260320.mbx

260320.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 20, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 57 Headlines 277 CUMBERLAND LLC: Gomez Sues Over Inaccessible Property ADR VENTURES HILL: Caraballo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. AEROVIRONMENT INC: Settlement Reached in Labor Class Suit AGI CARGO LLC: Botros Suit Removed to N.D. California AIR SYSTEMS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to N.D. California AJAY GLASS: Bid for Class Cert. in Louis Suit Due Oct. 14 ALSTON & BIRD: Euliano et al. Sue Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Customer Service Agents Sue Over Unpaid Breaks APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Apple Watch Class Action Lawsuit ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL: Fenton Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ASURION LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BELLA NAPOLI: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. BFS GROUP: Hernandez Suit Removed to E.D. California BIOGEN INC: Court Adjourns Remaining Deadlines in Shash BROOKDALE HEALTHCARE: Alarcon Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages BURKE & HERBERT: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with LINKBANCORP CADENCE BANK: Agrees to Settle May 2023 Data Breach Suit for $5.25M CARGURUS INC: Hamed-Zanjani Sues Over Unprotected Private Info CENTENE CORP: Faces Roberts Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mo. CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CHRISTMAS LIGHT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lamperis Claims CIERANT CORPORATION: Pretrial Deadlines in McMiller Entered CINNAHOLIC FRANCHISING: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CNY FERTILITY: C.A.L. Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI COEXIST NUTRITION: Butler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COLLINS FOODS: Settles KFC Employee Class Action Suit for $9-Mil. COMPOSTIC LIMITED: Smet Sues Over Deceptively Labeled Products CONVERGE MARKETING: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California DA MIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice DFA DAIRY BRANDS: Anguiano Suit Removed to C.D. California DORM COMPANY: Potrykus Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store DRIVEN BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 8 DYSON DIRECT INC: Mejico Suit Removed to C.D. California EHPLABS LLC: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EISNER ADVISORY: Rushing Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to D. Minn. ENVISION NWK: Underpays Sales Representatives, Rios Suit Alleges ERNEST PACKAGING: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EUREKA REHABILITATION: Arroyo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations EVERGREEN RECYCLING: Shanahan Sues Over WARN Act Violation EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Massachusetts Derivative Suit Stayed EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Second Delaware Derivative Suit Stayed EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit F5 INC: Names DiCello Levitt as Counsel in Securities Class Action FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM FIGURE LENDING: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Patschull Says FOLSOM INSURANCE: Bond Seeks Initial OK of Settlement GENERAL MOTORS: Cook Sues Over Defective Engine Assemblies GIVAUDAN ROURE: Velasco Sues Over Property Damages & Contamination GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Play Store Subscription Suit for $5MM GOOGLE LLC: Faces Kogon Suit Over Direct Copyright Infringement GOTAGS.COM LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fischer Appeals Class Cert. Order to 2nd Cir. GRAIL INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses "Catalano" E. Coli Class Suit GRUBHUB INC: Bensimon Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification HERSHEY CO: Shope Files ERISA Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge Policy HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY: Valdivia Suit Removed to W.D. Washington IAEDP: Zelikovsky Suit Seeks to Certify Antitrust Class IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY: Mack Suit Removed to S.D. California JAMES HARDIE: OLERS Sues Over Misleading Statements JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Crypto Ponzi Scheme KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court OKs $3.16M Legal Fees in Settlement LONG ISLAND: $2.6-Mil. Settlement Final OK Hearing Set June 2 LOWE'S HOME: Barringer Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. M.I. INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Instinct Dog Food MARSHALL UNIVERSITY: Dodd Sues Over Female Athlete Discrimination MASON CONSTRUCTION: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action MATTRESSES DEPOT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Claims MBR CO INC: Chouinard Suit Removed to D. Colorado MDL 2873: 2 Suits Consolidated in AFFF Products Liability Row MDL 3108: DIAL Suit Consolidated in Change Data Breach Litigation MDL 3126: Jones Suit Consolidated in Snowflake Data Breach Row MDL 3153: Teixeira Case Consolidated in Coinbase Data Breach Row MDL 3171: 17 Lyft Sexual Assault Raps Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 3172: 5 Suits Consolidated in Implant Product Liability Row MNG 2005: Eichhorn Sues Over Misleading Labeling of Beverages MOSAIC COMPANY: Conspires to Fix Agricultural Fertilizers' Prices N. HANNOUSH JEWELERS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Spring Way Appeals Final Settlements Order NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Michael Sues Over Breach of Loan Contract NBT BANCORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Richey Extended April 2 NEW YORK: Poe Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NIKE INC: Widmia Files Suit in D. Oregon NOKIA OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Suit Alleges ON24 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California OREGON HEALTH: Malenkovich Sues Over Failure to Protect Info PACER STAFFING: Pruett Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. PACIFIC COAST SERVICES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PARK AVENUE: Avelar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages PATHSTONE FAMILY: Diaz Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Barbarino Class Suit in NJ PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Beninati Class Suit PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Gambling Laws Violation Suit PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Wright Class Suit in Utah POSHMARK INC: Dalton Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Boyce Suit Removed to C.D. California QUALDERM PARTNERS: Bucher Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII QUALDERM PARTNERS: Jacques Sues Over Recent Data Security Incident QUALDERM PARTNERS: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI QUALDERM PARTNERS: Yocom Sues Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI RADIANT SUPPLEMENTS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Perkins Says RECOVERY CENTERS: Website Uses Tracking Tools, A.P. Alleges REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION: McPhee Suit Removed to N.D. California RESIDEO LLC: Straub Suit Removed to E.D. California RK HOLDINGS LLP: Howell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ROBERT KENNEDY: Bid for Class Cert. in Jackson Due Sept. 21 ROKU INC: Faces Class Suit After Removing Motion Snapshot Tool ROSEVILLE POINT HEALTH: Armstrong Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages SALSA & BEER 2 INC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEKISUI HOUSE: $25MM Settlement Reached in BTPFWP Suit SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces Domulot Derivative Suit SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces Stout Securities Class Suit SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 5 SOLGAARD DESIGN: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPIRIT HOODS: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPROUTS FARMERS: Submission of Settlement Claims Due Aug 5 STAFFING SYNERGIES: Sutton Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. STATEWIDE REMODELING: Guadian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STITCH FIX: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit STURDY MEMORIAL: Court Dismisses Google Analytics Privacy Suit SUPER DEAL: Fails to Properly Pay Retail Store Staff, Rodas Claims SUPERPLAY LTD: Continues to Defend Morrow Class Suit in Wash. SUPERPLAY LTD: Operates Illegal Gambling Enterprise, McLallen Says SURF CITY AUTO GROUP: Esparza Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California SUSSEX PUBLISHERS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Vesely Says SYNAPSE BROKERAGE: Felton Sues Over Fund Mismanagement TAK BROADBAND: Martinez Files Suit in D. South Dakota TD BANK: Hastings Appeals NYGBL Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit TERMAS DEL ARAPAY: Faces Suit Over Illegal Gambling Platform TILE SHOP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Orcel Suit Says TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal TOYOTA MOTORS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Hybrid Brake Suit TRANSUNION RISK: Soares Suit Removed to C.D. California TRIP.COM GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 TRUE RELIGION APPAREL: Latouche Suit Removed to D. Maryland UNITED PARCEL: Harbourview Sues Over Illegal Import Tarriffs UNITED STATES: McGee Sues Over Illegal Clawback Policy UNITED STATES: Taylor Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. VALET LIVING: Sued Over Failure to Comply to FCRA Requirements VICTORIA: Settles COVID Hotel Quarantine Class Suit for $125MM VIVID DISTRIBUTING: Bathersfield Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California WATCH CONNECTION: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Hess Sues Over Defective Grill Brush WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Malmstein Sues Over Defective Grill Brushes WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Cohen Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ZTEX CONSTRUCTION: "Ramirez" Settlement Has Prelim Approval Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,677 PI Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Has $1.3MM Litigation Expenses ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Faces 1,300 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Defends 11,070 Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Has $0.3MM Liability as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends 3,584 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Paper Has $103MM PI Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 120 Pending Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 116 Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 591 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Berkley Has $13MM A&E Losses at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WAG Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ********* 277 CUMBERLAND LLC: Gomez Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Gomez, and other similarly situated v. 277 Cumberland LLC, and Black Iris Express inc, Case No. 1:26-cv-01778 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the Defendants inaccessible property. On March 2025, and again on August 28, 2025, Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, visited the Subject Premises and personally encountered physical barriers to access, which compelled him to engage with those barriers, resulting in legal harm and injury. On such occasions, the Plaintiff's ability to partake in the services and goods at the Subject Property was constrained, hindered, and thwarted by certain structural barriers, to wit; an interceding brick and cement step, hindering any wheeled ambulation or safe entry, and thus prevented full and equal access and enjoyment to the public accommodation. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Property which forms the basisof this lawsuit on multiple occasions, and was denied access to the restaurant by discriminatory barriers and a continued policy of deliberate indifference to such barriers that Defendants are fully aware are unlawful under Title III of the ADA. Therefore, Defendants knowingly and wantonly discriminate against Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in their refusal to remediate (for purposes of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities) to the minimum guidelines of the law, which are both feasible and readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility. 654 LLC, is a domestic limited liability company which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria-Costanza Barducci, Esq. BARDUCCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 5 West 19th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 433-2554 Email: MC@BarducciLaw.com ADR VENTURES HILL: Caraballo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GGY Transport, LLC. The case is styled as Catherine Caraballo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ADR VENTURES HILL, LLC, ADR VENTURES 3966 LLC, ADR VENTURES, LLC, Rakesh Shah, Faisal Khan, Case No. 803973/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., March 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Labor Law Violations). ADR Ventures -- https://www.adrventures.in/ -- specialize in turning ideas into reality in the food processing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Christopher Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP Phone: (213) 460-5474 Fax: (516) 742-4949 Email: info@bgemploymentlaw.com AEROVIRONMENT INC: Settlement Reached in Labor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- AeroVironment Inc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that a settlement was reached in a California Labor class suit. A former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California on Aug. 9, 2021, alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys fees in unspecified amounts. AeroVironment filed its answer on Dec. 16, 2021. On June 11, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the class action complaint and PAGA complaint pursuant to a mediator's proposal made on such date by the mediator from a May 8, 2025 mediation session held for the class action litigation. A court must approve the terms of the settlement before AeroVironment will pay any amounts pursuant to the settlement. The parties executed a non-binding memorandum of understanding outlining the material terms of a proposed settlement agreement and are working on a written settlement agreement consistent with the memorandum of understanding to present to the court for approval. The estimated settlement was accrued in AeroVironment's consolidated statements of income (loss) for the year ended April 30, 2025. AeroVironment Inc is a technology company that designs, develops, produces, delivers and supports a portfolio of intelligent, multi-domain robotic systems and related services for government and commercial customers. AGI CARGO LLC: Botros Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jacklien Botros, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AGI Cargo, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25cv462394 was removed from the Santa Clara Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 4, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01896 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. AGI Cargo, LLC -- https://agi.aero/ -- engages in the operating and maintaining of airports and flying fields. The Company provides cargo, mail, and ramp handling services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. AIR SYSTEMS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Pierce, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AIR SYSTEMS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV167779 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-01851. The Complaint contains a single cause of action, seeking penalties under the Private Attorney's General Act ("PAGA") for Defendant's alleged violations of Labor Code sections 201-203, 204, 210, 226(a), 226(a)(6), 226(e), 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 516, 1194, 1197.1, 1199, and 2802-2804. In other words, the Complaint primarily seeks PAGA penalties based on underlying Labor Code violations related to claims for failure to accurately record all time worked, failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum, overtime, and sick pay, failure to provide complaint wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages at the separation of employment, and failure to reimburse business expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: jkienitz@littler.com - and - P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. Alejandra Gallegos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: dbodaghi@littler.com agallegos@littler.com AJAY GLASS: Bid for Class Cert. in Louis Suit Due Oct. 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis v. Ajay Glass & Mirror Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00462 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Anthony J Brindisi entered an order resetting the schedules and deadlines as follows: (1) All Fact Discovery is to be completed by Sept. 14, 2026 (2) Motion for Class Certification to be filed by Oct. 14, 2026 (3) The Plaintiffs expert disclosure is due by Oct. 14, 2026 (4) The Defendants expert disclosure is due by Nov. 13, 2026 (5) Rebuttal expert disclosure is due by Nov. 30, 2026 (6) All discovery, including all depositions, shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2026 (7) Dispositive motions shall be filed by Jan. 29, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ajay is a full-service commercial exterior cladding and glazing contractor.[CC] ALSTON & BIRD: Euliano et al. Sue Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN D. EULIANO, as Trustee of the JOHN D. EULIANO REVOCABLE TRUST UTD 5-27-14, individually, BREVARD NURSING ACADEMY, LLC D/B/A COASTAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, individually, COLE BRANTLEY, individually, and CGB LOIS T, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60646-MD (S.D. Fla., March 5, 2026) arises from a massive cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Goliath Ventures, Inc. and its principals, including CEO Christopher Delgado. Masquerading as a "Joint Venture" to evade federal and state securities registration requirements, Goliath Ventures has allegedly solicited hundreds of millions of dollars from investors, including Plaintiffs, by promising "guaranteed" monthly returns of 4% (48% annually) generated through purported cryptocurrency "liquidity pools." In structuring and legally endorsing the Goliath joint venture enterprise, Defendant Alston & Bird abandoned the very duties that give its reputation value. In addition, the Defendant drafted the governing joint venture agreements, engineered the legal architecture through which investor funds, including retirement funds, were solicited and transferred, and issued legal assurances intended to induce reliance by investors and custodial institutions, says the suit. Alston & Bird LLP is an international law firm headquartered in Atlanta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. ADAM A. SCHWARTZBAUM, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 725-1245 E-mail: adam@schwartzbaum.com - and - Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP 19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 912-3000 E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com - and - Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Gabriel E. Morales, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 E-mail: jshaw@shawlewenz.com gmorales@shawlewenz.com - and - T. Liam Murphy, Esq. MURPHY'S LAW: THE CRYPTO LAW FIRM 353 Lexington Avenue 4th Floor, Suite 400 New York City, NY 10016 Telephone: (913) 575-0540 E-mail: liam@murphyslawcrypto.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC; APE) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired AMC Preferred Equity Units ("APEs") between August 18, 2022, and November 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), including those who held APEs immediately prior to the conversion of APEs to common stock on August 25, 2023 and were thereby excluded from receiving the Special Dividend issued to common shareholders on August 28, 2023. