16, 2025. Ms. Guevarra was a delivery driver and required to sort and route boxes prior to beginning her route. Plaintiff Christopher Haley worked for UniUni and Joybox from June of 2025 through December 13, 2025. Mr. Haley was a delivery driver and required to sort and route boxes prior to beginning his route. Defendant UniUni Logistics, Inc. provides last mile shipping for e-commerce and other retailers. Defendant Joybox, LLC hires delivery drivers to deliver packages for major retailers and online sellers. Defendants Shawn Gray and Brooke Gray owned and operated Joybox. Mr. and Ms. Gray supervise and direct the work of such individuals as the Plaintiffs and the similarly situated workers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, Texas 77206 Telephone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com VANCOUVER COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle Sexual Abuse Suit for $30MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a proposed $30‑million settlement has been reached in a class‑action lawsuit brought by former students of two Metro Vancouver Catholic schools over decades of alleged abuse by members of the Christian Brothers. According to court documents and statements from counsel, the agreement would resolve claims against Vancouver College Limited, St. Thomas More Collegiate in Burnaby and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver. The settlement was reached without a trial and is subject to approval by the B.C. Supreme Court before any compensation is paid. A hearing to consider approval of the settlement and the proposed claims process is scheduled for April 30 and May 1 in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver. The case was certified as a class action in March 2023. The lawsuit alleges that senior Christian Brothers transferred members with a known history of physical and sexual abuse from the Mount Cashel Orphanage in St. John's, N.L., to Vancouver College and St. Thomas More between the mid‑1970s and early 1980s, where further abuse is alleged to have occurred. Six Christian Brothers, including Edward English, were moved to the two schools after abuse at Mount Cashel was reported to authorities in Newfoundland in the 1970s. Several of those transferred were later convicted in connection with offences at the orphanage. The Christian Brothers order itself is not a defendant in the B.C. action, having declared bankruptcy in 2011. [GN] VEILED COLLECTION: Hussein Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Veiled Collection LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02543 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://veiled.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hussein and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff Hussein searched online for hijabs and scarves and discovered Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback, she decided to visit the website to explore the available products and make a purchase. During her visit, she became interested in the Bamboo Jersey Hijab-Navy and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the transaction. On the homepage, several interactive elements had vague and non-descriptive labels. Specifically, buttons used to view suggested product variations were announced by her screen reader only as "more button," without identifying their function or destination, which caused confusion and impaired navigation. These accessibility barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Hussein seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Veiled Collection LLC operates the website that offers fashion products, including dresses, abayas, hijabs, accessories, and gift sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law VENEZIA BULK: Welsh Files Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venezia Bulk Transport, Inc. The case is captioned as ROBERT WELSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENEZIA BULK TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00685-NIQA (E.D. Pa., February 3, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Venezia Bulk Transport, Inc. is a trucking company based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com VOLUMETRIC BUILDING: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volumetric Building Companies, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sergio Antonio Galvez Perez, Hugo Valadez Valenzuela, and Kevin Hernandez, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, and other persons similarly situated v. Volumetric Building Companies, LLC, Ignacio (last name unknown), an individual, VBC Tracy JV, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, VBC Tracy, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001514 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Volumetric Building Companies, LLC (VBC) -- https://www.vbc.co/ -- is a global leader in modular construction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Palau, Esq. EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR LAWYER AT OAKLAND, CA 212 9th Street, Suite 314 Oakland, CA WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Challis Sues Over Recalled Grill Brushes ---------------------------------------------------------------- RON CHALLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02612 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The suit concerns a deceptively dangerous product and Defendant's inadequate recall efforts, notes the complaint. After selling roughly 3.2 million Weber-branded metal bristle grill brushes, the Defendant announced a nationwide recall instructing its customers to stop using them immediately because the small metal bristles on the products could detach from the brush and stick to the grill or food, posing a risk of serious injury. Scores of consumers have reported experiencing the defect, including consumer reports of consumers who swallowed the bristles and were required to seek medical treatment. And yet, the Defendant refuses to give consumers their money back for these products, and offered replacement units instead that may only be used when the grill is cold (as compared to when the grill is hot), the suit says. The Plaintiff is filing this class action lawsuit to seek all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Defendant's products are a hazard, and to encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production of hazardous products. The Plaintiff purchased a Weber-branded metal bristle grill brush that is part of the February 26, 2026 CPSC Recall from Valley Hardware in Solvang, California in Spring of 2023. Weber-Stephen Products LLC manufactures cooking appliances. The company is a Delaware corporation, with its registered agent and principal place of business located in Palatine, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650, No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: Brittany@skclassactions.com WILLIAMS BROTHERS: Faces Shipman Employment Suit in S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Brothers Construction Co., Inc. The case is captioned as JERRY SHIPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-01316 (S.D. Tex., February 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Williams Brothers Construction Co., Inc. is a general contractor based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B Federman, Esq. Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com Z SUPPLY LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Henry Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Z Supply, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02553 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://zsupplyclothing.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Henry and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff Henry was searching online for midi dresses when she came across the Defendant's website. After reviewing ratings and customer feedback, she decided to explore the website, selected the After Hours Midi Dress, and attempted to make a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from efficiently navigating the Website using a keyboard and completing the transaction. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Z Supply, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of women's casual apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ********* 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 ***