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/AMC. AMC Case Details The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the statements were materially false and misleading because the rights of APE holders were in fact constrained by the Certificate of Designations ("COD") for AMC's preferred stock, which contained a highly-technical loophole allowing AMC to exclude APE holders from distributions occurring after conversion to common stock. The Complaint continues to allege that this loophole was subtle, non-obvious, and undisclosed in the FAQ or other public investor communications. What's Next for AMC Investors? If you suffered a loss in AMC you have until April 20, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to AMC Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for AMC Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Customer Service Agents Sue Over Unpaid Breaks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natalia Shelley, writing for Aviation A2Z, reports that American Airlines (AA) is facing a lawsuit from customer service agents who claim the airline required them to work unpaid hours and overtime without proper compensation. The case centers on employees working at airports, including Nashville International Airport (BNA), where agents allege that automatic break deductions and time rounding practices resulted in lost wages. Lawsuit Targets Unpaid Work at American Airlines A group of American Airlines customer service employees has filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging the airline systematically failed to compensate staff for hours worked. The case, Tencza v. American Airlines, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit claims hourly passenger service employees, including Customer Service Agents, Gate Agents, and Ticket Agents, were frequently required to perform work duties during unpaid periods. These employees assist passengers, manage boarding gates, and handle ticketing operations at airports across the United States. The lead plaintiff worked as a customer service agent for American Airlines at Nashville International Airport (BNA) from 1995 to 2025. The complaint seeks to represent workers employed in similar roles nationwide since January 30, 2020, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A separate class limited to workers in Tennessee has also been proposed. According to the filing, the airline automatically deducted 30 minutes from each shift for meal breaks. However, employees argue they were not fully relieved from duty during those periods. Agents reportedly had to assist passengers even while heading to break areas or during their break times. Federal labor law requires unpaid meal breaks to be free from work duties. If employees continue performing job tasks, that time generally must be counted as paid work hours, as View from the Wing highlighted. Disputed Timekeeping and Break Policies The lawsuit also challenges the airline's timekeeping system. According to the complaint, American Airlines used quarter-hour rounding for employee clock-in and clock-out times. Time rounding is permitted under U.S. labor law if it averages out over time and does not systematically disadvantage workers. However, the plaintiffs argue that the system effectively reduced paid work time. For example, the complaint states employees were instructed to clock in at times such as 1:08 p.m., but pay would not begin until the rounded time of 1:15 p.m. Similarly, employees who clocked out at 9:22 p.m. were paid only until 9:15 p.m. The plaintiffs claim this process removed up to 14 minutes of paid work time per shift. If employees clocked in or out in ways that benefited them under the rounding system, the lawsuit alleges they sometimes faced disciplinary action. Combined with the automatic meal deduction policy, the complaint states employees could lose between 0.5 and 2.5 hours of wages per week. Federal Aviation Labor Rules Could Limit Overtime Claims Despite the allegations, the airline may face limited legal exposure because of federal labor rules governing airline employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act includes an exemption for workers employed by air carriers that fall under Title II of the Railway Labor Act. Courts have previously interpreted this provision to exclude certain airline employees from FLSA overtime protections. American Airlines has successfully relied on this exemption before. In the case Hartwig v. American Airlines, a federal court dismissed overtime claims because customer service roles were considered directly related to air transportation. If courts apply the same reasoning in the current case, the overtime portion of the lawsuit could be dismissed. Challenges to Certifying a Nationwide Class Action Another hurdle for the plaintiffs involves proving that the alleged unpaid work occurred consistently across multiple airports. To certify a nationwide class action, the court must determine whether the practices similarly affected employees across the company. American Airlines is expected to argue that any missed compensation resulted from individual circumstances rather than a companywide policy. Questions likely to arise include whether agents were interrupted during breaks, whether supervisors were aware of the interruptions, and whether missed break deductions were reversed. These factors could vary by airport location and by individual employee. The airline reportedly maintains a system allowing managers to reverse meal break deductions if employees worked during their breaks. Plaintiffs would need to demonstrate that supervisors regularly refused such corrections despite knowing work was performed. Union Contracts and State Law Complications The lawsuit also includes claims under Tennessee law, but those may face additional obstacles. Passenger service agents at American Airlines are represented by the CWA IBT union. Their contract with the airline covers issues such as wages, breaks, and working conditions. Under the Railway Labor Act, disputes involving contract terms between airlines and union employees are often handled through labor arbitration rather than civil litigation. This could prevent the state-level claims from moving forward in court. Growing Trend of Airline Worker Pay Lawsuits Legal disputes over airline worker pay have become more common in recent years.[GN] APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Apple Watch Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Apple Inc. Why: The judge determined the complaint failed to plausibly allege that Apple's claims of carbon neutrality are false. Where: The Apple class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A California federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging Apple made false claims about the carbon neutrality of its Apple Watches. U.S. District Judge Noel Wise determined that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to plausibly allege Apple's carbon neutrality claims are false and dismissed the case with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed the Apple Watch class action lawsuit in February 2025, alleging the company made deceptive statements regarding its global emissions, specifically its marketing claims that certain Apple Watches are "carbon neutral." Apple moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. In an order granting Apple's motion to dismiss, Wise noted that the plaintiffs' allegations were based on their own analysis of Apple's carbon credits, which they claimed were insufficient to render the company or its Apple Watches carbon neutral. However, the judge found that the plaintiffs' analysis relied on unsupported assumptions and lacked validation from experts, scientists or other objective sources, making the allegations insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Judge finds reliance on Verra carbon credits to be reliable Wise noted that Apple relied on carbon credits certified by Verra, a globally recognized nonprofit organization that administers one of the world's leading voluntary carbon offset programs. Apple argued that its reliance on Verra's certified carbon credits should shield it from liability, as the company had taken reasonable steps to ensure its carbon neutrality claims were accurate. The judge agreed, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged any facts that would suggest Apple's reliance on Verra's carbon credits was unreasonable. Wise dismissed the Apple Watch class action lawsuit with leave to amend, giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in the order. In other Apple news, an Illinois judge ruled a complaint alleging Apple violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to obtain informed consent before storing and using voiceprints from its Siri users will proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Gutride Safier LLP, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. The Apple class action lawsuit is Dib, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 25-cv-02043-NW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL: Fenton Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Heidi Fenton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashley Global Retail, LLC, Case No. 26-00055 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00057-SPB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ashley Furniture -- https://www.ashleyfurniture.com/ -- is the #1 furniture brand in USA and one of the world's largest furniture manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: NickC@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas F. Burke, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market St., Ste. 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 864-8463 Email: burket@ballardspahr.com ASURION LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asurion, LLC,, Case No. 0:26-cv-01716 (D. Minn., March 3, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.asurion.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers insurance and extended warranty plans for sale for products including, but not limited to, smartphones, tablets, consumer electronics, home appliance and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BELLA NAPOLI: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MANUEL COLIN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLA NAPOLI PIZZA & PASTA INC (D/B/A BELLA NAPOLI), ANAU BERTIN HERRERA CARINO, and HAMET ASHAR, Defendants Case No. 1:26-cv-01775 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery worker at Bella Napoli from approximately November 2023 until on or about January 15, 2026. The Plaintiff's duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. In addition, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Colin appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the suit. Bella Napoli Pizza & Pasta Inc. owns, operates, or controls an Italian restaurant, located at 769 Allerton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467under the name "Bella Napoli". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BFS GROUP: Hernandez Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Raul Estrada Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BFS GROUP, LLC; BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV001312 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00633-DAD-CKD. In the operative Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Authorize And Permit Rest Breaks; Failure To Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure To Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure To Timely Pay Final Wages At Termination; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew B. Golper, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 2 Park Plaza, Suite 470 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 Email: mgolper@brgslaw.com - and - Alec Dimario, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 Email: adimario@brgslaw.com BIOGEN INC: Court Adjourns Remaining Deadlines in Shash ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shash, et al., v. Biogen Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479 (D. Mass., Filed March 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion Regarding Scheduling Order. The court temporarily adjourns all remaining deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order until after the court's decision on Plaintiffs' Amendment Motion. The Parties shall confer following that decision. If the court grants Plaintiffs' Amendment Motion, in whole or in part, the Parties shall, within 7 days of the court's order, propose a further amended scheduling order that will include all deadlines that must be adjusted to account for Plaintiffs' permitted amendment (e.g., class certification, fact discovery, expert discovery, dispositive motions). If the court denies Plaintiffs’ Amendment Motion, the Parties shall propose a further amended scheduling order that places the Parties in the same position as they were when the court stayed depositions on Dec. 17, 2025, including maintaining the same intervals between deadlines (but adjusting for weekends and holidays). The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company.[CC] BROOKDALE HEALTHCARE: Alarcon Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandrina Alarcon, and all others similarly situated v. Brookdale Healthcare & Wellness Center and DOES 1 TO 25, Case No. 26STCV07074 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants violation of the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated Labor Code 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Defendants had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and since Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees worked while "off the clock", including engaged in charting and Other such activities after clocking out for work, the latter was akin to a minim wage violation. Moreover, Defendants failed to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at Brookdale Healthcare & Wellness Center as a business office manager in late 2024. Brookdale Healthcare & Wellness Center is a California Limited Partnership, doing business in the County of Los 2 Angeles, State of California, and which employed Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVE A. HOFFMAN 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3817 Phone: (323) 406-6898 Fax: (323) 937-1539 Email: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net BURKE & HERBERT: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with LINKBANCORP ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp. (NASDAQ: BHRB) related to its merger with LINKBANCORP, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Burke & Herbert shareholders are expected to own approximately 75% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 25, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/burke-herbert-financial-services-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- LINKBANCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNKB) related to its sale to Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, LINKBANCORP shareholders are expected to receive 0.1350 shares of Burke & Hebert common stock for each share of LINKBANCORP common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 25, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/linkbancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Heritage Commerce Corp (NASDAQ: HTBK) related to its sale to CVB Financial Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Heritage shareholders are expected to receive 0.6500 shares of CVB common stock for each share of Heritage. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 26, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/heritage-commerce-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- CVB Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: CVBF) related to its merger with Heritage Commerce Corp. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CVB shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 26, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cvb-financial-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CADENCE BANK: Agrees to Settle May 2023 Data Breach Suit for $5.25M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Cadence Bank has agreed to pay $5,250,000 to settle a class action lawsuit filed over an alleged vulnerability in a third-party file transfer software known as MOVEit, used by Cadence Bank, that allowed cybercriminals to access the private information of Cadence's customers in May 2023. The $5.25 million Cadence Bank class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 5, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States who were notified by Cadence that their personally identifiable information was included in the files affected by the May 2023 MOVEit data breach. The settlement agreement estimates that approximately 869,411 individuals are covered by the Cadence Bank settlement. The court-approved website for the Cadence Bank data breach settlement can be found at MOVEitCadenceSettlement.com. According to the website, Cadence settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. The settlement benefits plan outlines that class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of ordinary losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $2,500 from the settlement. The plan elaborates that class members may receive compensation for unreimbursed expenses under this benefit related to bank fees, data and phone charges, fees for credit reports, credit monitoring products and identity theft insurance purchased between May 31, 2023 and June 4, 2026. Furthermore, class members may also receive reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, for a maximum payout of $100. Per court documents, payments for lost time count toward the $2,500 ordinary loss cap. Cadence settlement class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of extraordinary losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $10,000. The settlement notes that claims for extraordinary losses must demonstrate that they are actual unreimbursed expenses not covered by another settlement benefit and more likely than not caused by the data breach and incurred between May 31, 2023 and June 4, 2026. In lieu of either documented-loss payment, Cadence settlement class members can instead file a claim to receive a one-time alternative cash payment of $100. This payment, the benefits plan notes, may be subject to a pro-rated increase or decrease depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Class members may receive their payment via check or electronic payment, the benefits plan adds, and all checks must be cashed within 120 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all Cadence settlement class members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for two free years of three-bureau credit monitoring, which includes services such as dark web monitoring, identity theft insurance and access to fraud resolution agents, per the benefits plan. To file a Cadence Bank 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 claim form from the site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the second page of the document. All MOVEit Cadence Bank data breach settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 4, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Cadence Bank has agreed to invest at least $3.5 million into data security enhancements or related technology for its systems, to be paid out separately from the settlement fund. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Cadence Bank class action settlement following a hearing on July 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Cadence Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the financial institution failed to protect the private information of its customers after MOVEit, a file transfer application used by the bank, experienced a massive data breach sometime between May 28, 2023 and May 31, 2023. [GN] CARGURUS INC: Hamed-Zanjani Sues Over Unprotected Private Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ROOZBEH HAMED-ZANJANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGURUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11136 (D. Mass., March 3, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for disclosing Plaintiff's and millions of similarly situated individuals' sensitive, confidential, personally identifiable information to cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. On February 18, 2026, cybercriminal group ShinyHunters revealed that it stole 1.7 million records from Defendant, and have since leaked a 6.1GB archive that contains information pertaining to approximately 12.5 million accounts. The stolen records included names, email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, IP addresses, pre-qualifying finance applications, and auto finance application outcomes. To date, Defendant has yet to issue any public disclosure about the data breach, let alone provide notice to individuals impacted, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. Headquartered in Boston, MA, Cargurus, Inc. owns and operates the automotive shopping website, CarGurus.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Tucker Merrigan, Esq. Brett R. Corson, Esq. Ryan M. Hawkins, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP 268 Summer Street, LL Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 391-9001 Facsimile: (617) 357- 9001 E-mail: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com brc@sweeneymerrigan.com rmh@sweeneymerrigan.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road - Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 874-4505 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com CENTENE CORP: Faces Roberts Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------- KEWONNA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00331 (E.D. Mo., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a member services representative from December 2023 to September 2025. Centene Corporation is a healthcare company with its principal place of business in Missouri. Centene Management Company LLC is a healthcare company with its principal place of business in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent B. Miracle, Esq. FLINT COOPER COHN THOMPSON & MIRACLE 222 E. Park Street, Suite 500 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 288-4777 Facsimile: (618) 288-2864 Email: tmiracle@flintcooper.com - and - Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste. 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 Email: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Investors who purchased or acquired ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Limited (NYSE American: CHOW) securities during this period may be members of the class. Visit link for more information: https://www.whafh.com/case/chowchow-cloud-international-holdings-limited/ Defendants The complaint names: -- ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Limited -- Yee Kar Wing -- Hui Wai Ming -- Wong Chung Wai -- Assentsure PAC -- US Tiger Securities, Inc. -- John Does 1-100 Claims are brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Company Background ChowChow Cloud is a Cayman Islands holding company operating through Sereno Cloud Solutions HK Limited in Hong Kong, providing cloud consulting, migration, deployment, and management services across the Asia-Pacific region. Key Allegations The lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and omitted critical information regarding the company's stock trading activity and associated risks. Specifically, investors allegedly were not told that: 1. The stock was involved in a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme, including social-media misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals. 2. Company disclosures failed to mention the realized risk of fraudulent trading and market manipulation affecting the stock. 3. The stock therefore faced heightened risk of trading suspension and extreme volatility. 4. Tiger Securities, the IPO underwriter, had been fined and censured by FINRA in April 2025 for failing to maintain systems to detect suspicious deposits of low-priced securities. 5. As a result, positive statements about the company's business and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Corrective Event On December 10, 2025, the alleged pump-and-dump scheme became apparent: -- Around 11:05 AM EST, heavy selling pushed the stock from $11.95 to $10.59 within minutes. -- At 11:07 AM, NYSE American halted trading due to volatility. -- When trading resumed at 12:37 PM, the stock reopened around $1.00. -- It later closed at $1.83, representing an 84.3% single-day decline. Aftermath Following the collapse, CHOW shares continued trending downward and now trade below $0.50 per share. Investor Action: Investors who suffered losses during the class period have until May 12, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Contact: Gregory Stone, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phone: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 Email: classmember@whafh.com [GN] CHRISTMAS LIGHT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lamperis Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHRISTMAS LIGHT EMPORIUM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02404 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thechristmaslightemporium.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moreover, 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. The Christmas Light Emporium, LLC owns and operates the website which offers Christmas lights, commercial-grade lighting, outdoor decor, and display accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CIERANT CORPORATION: Pretrial Deadlines in McMiller Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McMiller v. Cierant Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-01095 (D. Conn., Filed July 9, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order on pretrial deadlines. Pursuant to Local Rule 16(b), the Court orders as follows: The Plaintiffs shall move to amend the pleadings or move to join additional parties within 30 days from the filing of their motion for class certification. All discovery shall be concluded by September 30, 2027 . Dispositive motions, if any (see Local Rule 56(c)), shall be filed by Jan. 3, 2028. The Court will set a date for filing a joint trial memorandum after the close of discovery. The joint trial memorandum shall comport with this Court's standing order, which will be separately docketed. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for Oct. 7, 2027, at 10:00 am. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Cierant offers customized distributed marketing software, process design and programming with cross-channel solutions.[CC] CINNAHOLIC FRANCHISING: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffsv. CINNAHOLIC FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02249-JXN-JRA (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 20, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home. However, the Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Due to the Defendant's failure to build its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website and was thus denied the benefit of ordering a cinnamon roll, says the suit. Cinnaholic Franchising, LLC owns and operates the website, www.cinnaholic.com, which offers users the ability to peruse the bakery’s menus and to order cinnamon rolls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CNY FERTILITY: C.A.L. Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI ---------------------------------------------------------------- C.A.L., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CNY FERTILITY, PLLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00328-AJB-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought to address Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII"), protected health information ("PHI"), and confidential health communications ("CHC") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"), Google, Inc. ("Google") TikTok ("TikTok" and X (formerly known as "Twitter"), without implied or expressed consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website. Although Plaintiff is presently unaware of every type of pixel and tracking tool Defendant has implemented on its Website, the pre-suit investigation, including the review of the publicly available HAR source code files, revealed the presence of a collection of Meta, Google, TikTok and X tools deployed on various sensitive pages of its Website, including the Portal. As used herein, Tracking Tools includes the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, the Google Tag Manager, and similar tools offered by Google in conjunction with its marketing products and other platforms (such as "DoubleClick" and "YouTube"), as well as TikTok and X. In implementing the Tracking Tools, however, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of their privacy and property rights by: surreptitiously tracking, recording, and aggregating Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential communications and Private Information; causing Plaintiff's and Class Member's communications to be disclosed and intercepted by Unauthorized Third-Party Marketers; utilizing the Private Information for marketing purposes, and converting and monetizing the Private Information through various marketing tactics, which upon and belief, included, audience building, retargeting, geo-location, and other invasive marketing tactics. At no point along the data monetization process did Defendant obtain proper express written consent from Plaintiff or Class Members for any of these tortious acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff domiciled in Rancho Cucamonga where she intends to remain. CNY is a reproductive health provider specializing in IVF, IUI, egg freezing, sperm freezing, and other fertility treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Breit, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 932-7081 Email: mbreit@milberg.com - and - Michael Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: macciavatti@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 263-8384 Email: arudenco@milberg.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Kevin Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, ALC 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatspm@thelyonfirm.com COEXIST NUTRITION: Butler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COEXIST NUTRITION LLC d/b/a 22 DAYS NUTRITION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01794 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Defendant's violations stem from its failure to ensure that its ecommerce website, www.22daysnutrition.com, is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals. Moreover, the Defendant's website contains accessibility barriers that prevented Plaintiff from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise, says the suit. Coexist Nutrition LLC d/b/a 22 Days Nutrition owns and operates the commercial website which sells plant-based vitamins, supplements, and nutritional products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com COLLINS FOODS: Settles KFC Employee Class Action Suit for $9-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dexter Tilo, writing for HRD, reports that the operator of KFC restaurants in Australia has agreed to pay up to $9 million to settle a class action alleging that it did not give employees 10-minute breaks. Collins Foods Limited, in an ASX statement, agreed to settle but made no admission of liability on the allegations. "In agreeing to resolve the litigation, Collins Foods makes no admission of liability. The terms of the settlement are otherwise confidential," the statement read. Denied paid breaks The settlement, which remains subject to approval by the Federal Court of Australia, comes after a class action alleging that KFC and its franchisees denied employees their right to paid breaks. The class action was brought by Gordon Legal, inc collaboration with Shine Lawyers. According to the lawsuit, KFC allegedly did not provide its workers with a paid 10-minute break for shifts over four hours, and two 10-minute paid breaks for shifts longer than nine hours. "The KFC Class Action has been lodged because for too long KFC and KFC franchisees have not been providing their workers the breaks they are entitled to," said Gordon Legal on its website. "It's time that KFC workers get what they are owed." The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA) claims that the class action will provide more than 80,000 workers across all of KFC's Australian stores their lost wages because of denied rest breaks. "We owe it to our members and all workers in the fast food and retail industries to put an end to systemic wage theft for good," said SDA National Secretary Gerard Dwyer in a previous statement. Terms of settlement The class action invited employees between 2017 and 2024 who did not receive all their breaks to register for the lawsuit. Collins said in its statement that if fewer than the expected group members registered, there will be a reduction in the settlement amount. "If more than expected group members register, Collins Foods, will have the option to terminate the settlement or make additional payment," it added. "Collins Foods remains committed to compliance with all applicable workplace laws and to supporting its team members." [GN] COMPOSTIC LIMITED: Smet Sues Over Deceptively Labeled Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Smet, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMPOSTIC LIMITED, Case No. 2:26-cv-00694-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., March 4, 2026), is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased the falsely and deceptively labeled Products for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; California's False Advertising Law; California's Unfair Competition Act, breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. In an effort to capitalize on reasonable consumers' desire for compostable products, Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells Compostic Cling Wrap (the "Product(s)"), a line of food packaging products marketed as being compostable and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including the state of California. The Products prominently state in a uniform manner on the front label of the Product's packaging that they are "100% home compostable" (the "Compostable Representation"). Consequently, reasonable consumers including Plaintiff and Class Members expect that if they add the Products to compost, then that compost can be used as a beneficial resource for gardens or yards by mixing it with soil where plants will grow and if they otherwise dispose of the Products, they will ultimately breakdown into substances that are not harmful to the environment. In contrast, reasonable consumers do not expect the Products to render compost unusable or to be harmful to the environment. The Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing the Products are compostable--that they are safe and suitable for their intended purpose of being used as compost and reduce the release of toxic substances into the environment. Defendant does this because consumers actively seek out compostable products that break down and can be introduced into the soil, rather than deposited in landfills. These consumers are willing to pay more for such products, which often cost significantly more than non-compostable alternatives. The Plaintiff and Class members relied to their detriment on Defendant's Compostable Representation, when the Products are not in fact compostable. Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Products--or would not have paid as much as they did--had they known the Compostable Representation was false. Thus, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered monetary damages as result of Defendant's deceptive and false representations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class members purchased and paid a premium for the Products The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the Products throughout the United States, including in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Str Suite 640 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415-839-7077 Facsimile: 888-410-0415 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: joel@skclassactions.com CONVERGE MARKETING: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kyle Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONVERGE MARKETING LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a TOPGUTTERGUARDSYSTEM.COM; and LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, an Ohio entity, Case No. 26CU002517C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01382-GPC-BLM. The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring claims for violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17529.5. Plaintiff alleges he received an unsolicited commercial e-mail from the defendants at a California e-mail address and that the e-mail contained an unauthorized use of a domain name, misrepresented header information, and a deceptive subject line and deceptive contents all in violation of Section 17529.5. The Plaintiff purports to bring this Action on behalf of a putative class of "All California citizens who received any commercial e-mail from Defendants at a California e-mail address where such email contained: a falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain name; falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information; or false or misleading subject line or contents in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17529.5, within the four years preceding the filing of this action."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark S. Eisen, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-4949 Facsimile: (312) 767-9192 Email: MEisen@beneschlaw.com DA MIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcus F., etc., et al., v. Da Mia Harris-Madden, etc., et ano., Case No. 1:26-cv-00148-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered an order denying without prejudice to renewal the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x7XGxW at no extra charge.[CC] DFA DAIRY BRANDS: Anguiano Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rafael Anguiano, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DFA DAIRY BRANDS FLUID, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25STCV30264 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02293. On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") relating to the State Court Action. The FAC alleges eleven causes of action: failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and penalties pursuant to the labor code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for Violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 1174, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, 2802, 2804, and Other Provisions of the Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. VI N. APPLEN, Esq. Patrick T. Cain, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com vi.applen@ogletree.com patrick.cain@ogletree.com DORM COMPANY: Potrykus Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH POTRYKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DORM COMPANY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00372 (E.D. Wis., March 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://comainducer.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Dorm Company Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: dreyes@ealg.law DRIVEN BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: DRVN) between May 9, 2023 and February 24, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 8, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased Driven Brands common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Driven Brands class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18662 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 8, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose Driven Brands' financial condition and the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting through a series of inaccurate financial reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") from May 9, 2023, to November 5, 2025. Among many other errors, Driven Brands' balance sheets contained an unreconciled cash balance originating in 2023 which resulted in revenue and cash being overstated in 2023 and 2024, and operating expenses being understated over the same period. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Driven Brands class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18662 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DYSON DIRECT INC: Mejico Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brittany Mejico, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. DYSON DIRECT INC., an Illinois corporation; SLICKDEALS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV32298 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02302. The Plaintiff asserts one cause of action under Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17529.5 relating to a spam email she allegedly received from Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "All natural persons using California email addresses who received any commercial email advertising a purported discount on any Dyson product containing a forged or misrepresented header, or a misleading subject line in violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17529.5."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew G. Ball, Esq. Philip Crane Raucci, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 544-1900 Fax: (415) 391-0281 Email: mball@shb.com praucci@shb.com eservice@shb.com EHPLABS LLC: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EHPlabs, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02478 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://ehplabs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. As a result, Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for Plaintiff and other screen-reader users to complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Woodland Hills, CA, EHPlabs, LLC owns and operates the website which offers sports nutrition and dietary supplements for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law EISNER ADVISORY: Rushing Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case TIMOTHY RUSHING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03102, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 6, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-01776-JMB-DJF to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment for its failure to properly secure and safeguard its clients' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) following a data breach. Eisner Advisory Group LLC is a professional services firm based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCS. LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4900 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Email: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Marc Braude, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206s Rye, NY 10580 Telephone: (267) 930−1316 Email: dan.braude@pierferd.com ENVISION NWK: Underpays Sales Representatives, Rios Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO ANTONIO RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENVISION NWK TOY AUTO, LLC, d/b/a ENVISION TOYOTA OF NORWALK, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV07401 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide all wages earned, failure to provide overtime compensation, failure to provide complaint meal and rest periods, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a sales representative from approximately August 1, 2025, until October 1, 2025. Envision NWK Toy Auto, LLC, doing business as Envision Toyota of Norwalk, is a car dealer in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Maya Hussein, Esq. Theodore H. Chase, Esq. Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com mhussein@bradleygrombacher.com tchase@bradleygrombacher.com bsweeney@bradleygrombacher.com ERNEST PACKAGING: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ernest Packaging. The case is styled as Carlos Alvarez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Ernest Packaging d/b/a Ernest Packaging Solutions, San Joaquin Supply Company, Case No. 26STCV07055 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ernest Packaging -- https://www.ernestpackaging.com/ -- is a family-owned packaging solutions company that creates amazing experiences for you and your customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com EUREKA REHABILITATION: Arroyo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------ Leslie Arroyo, and all others similarly situated v. Eureka Rehabilitation & Wellness, L.P.; and DOES 1 TO 25, Case No. 26STCV07082 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants violation of the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated Labor Code 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Defendants had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number Of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and since Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees worked while "off the clock", including engaged in charting and other such activities after clocking out for work, the latter was akin to a minim wage violation. Moreover, Defendants failed to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at Eureka Rehabilitation & Wellness, L.P. as a CNA in 2023. Eureka Rehabilitation & Wellness, L.P. is a California Limited Partnership, doing business in the County of Los 2 Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVE A. HOFFMAN 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3817 Phone: (323) 406-6898 Fax: (323) 937-1539 Email: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net EVERGREEN RECYCLING: Shanahan Sues Over WARN Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Shanahan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVERGREEN RECYCLING, LLC, and THE STERLING GROUP, L.P., Case No. 3:26-cv-00529-JJH (N.D. Ohio, March 4, 2026), is brought seeking to recover up to 60 days of back pay and benefits, plus interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as provided under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). On February 24, 2026, Evergreen announced it would be conducting mass layoffs or plant closings at its manufacturing facilities in Clyde, Ohio and Albany, New York. Employees received no advance notice. They simply showed up to work and were told the plants were closing. This is a class action brought on behalf of approximately 200 former employees the Defendants who lost their jobs in February 2026 when Defendants permanently closed Evergreen's manufacturing facilities in Clyde, Ohio and Albany, New York without providing 60 days' advance written notice as required by the WARN Act and the Ohio WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at the Clyde facility at the time of the plant closing in February 2026. Evergreen operated polyethylene terephthalate ("PET") recycling and manufacturing facilities in Clyde, Ohio; Albany, New York; and Amherst, Nova Scotia, Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 Parkgate Dr., Ext., Suite 205 Tupelo, MS 38801 Phone: 662-913-7811 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Massachusetts Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the Massachusetts Derivative suit pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the Class Action or a final order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. On Nov. 12, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the Massachusetts Derivative Action), which is a consolidation of two shareholder derivative lawsuits based on the same allegations in the Class Action and filed against certain former and current officers and directors, and nominally against the Company. Plaintiff Bonnie Maas, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant the Company, brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of federal securities law, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and gross mismanagement, seeking monetary damages, including restitution and fees, equitable relief, and an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and the Massachusetts Derivative Action is stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the Class Action or a final order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. is a technology company that develops and provides AI-based weapons detection and security screening systems for venues and facilities seeking to enhance physical security and threat detection capabilities. EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Second Delaware Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2026, that the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the Second Delaware Derivative suit pending the outcome of renewed motions to dismiss or final disposition of the Class Action. On Oct. 2, 2025, another shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Second Delaware Derivative Action), based on the same allegations in the Class Action and filed against certain former and current officers and directors, NHIC directors and officers, and nominally against the Company, in which Plaintiff Robert Patrick, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Evolv, brought claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, seeking various forms of relief, including equitable relief directing reform of corporate governance and internal controls, monetary damages including restitution and other fees, and a declaration that the individual defendants breached or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, and on Nov. 7, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order staying the Second Delaware Derivative Action pending the outcome of renewed motions to dismiss or final disposition of the Class Action. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. is a technology company that develops and provides AI-based weapons detection and security screening systems for venues and facilities seeking to enhance physical security and threat detection capabilities. EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2026, that a settlement was reached for the consolidated securities class suit. On March 25, 2024 and Nov. 1, 2024, putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits into one action (the Class Action), pursuant to which a consolidated amended complaint was filed against the Company, certain former executives, a current director, and individuals associated with NewHold Investment Corp. Lead Plaintiff Robert Falk and additional plaintiffs Chris Williams, Tim R. Carrillo and Chris Swanson (Class Action Plaintiffs) allege that the Company violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements relating to the effectiveness of certain products and the Company's revenue recognition and seek various forms of relief, including compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, attorneys fees, and expert fees. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the Class Action on March 28, 2025, and the Class Action Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 24, 2025. On June 30, 2025, the Court issued an order staying the Class Action, including disposition on the motion to dismiss, pending settlement negotiations. On Aug. 5, 2025, the parties to the Class Action engaged in mediation and reached a settlement in principle in the amount of $15.0 million, which is subject to negotiation of definitive documentation and court approval, of which the Company estimated that $14.0 million would be funded by the Company's Directors and Officers insurance coverage. On Aug. 19, 2025, after receiving notice of the anticipated settlement agreement, the Court denied the motion to dismiss with leave to renew if warranted. As of Dec. 31, 2025, the Company has recognized a settlement accrual of $15.0 million and an estimated insurance recovery of $14.0 million. On Dec. 15, 2025, the Court issued an order continuing the stay and ordering Class Action Plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by March 16, 2026. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. is a technology company that develops and provides AI-based weapons detection and security screening systems for venues and facilities seeking to enhance physical security and threat detection capabilities. F5 INC: Names DiCello Levitt as Counsel in Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ On March 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington named DiCello Levitt as Lead Counsel in Smith v. F5, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25‑cv‑02619‑KKE, a federal securities class action brought on behalf of investors who purchased F5 securities between October 28, 2024, and October 27, 2025. F5, Inc. is a publicly traded technology company headquartered in Seattle that provides cybersecurity, application delivery, and cloud software solutions to customers worldwide. The F5 class action alleges that defendants misled investors regarding the true state of F5's security capabilities and concealed that the Company was not truly equipped to safely secure data for its clients. According to the complaint, F5 itself was experiencing a years-long security breach where a nation-state threat actor accessed F5's internal systems and stole BIG-IP source code and information about "undisclosed vulnerabilities," exposing over 260,000 F5 BIG-IP systems globally to potential exploitation. DiCello Levitt's team on the matter includes Brian O'Mara, Roxana Pierce, Henry Rosen, Tricia McCormick, and Hani Farah. DiCello Levitt's Securities and Financial Products Litigation Practice Group represents individual and institutional investors -- including banks, pension funds, and asset managers -- in high‑stakes securities fraud and financial misconduct matters in the United States and globally. The firm's attorneys are nationally recognized leaders in the field and have played central roles in some of the most significant securities cases ever filed, recovering tens of billions of dollars for investors and pension fund beneficiaries. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, civil and human rights, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, and personal injury litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN] FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Fidelity Investments has agreed to a $2,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the financial services company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards to protect confidential client information from an August 2024 data breach. The Fidelity Investments class action settlement received preliminary court approval on March 11, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States who received notice from Fidelity of the data security incident under relevant state law before the notice deadline associated with this settlement, and all other individuals within the United States whose financial account number and routing number were exposed in the data breach. Settlement documents state that approximately 155,000 individuals or joint accountholders may have been impacted by the Fidelity Investments data breach. According to court documents, Fidelity settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. The agreement states that class members who submit a claim form with proof of documented losses incurred because of the breach are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. All claims for documented losses must be accompanied by supporting documents such as bank statements and receipts. The settlement agreement explains that reimbursable expenses include those related to identity theft or fraud, professional fees, credit repair services, freezing credit, credit monitoring costs incurred after the data breach, and other miscellaneous expenses such as postage or notary fees. Additionally, all settlement class members may file a claim to receive a pro-rated cash payment estimated to be $100. The agreement states that the final amount of the pro-rated payment will be determined based on what remains in the net settlement fund after payment of all attorneys' fees, lead plaintiff service awards, notice and administrative expenses and the cost of all other settlement benefits. Fidelity class members who reside in California are eligible to receive an additional cash payment of $50 due to statutory requirements set forth in the California Consumer Privacy Act. The final amount of this statutory payment may be subject to a pro-rated increase or decrease depending on the total number of valid claims filed, the agreement adds. Class members may receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to monetary benefits, all Fidelity settlement class members may file a claim to receive two free years of single-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. Settlement documents relay that the settlement administrator will email class members an enrollment code unless they do not have an email address, in which case the enrollment code will be mailed. Importantly, the agreement notes that if more than one class member is included under a single financial account number and routing number, only one claim will be permitted under the settlement. The court will determine whether to grant the Fidelity settlement final approval following a hearing on July 9, 2026. Compensation will only begin to be distributed to class members after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Fidelity Investments class action lawsuit claimed that the financial management company failed to protect the confidential information stored on its system from a data breach between August 17, 2024 and August 19, 2024. According to the filing, information that may have been compromised in the data breach includes names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and/or driver's license information. [GN] FIGURE LENDING: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Patschull Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACK PATSCHULL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGURE LENDING CORP., and FIGURE LENDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-181 (W.D.N.C., March 9, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused Plaintiff and approximately one million other similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected computer network systems on January 28, 2026. The complaint relates that as a part of its operations, the Defendants collect, maintain, and store borrowers' and prospective borrowers' highly sensitive personally identifiable information, including financial information ("PII"). On February 13, 2026, Figure disclosed, through press releases, that the Data Breach resulted from a Figure employee who was tricked with a social engineering attack that allowed the hacking group, ShinyHunters, to steal the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members in Figure's Systems. Figure refused to pay a ransom that ShinyHunters demanded in exchange for the return of the stolen PII. Thereafter, ShinyHunters published approximately 2.5 gigabytes of PII, including that of Plaintiff's and Class Members', on the dark web. On February 24, 2026, Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach by letter from Defendants. The Notice confirmed that Plaintiff's name, Social Security number, address, phone number, email, date of birth, loan account number, and loan information were stolen in the Data Breach. This class action seeks to redress Defendants' unlawful, willful, and wanton failure to protect and secure the PII it collected from Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff Jack Patschull is a citizen and resident of Minnesota. Defendant Figure Lending Corp. is a blockchain-based lending company. Defendant Figure Lending LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and is the wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Figure Lending Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Matthew Norris, Esq. NORRIS LAW FIRM PLLC 1776 Heritage Center Drive, Suite 204 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Telephone: 919-981-4475 Facsimile: 919-926-1676 E-mail: matt@lemonlawnc.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212-684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Stephanie Aviles, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com saviles@whafh.com FOLSOM INSURANCE: Bond Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BOND, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. FOLSOM INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, CODY FOLSOM, Case No. 3:24-cv-02551-L-BN (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the settlement class; -- Preliminarily approving the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; -- Appointing Mr. Bond as the settlement class representative, and the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; -- Approving and directing notice of the settlement to settlement class members; and -- Setting a final fairness hearing date. The settlement resolves this matter on behalf of the following settlement class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whose cellular telephone number or other number for which they are charged for a call or voicemail (2) that Cody Folsom and/or Folsom Insurance Agency, LLC (or an agent acting on their behalf) placed a call and/or a voicemail to (3) between Feb. 29, 2020, through the date of preliminary approval (4) using an identical or substantially similar pre-recorded message used to place telephone calls and/or voicemails to the Plaintiff (5) as included in the 41,719 phone numbers identified in the Expert Report of Aaron Woolfson." To compensate settlement class members, the Defendants will create a non-reversionary settlement fund in the amount of $850,000. P The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing non-emergency calls/voicemails that used an artificial or prerecorded voice to cellular telephone numbers, absent the requisite consent. Folsom offers home, auto, motorcycle, boat, RV, and life insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8TwOt4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215)225-5529 (CALL-LAW) Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Cook Sues Over Defective Engine Assemblies ---------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA COOK and DONNA COOK, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00229-UNA (D. Del., March 4, 2026) seeks to address Defendant's failure to material facts and a safety concern to consumers in connection with its defective engine assemblies and related components. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf persons in California and the United States who purchased or leased any 2024 to present Buick Encore, 2024 to present Buick Envista, 2024 to present Chevrolet Trailblazer, and 2024 to present Chevrolet Trax vehicles equipped with a 1.2-liter turbocharged inline 3-cylinder gasoline engine (RPO LIH or LBP) designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by Defendant General Motors LLC. Moreover, the defect in the class vehicles results in sudden and catastrophic engine failure during normal driving, often involving connecting rod ejection through the engine block, leading to rapid loss of power, fluid leakage, and potential fire. Despite its knowledge of the engine system defect in the class vehicles, General Motors actively concealed the existence and nature of the said defect from Plaintiffs and Class Members, the suit says. Headquartered in Detroit, MI, General Motors LLC designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles and motor vehicle components in California and throughout the United States of America. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 E-mail: rpaul@bergermontague.com - and - Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. MILBERG, PLCC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com - and - Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. Ahmed H. Yousef, Esq. DRAKE LAW FIRM 19935 Venture Blvd., Third Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (888) 315-5721 E-mail: tarek@drakelawgroup.com lgoolsby@drakelawgroup.com ayousef@drakelawgroup.com GIVAUDAN ROURE: Velasco Sues Over Property Damages & Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ VIRGINIA VELASCO, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIVAUDAN ROURE CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORPORATION; ABC Corporations (1-10); DEF Corporations (1-10); and JOHN and/or JANE DOES (1-10), Defendants, Case No. PAS-L-000802-26 (N.J. Sup., Passaic Cty., March 4, 2026) accuses the Defendants of causing property damages and environmental contamination. The Plaintiff and Class Members are owners of properties within proximity to the Site and suffer from property damages caused by Defendants' discharges of various hazardous substances, including but not limited to 1) 1,1 dichloroethane; (2) benzene; (3) TCE; (4) vinyl chloride; (5) arsenic; (7) Beryllium; (8) lead; and (9) zinc. By a uniform letter dated on or about 2021, the Plaintiff and the Class Members were notified that their properties were located above groundwater contaminated by Defendants' activities at their former manufacturing site and, as a result of that contamination, are contained within the boundaries of related Classification Exception Areas (CEAs) for an indeterminate amount of time. Moreover, the ongoing environmental damage and implementation of the CEAs caused by Defendants in connection with their operations at the their former manufacturing site has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff and the Class Members severe harm and damage to the value of their respective properties, says the suit. Headquartered in Clifton, NJ, Givaudan Roure Corporation manufactures fragrances and other specialty products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. James A. Barry, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: SDenittis@Denittislaw.com JOsefchen@Denittislaw.com SPrince@Denittislaw.com JBarry@Denittislaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Play Store Subscription Suit for $5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Google has agreed to a $5,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the tech giant violated California law by failing to disclose the full terms of its automatically renewing Google Play Store subscriptions. The $5 million Google Play class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 22, 2026 and covers all individuals in California who paid for at least one renewal term of a Google subscription for personal or household purposes through the Google Play checkout screen, or "Buy Cart," that was billed through Google Play between May 30, 2014 and October 27, 2019, excluding any subscriptions for Google Drive, those that were cancelled during a free trial period or those that have been fully refunded by Google. The court-approved website for the Google Play settlement can be found at PlayStoreSubscriptionSettlement.com. According to the website, Google Play settlement class members do not need to take any action to automatically receive a pro-rated share of the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs and lead plaintiff service awards. The settlement site estimates that each class member will receive approximately $5.85. The settlement agreement reports that payments will be automatically issued to class members as account credits to their Google Play accounts. If a class member no longer has an active Google Play account, payment will be issued electronically as a one-time cash payment to the PayPal or Zelle account associated with the email address in its records. If a Google settlement class member does not have an active Google Play account or a valid email address, or if the electronic payment is otherwise undeliverable, their share of the net settlement fund will be distributed to the California State Bar's Justice Gap Fund as a cy pres award. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement and retain any legal rights to litigate the same claims must complete the exclusion request form on the settlement site. To log into the form, class members will be required to input the claim ID and PIN as listed on their received copy of the settlement notice. Similarly, if a class member wishes to object to the settlement, they must send a notice to the settlement administrator with their name, contact information, and a brief written statement explaining the basis of their objection, along with other information as described in the settlement notice. All exclusion requests and objections to the Google Play settlement must be submitted online or postmarked by May 9, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Google Play subscription settlement following a hearing on July 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Google class action lawsuit argued that the tech giant did not obtain informed consent or follow all disclosure requirements in the subscription flow used by consumers who paid for in-app subscriptions and purchases on the Google Play Store to maintain compliance with California Automatic Renewal Law. Court documents alleged this led to consumers being automatically billed for unwanted recurring subscriptions, as cancellations were not effective until the end of the billing period. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Faces Kogon Suit Over Direct Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- SAM KOGON, DAVID WOULARD, ATTACK THE SOUND LLC, STAN BURJEK, JAMES BURJEK, BERK ERGOZ, HAMZA JILANI, MAATKARA WILSON, ARJUN SINGH, MAGNUS FIENNES, and MICHAEL MELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02582 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for direct copyright infringement for reproduction and distribution of sound recordings, reproduction of lyrics, and reproduction of non-lyric musical-compositions, removal or alteration of copyright management information, circumvention of technological access controls, false copyright management information, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, false endorsement, false advertising, unjust enrichment, and violations of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of copying, storing, and reusing millions of copyrighted sound recordings, musical compositions, and lyric without artists' consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant fed the copied copyrighted works into a training pipeline, and commercialized the result as Lyria 3, a commercial music generator embedded in a product ecosystem with 750 million users that performs the same creative function as the artists whose work it consumed, in the same markets where those artists earn their livelihoods, at a scale no individual creator can match. As a result of Google's deceptive and unfair practices, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated artists suffered damages, says the suit. Google LLC is a technology company headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 Email: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com GOTAGS.COM LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. GOTAGS.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02359 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.gotags.com (the "Website"), (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.gotags.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fischer Appeals Class Cert. Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH FISCHER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Keith Fischer, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02848, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On June 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Sanket J. Bulsara denied on Feb. 20, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs had not satisfied the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The appellate case is styled as Keith Fischer, et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Case No. 26-532, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners KEITH FISCHER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: mscimone@outtengolden.com Defendant-Respondent GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: GMaatman@duanemorris.com GRAIL INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------- GRAIL, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers, with the first-filed case captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case captioned Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the Actions). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL and seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On Jan. 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On April 11, 2024, the court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action captioned In re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP, and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs (the Lead Plaintiffs). On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina, and certain of their respective current and former directors and others violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same, and further noting that GRAIL has an indemnification obligation for certain current and former directors and officers involved in the matter pursuant to indemnification agreements entered into by these individuals and GRAIL. On Sept. 13, 2024, the plaintiffs further amended the complaint. On Nov. 12, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the Lead Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 20, 2024, and the Company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on Feb. 3, 2025. On Sept. 26, 2025, the court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with leave to amend and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, if any, by Oct. 27, 2025. On Oct. 27, 2025, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, and on Dec. 12, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Lead Plaintiffs' third amended complaint. In light of the fact that the lawsuits are in an early stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the suits. GRAIL, Inc. is a healthcare company focused on early cancer detection, developing and commercializing blood-based tests intended to detect cancer at earlier stages to improve patient outcomes. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses "Catalano" E. Coli Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Wayne Catalano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Grimmway Farms, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-CV-8817 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of Article III standing and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff's request for leave to amend was denied as futile. Plaintiff alleged that Grimmway manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells produce, including carrots. On November 16, 2024, Grimmway issued a voluntary recall of certain whole carrots available for purchase at retail stores from August 14 through October 23, 2024, and certain baby carrot products with best-if-used-by dates ranging from September 11 through November 12, 2024, due to potential Escherichia coli (E. coli) contamination. Plaintiff alleged that he purchased and used Grimmway's carrots that contained E. coli, including the carrots that were subject to the recall. Specifically, Plaintiff purchased Nature's Promise Organic Whole Carrots, referred to as the Subject Product, at a Stop and Shop store in Poughkeepsie, New York in 2024. Plaintiff did not specify when in 2024 he bought the Subject Product, nor did he claim that he or anyone else became physically ill or was otherwise harmed as a result of consuming it. Plaintiff brought this putative class action asserting: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; (2) violation of New York's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Law Section 349; (3) violation of New York General Business Law Section 350; (4) breach of implied warranty; and (5) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff claimed that the Subject Product was worthless because it contained E. coli, or that he paid a price premium based on Grimmway's alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The Court noted that in consumer product cases alleging economic injury from the purchase of a contaminated or misrepresented product, courts in this Circuit have consistently required plaintiffs to plausibly allege that they themselves purchased a product containing the alleged contaminant. The Court found that Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that the Subject Product was contaminated with E. coli. Plaintiff did not provide the day, month, or bag size to verify whether the Subject Product was actually part of the recall. Further, Plaintiff did not claim to have tested the Subject Product, but did claim that he purchased and used it without alleging any E. coli symptoms. The Court determined that the only reasonable inference to draw from the fact that Plaintiff consumed the Subject Product without incident was that the Subject Product was not contaminated. The Court further held that the existence of a recall alone does not establish that a particular unit of a product was defective or contaminated, and therefore does not, without more, establish standing. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that widespread contamination of Grimmway's product line supported standing, finding no facts in the complaint to support that E. coli contamination was so widespread as to make it plausible that Plaintiff purchased a contaminated product. Finally, the Court, relying on TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, rejected Plaintiff's risk-of-contamination theory, holding that in suits for damages, the mere risk of future harm, standing alone, cannot qualify as a concrete harm. Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the Subject Product was contaminated or that he suffered a concrete injury, the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. Plaintiff's request for leave to amend was denied as futile because Plaintiff no longer possesses the Subject Product, having consumed it without incident, and he cannot plead that he purchased the Subject Product within the recall period. Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=53PYp7 Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. Represented By: Matthew Atha Alston & Bird, Llp (nyc) 212-210-9434 matthew.atha@alston.com Jamie Smith George Alston & Bird LLP 404-881-4951 jamie.george@alston.com Angela M. Spivey Alston & Bird LLP 404-881-7857 angela.spivey@alston.com Andrew G Phillips Alston & Bird LLP 404-881-7183 andrew.phillips@alston.com Samantha Burdick 213-576-1000 sam.burdick@alston.com Plaintiff Wayne Catalano Represented By: Trenton R. Kashima Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman ,pllc 619-810-7047 tkashima@milberg.com Daniel Harris Markowitz Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC 845-483-7100 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com Charles E. Schaffer Levin Sedran & Berman 215-592-1500 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com Jason P. Sultzer Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC 845-483-7100 sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com Russell Busch Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC 630-796-0903 rbusch@milberg.com Philip John Furia Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC 845-483-7100 furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com Michael Robert Reese Michael Reese 212-594-5300 mreese@reesellp.com Nick Suciu, III Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC 313-303-3472 nsuciu@milberg.com GRUBHUB INC: Bensimon Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM BENSIMON, PHILIP ELIADES, JONATHAN SWABY, JOHN BOISI, NATHAN OBEY, MALIK DREWEY, ANTWAN ROBINSON, BENJAMIN FINER, JASMINE PIERCE, ABOUBAKRY DIACKO, ANNA MARQUEZ, JARED SWOOPE, PHILIP SMITH, CHRISTOPHER CRUZ, DUSTIN ROBERTS, MISTY WILLIAMS, ROBERT CURRIE, ARLESIA BENJAMIN, MARCUS ROBINSON, LEWIE LEWIS, MAURICE RAGLAND, and EMROY CAESAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GRUBHUB INC., UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and POSTMATES INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03000-LAK-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs, on a date and time to be set by the Court, move the Court for an order: -- Certifying the Direct Dine-In Class and Direct Takeout and Delivery Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); -- Certifying the Restaurant Platform Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2); -- Appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Direct Dine-In and Direct Takeout and Delivery Classes; -- Appointing Plaintiffs Boisi, Currie, Swaby, Obey, Eliades, and Lewis as representatives of the Restaurant Platform Class; and -- Appointing Freedman Normand Friedland LLP and Frank LLP as counsel for each class. Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FoJoSn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Normand, Esq. Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq. Kyle W. Roche, Esq. Stephen Lagos, Esq. Richard Cipolla, Esq. John Super, Esq. FREEDMAND NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 155 E. 44th Street, Suite 915 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 494-2900 E-mail: tnormand@fnf.law vel@fnf.law kroche@fnf.law slagos@fnf.law rcipolla@fnf.law jsuper@fnf.law - and - Gregory A. Frank, Esq. Marvin L. Frank, Esq. Asher Hawkins, Esq. FRANK LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 682-1853 E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com mfrank@frankllp.com ahawkins@frankllp.com HERSHEY CO: Shope Files ERISA Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH A. SHOPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY and THE HERSHEY COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00584-KMN (M.D. Pa., March 9, 2026) is a class action challenging Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under The Hershey Company Health and Welfare Plan for Active and Inactive Employees (the "Plan") in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. This Complaint alleges that Defendants impose a health-based tobacco surcharge without making available a compliant alternative standard to avoid the surcharge. Defendants bear the burden of proving that their tobacco surcharge is lawful by showing that their wellness program fully complies with every requirement under ERISA. Charging participants a tobacco surcharge while not informing them of a reasonable alternative standard that makes available the "full reward," and failing to provide proper notice makes the surcharge facially noncompliant. No amount of post hoc justifications can cure these fundamental defects. This type of discrimination is permissible only if employers meet strict criteria, which Defendants do not. Defendants' Plan is not a "program of health promotion or disease prevention" as required by ERISA but instead an impermissible cost-shifting scheme that unlawfully penalizes employees for their health status. The complaint further notes that participants like Plaintiff are permitted to challenge a surcharge when there is no compliant wellness program made available or when employers provide deficient or misleading information. Once a participant alleges that a surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions along with facts showing the deficiencies in the wellness program, the burden shifts to the employer, Hershey, to demonstrate that the wellness program fully satisfies all the statutory and regulatory criteria, including the obligation to make available the "full reward" and to notify participants of the same, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to profit from their violations under ERISA. Plaintiff Elizabeth A. Shope is a former employee of Hershey who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan for her and her spouse and child. Defendant The Hershey Company operates in the confectionery and snacking industry and one of the largest foodservice distribution companies in the United States which operates nationwide through numerous subsidiaries and operating entities. Defendant Hershey Company Employee Benefits Administrative Committee is n unincorporated entity and the named fiduciary and administrator of the Plan within the meaning of ERISA that manages and administers the Plan's daily operations. The EBAC is situated in Hershey, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Hurt, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: www.fdpklaw.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. James T. Catania, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com E-mail: jcatania@sirillp.com HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY: Valdivia Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ruben Fernandez Valdivia and Enrique Molina Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC dba TEMCO LOGISTICS, a California limited liability company, Case No. 25AC-CC08631 was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05215. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege seven causes of action: Paid Sick Leave Violations pursuant to RCW 49.46 et seq. and WAC 296-128 620; Minimum Wage Act Violations pursuant to RCW 49.46 et seq.; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages pursuant to RCW 49.46.130; Meal Period Violations pursuant to RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 2960126-092; Rest Break Violations pursuant to RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; Unpaid Wages on Termination pursuant to RCW 49.48 et seq.; and Willful Refusal to Pay Wages pursuant to RCW 49.52.050.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Schpak, Esq. BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP 601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 228-0500 Facsimile: (503) 276-1212 Email: aschpak@barran.com IAEDP: Zelikovsky Suit Seeks to Certify Antitrust Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY ZELIKOVSKY, PsyD, DEBRA MILLER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EATING DISORDER PROFESSIONALS' FOUNDATION, INC. (IAEDP), a California Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01474-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Antitrust Class defined as follows: "All individuals in the United States who held iaedp eating-disorder board certification and, during the class period, 2017 to present, were required to purchase iaedp membership or attend iaedp-mandated symposiums as a condition of maintaining certification." The action may properly be maintained as a class action because there is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed class is ascertainable. The proposed class includes those persons nationally wherever they may be located. By illegally tying maintenance of eating disorder board certification with mandatory iaedp association membership and attendance at an annual symposium, Defendant iaedp violated 15 U.S.C. section 1. The Defendant IAEDP acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that declaratory relief and awarding actual damages are appropriate respecting the class as a whole. The Defendant is an organization that offers education and training classes for practitioners in the field of eating disorders. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ixdw0i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R. Dunn, Esq. DUNN LAW FIRM LLP 5830 Preston Fairways Dallas, TX 75252 Telephone: (214) 769.7810 E-mail: steven@dunnlawfirm.net IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY: Mack Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donna Mack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Case No. 26CL006258C was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 4, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01371-LL-DDL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Property Damage. Imperial Beach Clinic -- https://www.ibclinic.org/ -- is a family-friendly health care organization serving San Diego's South Bay since 1971.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Michael W. Olson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 720-1288 The Defendant is represented by: Dennis N. Lueck, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 3065 Center Green Drive, 2nd Floor Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: (267) 230-3959 Email: dlueck@mullen.law JAMES HARDIE: OLERS Sues Over Misleading Statements --------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC, AARON ERTER, RACHEL WILSON, DAVID WISNIEWSKI, PETER-JOHN DAVIS, PERSIO V. LISBOA, ANNE LLOYD, RENEE J. PETERSON, JOHN PFEIFER, RADA RODRIGUEZ, SUZANNE B. ROWLAND, NIGEL STEIN, and HAROLD WIENS, Case NO. 152603/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired James Hardie ordinary shares (also referred to as James Hardie common stock) pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with James Hardie's acquisition of and merger with The AZEK Company, Inc. ("AZEK") (the "Acquisition"). This action asserts strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against James Hardie and certain of its officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants"). These claims arise from Defendants' materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement concerning James Hardie's business operations and financial performance. The Registration Statement contained false and misleading statements and omissions concerning James Hardie's financial results and trends. It represented that James Hardie's performance and outlook were supported by healthy demand and stable channel conditions, and warned of certain risks that if occurring "would" or "could" adversely affect the Company. At the time the Registration Statement became effective, however, Defendants' statements regarding demand and channel conditions were materially false, and the adverse conditions they warned "would" or "could" occur had already materialized. In truth, by the time the Registration Statement was disseminated, customers in the Company's core North America Fiber Cement segment had already begun significantly reducing inventory levels (i.e., destocking), which negatively affected demand and sales trends. The Registration Statement failed to disclose this customer destocking or its impact on James Hardie's business, thereby creating a misleading picture of the Company's financial condition and prospects and rendering the Company's disclosures and risk warnings materially misleading. The truth began to emerge shortly after the Acquisition closed. On August 19, 2025, James Hardie reported its first quarter 2026 ("1Q26") financial results and revealed that customer inventory destocking in the Company's North America Fiber Cement segment had begun before the Registration Statement was disseminated and became effective, and before the Acquisition closed. Following this news, the price of James Hardie stock fell by $9.79 per share, or 34.4%, to close at $18.64 on August 20, 2025. The decline represented the largest single-day drop in James Hardie's share price since 1973, underscoring the materiality of the previously withheld information. As a result, former AZEK shareholders who received James Hardie common stock as merger consideration suffered damages when the truth concerning James Hardie's inventory conditions and financial performance was revealed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System acquired James Hardie ordinary shares in the merger pursuant to the Registration Statement. James Hardie provides exterior home and outdoor living building products and is best known for its fiber cement siding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Vincent J. Pontrello, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 722-8500 Fax:(646) 722-8501 Email: kfisch@gelaw.com vpontrello@gelaw.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 301-3335 Fax: (310) 388-0192 Email: brian@schallfirm.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Crypto Ponzi Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Silas Morgan, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that three class-action lawsuits, including one against banking giant JPMorgan Chase, have been filed in connection with the massive cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme prosecutors say Christopher Delgado ran from his Orlando headquarters. The recently filed lawsuits come on the heels of the Feb. 24 arrest of Delgado, 34, Goliath Ventures' founder and former CEO. Federal authorities say Goliath Ventures defrauded investors of at least $328 million. Delgado now faces federal wire fraud and money laundering charges. Two of the lawsuits were filed against businesses, alleging they helped enable the Ponzi scheme. The third was filed against Delgado and Goliath. All were filed as class actions as attorneys say there are more victims than those named in the lawsuits. Prosecutors say Delgado lived the high life on other people's money, misappropriating investors' funds to buy million-dollar homes, luxury cars and fancy watches, among other items. He's now free on bond but must mostly remain at his Isleworth home, a seven-bedroom, golf course mansion he bought for $8.5 million last summer. The lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase was filed in federal court on Tuesday, March 10, in California on behalf of Goliath investor Robby Alan Steele, an airline pilot. The lawsuit claims JPMorgan Chase aided and abetted the alleged Ponzi scheme when it allowed Goliath to use its banking system to collect and move hundreds of millions of dollars from investors and ignored large volumes of suspicious transactions. "Chase could see that new investors were getting paid with old investors' money. That is the biggest red flag of a Ponzi," said Adam Schwartzbaum, one of Steele's attorneys. "The fact that Chase did absolutely nothing for this length of time with this amount of money . . . shows knowledge and substantial assistance." JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on the lawsuit. About $253 million was deposited into a Goliath account at JPMorgan Chase between January 2023 and June 2025, according to the lawsuit. About $50 million from that account was sent to investors purportedly as returns on their investments during that same timespan. The attorneys say the scheme's fraudulent nature was obvious but argue the bank "turned a blind eye" and continued to service the Goliath accounts all while earning "substantial" fees from Goliath's activities. Schwartzbaum said Steele trusted Goliath in part because of JPMorgan Chase's reputation. His signed agreement with Goliath said his money would be deposited in its account with the bank. He initially invested $310,000 into Goliath and then put another $340,000 from his retirement savings into the firm. "Institutions like JPMorgan should know that when their name is used, it lends credibility and it moves markets, it moves investors," Schwartzbaum said. The class-action lawsuit against Delgado and Goliath was filed Wednesday, March 11 by the New York-based T & C Investing Corp. in federal court in Florida and assigned to a Miami judge. The company's CEO learned of Goliath from a friend who had already invested and knew Delgado. T & C then invested $1.1 million into Goliath between December 2024 and September 2025. It has received about $211,000 in purported returns on its investments, the suit said. The suit, which accuses Delgado and Goliath of fraud, says since Delgado's arrest Goliath's payments to investors have been suspended, investors have been unable to access the company's mobile application and questions about where their investments stand have gone unanswered. One of Delgado's attorneys declined to comment on the lawsuit. A third lawsuit, filed by the same attorneys involved in the JPMorgan case, alleges that an Atlanta-based law firm enabled Goliath's scheme because it drafted the agreement investors signed. That lawsuit was filed March 5 in federal court in Florida by two investors, one of them John Euliano, a major donor to the University of Central Florida and the namesake of the school's baseball stadium. The other investor is Cole Brantley, another Florida resident. Euliano also filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 10 against Goliath, saying he suffered at least $1.2 million in damages. The lawsuit against the law firm Alston & Bird says in 2025 its attorneys drafted "joint venture agreements" for Goliath's investors and misled them about the legality, risks and regulatory status of Goliath's investment program, in part by failing to disclose important information to them. The agreements "we believe were designed quite intentionally to create a venture that would avoid regulatory oversight and scrutiny by the state and federal securities regulators," Schwartzbaum said. The law firm did not respond to a request for comment. All three lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of money. [GN] KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court OKs $3.16M Legal Fees in Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a federal judge in New York agreed to grant $3.16 million in legal fees for lawyers who sued Kimberly‑Clark (KMB.O) over the labeling of its "flushable" wipes, dismissing objections that the attorneys would earn more than the consumers they represented in the class action. U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen in Brooklyn on Thursday, March 12, approved the fees as part of a settlement in the case that netted class members $1 million, finding that the deal was fair, reasonable and adequate. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the settlement and sent the fee dispute back to Chen for a second look last year, saying the judge needed to more fully consider the balance between the attorney fees and the damages the class received. The appeals court did not ⁠say how much the attorneys should get. Chen in her new ruling said the fee "ratio in this case raises superficial concerns," but other factors support the settlement's overall fairness. Kimberly-Clark and the lead plaintiffs lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit, filed in 2014, accused Kimberly‑Clark of mislabeling wipes as "flushable" despite their potential to clog and damage plumbing. The company has denied wrongdoing and says its products perform as advertised. Kimberly‑Clark agreed in 2022 to pay up to $20 million to resolve the case. But by the claims deadline, consumers had sought only about $1 million, leaving roughly $19 million unclaimed and retained by the company. Ted Frank, a conservative public interest lawyer and director of the non-profit Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, challenged the ⁠settlement and the attorneys' fees, telling the lower court and 2nd Circuit that the fee award violates "intuitive notions of justice." Frank said he plans to further appeal Chen's latest order. "The court erred in thinking of this as an attorney fee dispute in isolation, rather than looking at the holistic problem of class counsel self-dealing at the expense of their clients," Frank said. He said it ⁠is "fundamentally unfair for attorneys to negotiate full compensation for themselves at three times total class compensation while leaving the vast majority of the class with nothing." Chen in her order said the fee reflects "extensive" work by the plaintiffs' lawyers over many years and that the ⁠nature of the case, involving a low‑cost consumer product, meant "the potential recovery for class members was inherently and unavoidably limited." The case is Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 1:14-cv-01142-PKC-RML. For plaintiffs: ⁠Samuel Rudman and Vincent Serra of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP For objector: Anna St. John of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute [GN] LONG ISLAND: $2.6-Mil. Settlement Final OK Hearing Set June 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that a consolidated class action lawsuit against Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, P.C has been resolved with a $2,600,000 settlement. Legal action was taken by patients of the Garden City, New York-based private, academic plastic surgery practice in response to a January 4, 2024, ransomware attack by the ALPHV/BlackCat ransomware group. The forensic investigation confirmed that the BlackCat group accessed its network between January 4, 2024, and January 8, 2024, and used ransomware to encrypt files. Prior to encrypting files, sensitive data was exfiltrated from the network, including personal identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). Data stolen in the incident included full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or state identification numbers, dates of birth, biometric information, account numbers, credit or debit card information, medical information, patient photographs, health insurance policy information, and patient account numbers. In total, more than 161,000 current and former patients were affected. The BlackCat ransomware group demanded payment to prevent the publication of the stolen data on its dark web data leak site. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group chose to pay the ransom to prevent the release of the stolen data and received confirmation that the stolen data had been deleted. On October 4, 2024, the affected individuals were notified by mail. Shortly after issuing notifications, seven putative class action lawsuits were filed by patients over the incident, alleging they had suffered harm as a result of the data breach. The lawsuits were consolidated -- Baum et al. v. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, P.C. -- in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The consolidated lawsuit asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the New York Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and Practices Act. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group denies the allegations and all liability, including claims that the defendants suffered any injury or damage as a result of the incident. To avoid the time, expense, and uncertainties of defending protracted litigation, the defendant agreed to settle the litigation. Class counsel and the class representatives agreed to the settlement as they concluded it was in the best interests of the class members. Under the terms of the settlement, Long Island Plastic Surgical Group will establish a $2,600,000 settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration and notification costs, service awards for the class representatives, and benefits for the class members. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member, or they may choose to receive an alternative pro rata cash payment. An additional pro rata cash payment of up to $1,000 may be claimed by class members who had clinical photographs compromised in the incident. The amount paid to class members claiming alternative cash payments will depend on the number of claims received, including claims for the additional cash payments. The additional cash payments may also be reduced depending on the remaining funds after legal costs and expenses, service awards, administration and notification costs, and claims for reimbursement of losses have been paid. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is May 4, 2026. Claims must be submitted by May 18, 2026, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for June 2, 2026. [GN] LOWE'S HOME: Barringer Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUSTIN BARRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC. and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-01767-1 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00793 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative Class members were not compensated for all hours worked, and performed off-the-clock work, leading to unpaid regular and overtime wages, in violation of the Washington Minimum Wage Act and its accompanying regulations. Lowe's Home Centers Inc. retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew R. Kelly, Esq. Trinh T. Tran, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Telephone: (206) 393-4060 E-mail: mrkelly@seyfarth.com E-mail: trtran@seyfarth.com M.I. INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Instinct Dog Food --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Instinct Pet Foods wrongfully advertises that its Original Real Recipe, Raw Meals, and Raw Boost Mixers dog foods are free of preservatives, given that the products contain synthetic ingredients. The 21-page false advertising lawsuit contends that Instinct dog kibble recipes contain two synthetic ingredients, tocopherols and citric acid, that are considered preservatives under the Code of Federal Regulations. Per the lawsuit, the synthetic ingredients are present in the Instinct dog food despite the prominent product-label representations that emphasize that the foods are "Made Without . . . Artificial Preservatives" and contain "Nothing Artificial," among similar claims. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Original Real Recipe dog foods made by Instinct contain tocopherols and citric acid, while the Raw Meals and Raw Boost Mixers varieties contain tocopherols. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, the case says, synthetic or chemical preservatives are defined as "any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration thereof, but does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices, or oils extracted from spices, substances added to food by direct exposure thereof to wood smoke, or chemicals applied for their insecticidal or herbicidal properties." Though there are natural variants of tocopherols and citric acid, the suit asserts that the natural forms of the ingredients are not used by Instinct and any representations otherwise are false. In the case of citric acid, the complaint outlines that "virtually all" citric acid used in commercial food products made in the United States is made through a multi-step fermentation and composition process. The suit maintains that the citric acid extracted from this process is a result of synthetic manufacture, not natural deviation, and is thus considered a "chemical preservative." With tocopherols, the case relays that synthetic tocopherols are created in laboratories through a series of chemical reactions that have a different molecular structure and biological efficacy from natural tocopherols, but still provide protection against the degradation of fats in foods. According to the complaint, both of these substances have been recognized by authorities as synthetic preservatives, including in numerous publications from the Food and Drug Administration and from private-industry organizations like the American Association of Feed Control Officials. As such, the lawsuit argues that consumers who prefer to purchase foods that are free of synthetic ingredients for themselves and their pets have been misled into believing that Instinct dog food is preservative-free, and often pay a price premium for the product. The Instinct Pet Foods class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers in California who purchased any Original Real Recipe dog foods, Raw Meals dog foods, and Raw Boost Mixers dog foods made by Instinct within the four years prior to the filing of this complaint on March 9, 2026. [GN] MARSHALL UNIVERSITY: Dodd Sues Over Female Athlete Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON DODD; MADELYN AKIN; LAUREN BELL; MADISON BOWEN; KATHERINE FISHER; ELLA HOUK; ARKER LYNCH; LAUREN MCNAMARA; NINA NUGENT; LAUREN RAMSEY; SADIE ROGERS; CHARLOTTE THOMPSON; MOLLY WARNER; KARLEY WOLFGRAM; and ZOE WUERDEMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARSHALL UNIVERSITY and MARSHALL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00183 (S.D.W. Va., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for discriminating against female student-athletes and potential student athletes at Marshall University on the basis of their sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), and by depriving them of equal opportunities to participate. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs, a group of female student-athletes on Marshall University's swimming and diving team was informed by Marshall on February 12, 2026 that it intended to eliminate their team. Marshall's intent to eliminate the women's swimming and diving team is entirely consistent with its history of sex discrimination in its intercollegiate athletic program. Marshall's actions caused harm to Plaintiffs and to those similarly situated, and constitute intentional, prohibited discrimination based on sex in violation of Title IX and its implementing regulation, which applies to universities--like Marshall--that receive federal funding. On February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs' counsel sent Defendants a letter raising concerns about the plan to eliminate the women's swimming and diving team, explaining why the elimination of the team would violate Title IX's dictates, and requesting a dialogue about the continuation of the program and voluntary Title IX compliance. In response, Marshall advised that it intended to proceed with its planned elimination of the team. In the Fall of 2025, Helen Grant Consulting perform an independent Title IX evaluation (the "outside evaluation"). The report confirms that Marshall does not have a history and continuing practice of expanding women's participation opportunities. With the Grant Report in hand, Marshall intends to cut the women's swimming and diving team, thereby eliminating 30 more participation opportunities. Marshall also says it plans to add a women's STUNT team, which can support up to 65 student-athletes. Indeed, if Marshall retained the women's swimming and diving team and added a maximum-sized 65-person STUNT team, the school would still be far short of substantial proportionality, says the complaint. By this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to end the historic and ongoing discrimination against female student-athletes at Marshall, create lasting gender equity in Marshall's intercollegiate athletic program, and ensure Marshall's future compliance with Title IX. Plaintiff Alison Dodd is a junior at Marshall majoring in Exercise Science. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Madelyn Akin is a sophomore at Marshall majoring in Biology. She expects to graduate in 2028. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Lauren Bell is a freshman at Marshall. She is a Nursing major. She expects to graduate in 2029. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Madison Bowen is a freshman at Marshall majoring in Elementary Education. She expects to graduate in 2029. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Katherine Fisher is a junior at Marshall pursuing her Bachelor of Fine Art in Visual Art. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Ella Houk is a freshman at Marshall and expects to graduate in 2029. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Parker Lynch is a junior at Marshall majoring in Nursing. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Lauren McNamara is a sophomore at Marshall majoring in Secondary Education. She expects to graduate in 2028. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Nina Nugent is a junior at Marshall. She is majoring in Biomedical Engineering. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Lauren Ramsey is a junior at Marshall studying nursing. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Sadie Rogers is a freshman at Marshall majoring in International Business. She expects to graduate in 2029. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Charlotte Thompson is a junior at Marshall studying Nursing. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Molly Warner is a junior at Marshall majoring in Biology. She expects to graduate in 2027. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Karley Wolfgram is a freshman at Marshall majoring in Exercise Science. She expects to graduate in 2029. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Plaintiff Zoe Wuerdeman is a freshman at Marshall and is expected to graduate in 2029. She is a member of Marshall's swimming and diving team. Defendant Marshall University is a recipient of federal funds and is required to comply with Title IX and all implementing regulations. It holds itself out as a university committed to providing top-quality intercollegiate sports programs. The university uses this distinction as part of its efforts to recruit top student-athletes and coaching staff.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas S. Johnson, Esq. Cary Joshi, Esq. Josh I. Hammack, Esq. Savanna Jones, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202-463-2101 Facsimile: 202-463-2103 E-mail: njohnson@baileyglasser.com cjoshi@baileyglasser.com jhammack@baileyglasser.com sjones@baileyglasser.com - and - E. Gabrielle Marcum, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 94 Long Street, Suite 200 Westover, WV 26501 Telephone: 304-594-0087 Facsimile: 304-594-9709 MASON CONSTRUCTION: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Mason Construction has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the Texas-based construction company failed to protect the private information stored on its systems from a data breach in January 2024. The Mason Construction class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 29, 2026 and covers all individuals residing in the United States whose private information was impacted by the data breach discovered by Mason in January 2024, including all those who received notice of the breach. Per the settlement agreement, the settlement class consists of approximately 6,025 individuals. The court-approved website for the Mason Construction data breach settlement can be found at MasonDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Mason Construction settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of ordinary losses incurred due to the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $500. The settlement agreement outlines that class members must submit supporting third-party documentation to receive compensation for unreimbursed ordinary expenses related to professional fees, credit repair services, costs to freeze credit, credit monitoring services and miscellaneous expenses like postage and mileage. Additionally, class members who file their claim form with documented proof of extraordinary expenses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 from the settlement. The agreement reiterates that class members must submit third-party documentation demonstrating that any losses related to fraud or identity theft are actual, unreimbursed, were incurred between January 6, 2024 and June 1, 2026 and are not covered by any other settlement reimbursement option. In addition to compensation for ordinary and/or extraordinary losses, class members may also submit a claim to be reimbursed for up to three hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, for a total of $75. In lieu of these benefits, Mason Construction settlement class members may instead file a claim form to receive a one-time alternative cash payment of $55. In other words, the agreement stipulates that class members who submit a claim for reimbursement of ordinary losses, extraordinary losses and/or lost time may not receive the alternative cash payment, and vice versa. Class members may receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary settlement benefits, all Mason Construction class members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for two free years of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection, which includes dark web scanning and public records monitoring, per the agreement. To file a Mason Construction data breach 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 website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the third page of the document. All Mason Construction settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 1, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Mason Construction has agreed to implement enhanced security measures to reduce the risk of a future data incident; the agreement states that all improvements will be funded separately from the settlement. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Mason Construction settlement following a hearing on June 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Mason Construction class action lawsuit alleged that the Texas-based commercial and industrial construction company failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive consumer information stored on its systems, leading to a targeted cyberattack in or around January 2024. According to the settlement site, the private information that may have been compromised as a result of the data breach includes names, Social Security numbers, driver's license and government-issued ID numbers, financial information, medical information and health insurance information. [GN] MATTRESSES DEPOT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mattress Depot USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02485 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reading software users, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff 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. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Based in Kirkland, WA, Mattress Depot USA, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.mattressdepotusa.com, which offers mattresses, adjustable bases, and sleep accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MBR CO INC: Chouinard Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Myong Suk Chouinard, and others similarly situated v. MBR CO, INC. d/b/a MOOBONGRI SOONDAE, Case No. 2025CV33135 was removed from the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on March 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00868. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a federal claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") alleging failure to pay overtime premiums.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert M. Thomas, Esq. Maxim N. Belovol, Esq. BAKER LAW GROUP, PLLC 1290 Broadway, Ste. 1175 Denver, CO 80205 Phone: (303) 747-4772 Emails: robert.thomas@jbakerlawgroup.com maxie@jbakerlawgroup.com MDL 2873: 2 Suits Consolidated in AFFF Products Liability Row ------------------------------------------------------------- In the products liability multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned Board of Water Supply, City and County of Honolulu v. United States Of America, C.A. (1:25−00271, D. Hawaii) and Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., (2:25−01101, E.D. Pa.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the transfer order. Defendants United States of America opposed the motion to vacate in the District of Hawaii Board of Water Supply action. Defendant Arkema Inc. also opposed the motion to vacate in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Aqua Pennsylvania II action. The MDL involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The MDL actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these substances’ chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. Plaintiff Board of Water Supply alleged that its drinking water supply has been contaminated by releases of jet propellant fuel, PFAS (including AFFF), and other contaminants from the U.S. Navy's Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. Plaintiff argues that site-specific issues will predominate in this action. However, the panel contends that transfer does not require a complete identity or even majority of common factual issues as a prerequisite to transfer and that unique factual questions do not weigh significantly against transfer. Plaintiff Aqua Pennsylvania alleged that Arkema used PFAS at a chemical plant at the Bolmar Street Facility in West Chester, Pennsylvania and allowed releases of PFAS from that facility that contaminated drinking water to several municipalities in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff argued that Arkema's disclosures (which identify three instances of AFFF use at the Bolmar Street facility as well as general use during periodic training and testing of the plant's fire suppression system) are self-serving and do not establish whether the asserted AFFF use contributed to the alleged PFAS contamination of plaintiff's water supply. However, the panel notes that it does not engage in a merits review of complaints, such as weighing the detail of plaintiffs' allegations and pre-suit investigation, when considering transfer. A full-text copy of the court's February 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MDL 3108: DIAL Suit Consolidated in Change Data Breach Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In multi-district action captioned "In re: Change Healthcare, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3108, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned "Diagnostic Imaging Alliance of Louisville, P.S.C. (DIAL) v. Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, et al." (C.A. No. 3:25-00470) from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff moved to vacate the transfer of this case while Defendant Change Healthcare LLC opposed the motion. All actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from a February 2024 cyberattack on Change Healthcare's network, which exposed the private information of millions of individuals and severely disrupted the ability of physicians, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers to use Change Healthcare's digital platform to access insurance information, fill prescriptions, submit insurance claims, and receive payment for services provided to patients. The MDL has since grown to include actions brought by health insurance companies and claims relating to the Temporary Funding Assistance Program (TFAP) established by Change Healthcare entities, which provided loans to healthcare providers experiencing cashflow issues due to the disruptions caused by the data breach. According to the panel, "This is the second time that this case has been before us. DIAL is a healthcare provider that alleges it contracted with Change Healthcare defendants for practice management services before the data breach and that defendants failed to perform the services called for. In its first amended complaint, Plaintiff stated that, after the data breach and the shutdown of Defendants' platform, the Defendants' services deteriorated further, and plaintiff was left without access to the data required to permit a new vendor to take over. Plaintiff also asserted that it accepted a Temporary Funding Assistance Program (TFAP) loan from Defendants and that the loan terms were one-sided and unreasonable. It sought damages and to set off the loan repayments against monies allegedly owed to it by defendants. In July 2025, however, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that eliminated all references to the data breach and the TFAP loan. Plaintiff, in its second amended complaint, alleged only that the Change defendants breached the parties’ contract starting in 2022 by failing to perform the promised services, i.e., to bill patients, submit insurance claims, and collect payments, and that the breaches of contract continued over an unspecified period. Based on the allegations in plaintiff's then-operative complaint, we declined to transfer the action to the MDL." "Based on developments in the litigation since our August 2025 order, we conclude that transfer is now warranted," rules the panel. "Plaintiff's current operative complaint still does not clearly seek damages for any breaches of contract resulting from the cyberattack. However, in Change Healthcare's October 2025 answer to the complaint, it asserted defenses that plaintiff's claims are barred or estopped "to the extent that ALPHV, BlackCat, or any other named or unnamed, known or unknown ransomware group or cyberactor, not Defendant, caused and/or is liable for Plaintiff's alleged harms," as well as "by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, settlement, payment, release, and/or offset, including based on Plaintiff's receipt of Temporary Funding Assistance Program loans . . .." In addition, Change asserted breach of contract and unjust enrichment counterclaims for repayment of nearly $875,000 in TFAP loans extended to DIAL after the cyberattack." "Finally, we are not persuaded by plaintiff's argument that transfer would be inconvenient and inefficient because parties, witnesses, and evidence are located outside Minnesota," adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's February 4, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3108-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MDL 3126: Jones Suit Consolidated in Snowflake Data Breach Row -------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned, "In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3126, Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned "Jones v. AT&T," C.A. No. 2:25−02952 ("Jones II") from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to the District of Montana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Brian Morris for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Jones moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring his action for inclusion in MDL No. 3126. Defendant AT&T Inc. opposed the motion and supported transfer. The actions in MDL No. 3126 involve common factual questions concerning a cluster of data breaches that occurred on the Snowflake cloud platform from approximately April through June 2024, when a threat actor allegedly exfiltrated the personal information of over 500 million consumers and employees, including AT&T cellular customers. The panel notes that the Jones II action involves overlapping factual issues concerning the breach of AT&T data on the Snowflake platform - in particular, the breach of text messaging and call data from May 2022 to October 2022 and in January 2023. Notably, plaintiff filed a substantially identical action against AT&T in late 2024 that we previously transferred to the MDL (Jones I). Transfer will facilitate the efficient conduct of overlapping pretrial proceedings in Jones I and Jones II, as well as the other actions in the MDL, and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings, notes the panel. In opposition to transfer, plaintiff principally argued that (1) Jones II concerns breaches related exclusively to AT&T, in contrast to Snowflake, thus eliminating any common factual questions with the MDL; (2) the damages in Jones II are plaintiff-specific; (3) he opted out of the class settlement in the MDL; and (4) transfer would unfairly delay the resolution of his claims and cause inefficiency. "First, plaintiff's assertion that the MDL does not include the breach of AT&T data alleged in Jones II is wrong," the panel opines. "Our initial transfer order clearly states that the MDL includes actions against AT&T and specifies that the AT&T incident at issue in the Snowflake MDL is the one announced by AT&T in July 2024 "involv[ing] metadata for calls and texts made by AT&T cellular customers . . . from May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022, and, for some customers, records from January 2, 2023."" There is no basis for excluding Jones II from the MDL based on the complaint's exclusive focus on AT&T as the alleged wrongdoer, the omission of allegations concerning Snowflake, and the inclusion of additional alleged data breaches spanning 2021-2024, the panel adds. Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties when, as here, the actions arise from a common factual The asserted differences raised by Jones II also are undercut by the fact that, by plaintiff's own account, Jones II raises the same factual issues as the Jones I action pending in the MDL. Second, plaintiff's individualized injuries do not weigh against transfer, notes the panel. The existence of individualized injuries does not negate the efficiencies gained by transfer. Third, plaintiff's decision to opt out of the class settlement does not affect transfer. Fourth, transfer is warranted despite the alleged delay and inconvenience from transfer. "Finally, we must raise an additional issue, given our serious concerns about the integrity of the record in this matter. Plaintiff's briefs misrepresent the holdings and fabricate quotations with respect to at least seven Panel decisions. Additionally, two of the citations in plaintiffs' briefs appear to be fabricated. The nature and number of the misrepresentations strongly suggest that plaintiff used generative artificial intelligence to draft his briefs without checking the accuracy of the information produced, though it also is possible he used some other unreliable source. Regardless, plaintiff improperly submitted briefs with false legal representations. We admonish plaintiff for fabricating and misrepresenting legal authorities in his briefing. This is an abuse of the judicial process, and one which we do not take lightly," the panel pointed out. "Although pro se filings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, all litigants (whether represented by counsel or not) are subject to an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the substance of a filing before they present it to a court. This duty includes ensuring that citations and quotations are, in fact, real, as we recognized in a similar pro se matter last year. Any further non-compliant submissions from plaintiff may be stricken or result in additional appropriate corrective action," the panel concludes. A full-text copy of the court's February 4, 2026 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3126-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MDL 3153: Teixeira Case Consolidated in Coinbase Data Breach Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Coinbase Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3153, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers case captioned "Teixeira v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 5:25-05074 from the U.S. District for the District of South Dakota to the Southern District of New York, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants Coinbase Global, Inc., and Coinbase, Inc., opposed the motion and support transfer while Teixeira moved to vacate the order. The actions in the MDL share factual questions concerning allegations that a cybersecurity incident affecting the Coinbase cryptocurrency trading platform compromised the personally identifiable information of its customers. Plaintiff in Teixeira, a Coinbase customer, alleges that the cybersecurity incident affecting Coinbase exposed his personal information to cybercriminals who then stole approximately $400,000 worth of cryptocurrency from his Coinbase account. Plaintiff concedes that his action shares common questions of fact with the MDL actions. With this concession, Teixeira falls squarely within the MDL's ambit, states the panel. Plaintiff argued, among other things, that his action does not belong in the MDL because it involves unique facts. He contended that, unlike the MDL plaintiffs, he has suffered actual financial loss and he has unique claims that are based on Coinbase's failure to help him when he notified it of his losses. The panel held that transfer does not require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties as a prerequisite to transfer, and the presence of additional facts or differing legal theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise from a common factual core. A full-text copy of the court's February 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3153-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MDL 3171: 17 Lyft Sexual Assault Raps Consolidated in N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Lyft, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation," MDL No. 3171, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers eight cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and one each from the Northern District of Georgia, Central District of Illinois, District of Massachusetts, District of Maryland, Western District of North Carolina, Southern District of New York, Northern and Southern District of Texas and the Western District of Washington, all to the Northern District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Rita F. Lin, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Lyft, Inc., opposes centralization and, alternatively, suggests centralization in the Northern District of Texas. Lyft's primary argument against centralization is that there already exists a California state court consolidated proceeding (JCCP), and plaintiffs should file their claims as part of that proceeding, which already includes many claims brought by non-California residents about alleged assaults that took place outside of California. Lyft argued that since said the Lyft JCCP have been going on for more than five years and is procedurally advanced, it would be more efficient for plaintiffs to bring their claims in that court. The panel held that, "Even if we were to find that a single consolidated proceeding in state court is the most just and efficient path for all claims involving sexual assault by Lyft drivers, the Panel cannot require these or any future plaintiffs to file in California state court. Were we to deny centralization here, 21 similar cases still would remain pending across twelve different federal courts, with the possibility that more cases will be filed. It is far more efficient to coordinate a single federal MDL with the proceedings in California state court than to informally coordinate so many cases filed across the country." "We find that the Northern District of California is the most appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Eight of the 21 related actions are pending in this district, including the first-filed actions. Lyft is headquartered in the Northern District of California, and centralization there would facilitate coordination with the Lyft JCCP in San Francisco," rules the panel. Plaintiffs in these actions alleged that they suffered sexual assault or harassment as a result of Lyft's failure to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers. The actions present common factual issues arising from allegations that Lyft was aware of the risk of sexual assault but failed: (1) to screen and background check drivers appropriately; (2) to train and supervise drivers adequately; (3) to respond to complaints and feedback about sexual misconduct from drivers; (4) to implement safety design changes to the Lyft app; and (5) to adopt standard safety measures, such as video and audio surveillance. Plaintiffs bring similar claims, including negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract, strict product liability, and failure to warn. Common factual questions include: what representations Lyft made about safety; whether Lyft had knowledge of the prevalence of sexual assault by its drivers; whether Lyft failed to adequately conduct background checks of drivers and train drivers regarding sexual assault and harassment; whether Lyft failed to adequately respond to complaints about drivers; and whether there were safety measures that could have been implemented to protect passengers from sexual assault but that Lyft chose not to adopt. A full-text copy of the court's February 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3171-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MDL 3172: 5 Suits Consolidated in Implant Product Liability Row --------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3172, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases from the Western District of Pennsylvania, and one each from the District of Kentucky, the District of Maryland and the Eastern District of North Carolina, all to the Eastern District of Arkansas, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Kristine G. Baker for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Cartiva, Inc., opposes centralization and suggests centralization in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Northern District of Georgia, or the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege that their Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (Cartiva SCI) was defective, that they experienced persistent pain and limited range of motion following implantation, and that they required additional surgery to remove their failed implant and fuse the arthritic joint. All plaintiffs assert claims for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. These products liability actions will share common questions of fact regarding (1) causation, (2) Cartiva's SCI testing, (3) the sufficiency of its labelling, (4) representations to the FDA during the device approval process, and (5) the circumstances of its eventual SCI device recall. With five actions and nine potential tag-along actions pending in seven districts, centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and conserve judicial resources, rules the panel. "The Eastern District of Arkansas is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation," adds the panel. "Relevant evidence and witnesses are likely located nearby in Memphis, Tennessee, where Cartiva's corporate successor Wright Medical Group N.V. was headquartered." A full-text copy of the court's February 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3172-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MNG 2005: Eichhorn Sues Over Misleading Labeling of Beverages ------------------------------------------------------------- EVAN EICHHORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MNG 2005, Inc. a/k/a MNG Brands d/b/a CBD KRATOM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01395 (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's dangerous and misleading marketing and labeling related to the sale of beverages containing kratom, a highly addictive substance. The Defendant consistently markets and labels the beverages as safe, healthy, and energizing, going so far as to tell purchasers that the beverages may be used as an exercise supplement. However, Defendant fails to warn consumers that kratom is a significant mood-altering agent, which can cause numerous physical and mental health consequences, including addiction. As a direct result of the Defendant's failure to inform him of the dangers of kratom and kratom-containing beverages on its beverage labels, the Plaintiff spent approximately $60,000 total on beverages at the CBD Kratom website and retail locations in Philadelphia, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligent failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, MNG 2005, Inc. owns MNG Brands and CBD Kratom and operates dozens of CBD Kratom Retail stores in several states, including at least four in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. Aarthi Manohar, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com amanohar@kohnswift.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Conspires to Fix Agricultural Fertilizers' Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- DiCello Levitt, along with co-counsel Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC, has filed an antitrust class action lawsuit alleging that the nation's largest fertilizer producers conspired to fix, raise, and maintain prices for critical agricultural fertilizers, forcing U.S. farmers to pay artificially inflated prices. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the complaint alleges a coordinated scheme to restrain competition in the markets for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (potash) fertilizers -- collectively known as NPK fertilizers. The lawsuit names the following defendants: The Mosaic Company; Nutrien Ltd.; Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc.; CF Industries Holdings, Inc.; CF Industries, Inc.; CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC; Koch Agronomic Services, LLC; Yara International ASA; Yara North America, Inc.; and Canpotex LTD. "Most people will never think about the cost of fertilizer, but American farmers live with it every day," said Greg Asciolla, Partner and Chair of DiCello Levitt's Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice. "When prices for an essential input are artificially inflated, the impact falls squarely on farmers and ripples across the food system. This case is about restoring competition in a market that is foundational to American agriculture." According to the complaint, beginning no later than January 2021, defendants exploited their dominant market positions to restrict output, maintain "capacity discipline," and manage supply in ways that drove fertilizer prices to unprecedented levels. During the 2021–2022 price spike, U.S. farmers paid more than 60 percent higher prices for fertilizer inputs -- an increase that added an estimated $128,000 in costs per farm in 2022 -- while defendants reported record profits. The lawsuit alleges that fertilizer prices soared far beyond historical norms and remained elevated even after defendants' claimed justifications -- such as global supply disruptions and increased input costs -- had subsided. The complaint further notes that federal officials have publicly raised concerns about competition in the fertilizer industry and that the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has reportedly recently opened an investigation into potential collusion among major fertilizer producers. The action is brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of all persons and entities that purchased NPK fertilizers directly from defendants since January 1, 2021. The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, attorneys' fees, and costs. The case is Union Line Farms, Inc. v. The Mosaic Company, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. A copy of the complaint is available here. The DiCello Levitt team on the matter includes Adam Levitt, Greg Asciolla, Jonathan Crevier, and Theo Salem‑Mackall. DiCello Levitt brings extensive experience litigating complex agricultural and biotechnology matters on behalf of farmers, growers, and other stakeholders nationwide. The firm has led landmark class actions on behalf of agricultural producers and landowners, helping to secure billions of dollars in recoveries. In doing so, DiCello Levitt attorneys have pioneered innovative legal strategies in the agriculture and biotech space, including a now‑industry‑standard model for measuring crop contamination damages. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through antitrust, class action, civil and human rights, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, and personal injury litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN] N. HANNOUSH JEWELERS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin Walsh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. N. HANNOUSH JEWELERS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-50086 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.hannoush.com (the "Website"), (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Spring Way Appeals Final Settlements Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- SPRING WAY CENTER, LLC, et al., objectors, are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of settlements in the lawsuit entitled Don Gibson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00788, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged engagement in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On Jan. 28, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of settlements with the Defendants, which Judge Stephen R. Bough granted on Feb. 5, 2026. The Court hereby enters final judgment of dismissal with prejudice and without costs (except as provided in the respective Settlement Agreements) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the Settling Defendants. The appellate case is styled as Don Gibson, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 26-1399, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DON GIBSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Aiken, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516−3880 Email: aaiken@susmangodfrey.com - and - Robert A. Braun, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL 1100 New York Ave NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (206) 408−3697 Email: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beatrice Franklin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP One Manhattan West, Ste. 50th Fl. New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336−8330 Facsimile: (212) 336−8340 Email: bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com - and - Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 760 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492−2826 Email: brandon@boulware−law.com jeremy@boulware−law.com - and - Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq. Michael Anthony Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945−7110 Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com mwilliams@williamsdirks.com - and - Michael S. Ketchmark, Esq. Scott A. McCreight, Esq. KETCHMARK & MCCREIGHT PC Two Hallbrook Place 11161 Overbrook Road, Suite 210 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266−4500 Facsimile: (913) 317−5030 Email: mike@ketchmclaw.com smccreight@ketchmclaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. 1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623−7292 Facsimile: (206) 623−0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al. are represented by: Charles W. Hatfield, Esq. Alexander Barrett, Esq. STINSON LLP 230 W. McCarty Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: (573) 636−6263 (573) 556−3601 Facsimile: (573) 556−3632 (573) 556−3637 Email: chuck.hatfield@stinson.com alexander.barrett@stinson.com - and - Michael D. Bonanno, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 538−8000 Facsimile: (202) 538−8100 Email: mikebonanno@quinnemanuel.com Objectors-Appellants SPRING WAY CENTER, LLC, et al. are represented by: Steven M. Berezney, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241−4844 Facsimile: (314) 241−3525 Email: sberezney@koreintillery.com - and - Randall Paul Ewing, Jr. KOREIN TILLERY 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641−9750 Email: rewing@koreintillery.com - and - Daniel Z. Goldman, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (973) 476−5485 Email: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com - and - Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542−8300 Email: sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com - and - Todd Seaver, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433−3200 Email: tseaver@bermantabacco.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Michael Sues Over Breach of Loan Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL E KASABA LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER and DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02455 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its contract and promises made to the Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Class when it assessed prepayment penalties using the date of the first installment payment on the loan as the loan's anniversary date, as opposed to the date the loan was obtained. Further, the Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and abused its contractual discretion to define the contractual term "anniversary date" in a manner contrary to the industry standard usage of this term. A reasonable borrower would understand this term to mean the date on which the loan is obtained, not the later date on which the first installment payment becomes due. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members sustained damages. Michael E Kasaba LLC is limited liability company based in Reseda, California. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, is a mortgage service provider, based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Tyler J. Dosaj, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Tyler@kicklawfirm.com NBT BANCORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Richey Extended April 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richey, et al., v. NBT Bancorp Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order granting extending that the deadline for filing of Class Certification to April 2, 2026. All other deadlines and schedules remain in effect as follows: (1) Discovery, including merits, class, and depositions, shall be completed by April 6, 2026, except for expert discovery; (2) The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is March 6, 2026; (3) Defendant Expert Disclosure Deadline is April 20, 2026; (4) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is May 4, 2026; (5) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by May 11, 2026; and (6) Expert discovery, including expert depositions, shall be completed by June 4, 2026. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). NBT is a financial holding company.[CC] NEW YORK: Poe Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK POE, RACHEL ROE, and VERONICA VOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services; KRISTIN GLEESON, as Director of Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, and Acting Associate Commissioner of Child Welfare and Community Services; and STEVEN CONNOLLY, as Director of the Bureau of Special Hearings, Case No. 1:26-cv-01606-GBD (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order granting certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), or in the alternative, Rule 23(b)(1) consisting of: "All persons (A) who are or will be subject to a Statewide Central Register background check; (B) who are or will be listed on the Statewide Central Register as subjects of reports of child abuse or maltreatment that were or will be investigated and deemed indicated by a designated Child Protective Services agency; (C) who timely requested or will timely request amendment or sealing of their indicated reports; and (D) whose requests for amendment or sealing have not been finally decided (the “Class”)." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNQQNt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garrard R. Beeney, Esq. Suhana S. Han, Esq. Jessica M. Klein, Esq. Stella S. Meyer, Esq. Aneesa Mazumdar, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: beeneyg@sullcrom.com hans@sullcrom.com kleinj@sullcrom.com meyerste@sullcrom.com mazumdara@sullcrom.com - and - David Shalleck-Klein, Esq. Lewis Bossing, Esq. Sarah Ortlip-Sommers, Esq. Phoenix Rice-Johnson, Esq. FAMILY JUSTICE LAW CENTER 183 Madison Avenue, Suite 419 New York, N.Y. 10016 Telephone: (212) 223-6939 E-mail: dshalleckklein@fjlc.org lbossing@fjlc.org sortlipsommers@fjlc.org pricejohnson@fjlc.org - and - Lucas S. Marquez, Esq. Lauren Shapiro, Esq. Alyssa Briody, Esq. BROOKLYN DEFENDER SERVICES 177 Livingston Street, 7th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (718) 254-0700 E-mail: lmarquez@bds.org lshapiro@bds.org abriody@bds.org - and - Christine Gottlieb, Esq. NYU SCHOOL OF LAW FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC / WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (718) 374-1364 E-mail: gottlieb@mercury.law.nyu.edu - and - Tehra Coles, Esq. Christine Waer, Esq. Melissa Lombreglia, Esq. CENTER FOR FAMILY REPRESENTATION 40 Worth Street, Suite 605 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 691-0950 E-mail: tcoles@cfrny.org cwaer@cfrny.org mlombreglia@cfrny.org NIKE INC: Widmia Files Suit in D. Oregon ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nike, Inc. The case is styled as Alix Widmia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nike, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00426-SB (D. Ore., March 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Nike, Inc. -- https://www.nike.com/ -- is an American athletic footwear and apparel corporation headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hilliard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. HILLIARD 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (310) 709-9749 Email: mark.hilliard.esq@gmail.com NOKIA OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00716-L (N.D. Tex., March 5, 2026) arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Allentown, PA from approximately September 20, 2022, through November 5, 2025. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant, however, did not pay Plaintiff and the hourly employees for the compensable time they spent in the process of donning and doffing the personal protective equipment. Instead, Defendant paid them based on the times entered into Defendant's ADP EzLabor timekeeping system, which reflected their scheduled shift times rather than the actual work time, alleges the suit. Headquartered in Texas, Nokia of America Corporation provides B2B technology, networking, and cloud services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 13907 Bluff Ivey Lane San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (512) 417-5716 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1 Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48375 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 ON24 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- ON24 Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, certain current and former members of its board of directors, and the underwriters that participated in its IPO are named as defendants in a consolidated putative class action, captioned In re ON24, Inc. Securities Litigation, 4:21-cv-08578-YGR (filed in November 2021), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock issued in connection with its IPO. The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts about ON24's growth and customer base. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2022, which the district court granted with leave to amend in July 2023. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint in September 2023, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2023. In March 2024, the district court granted the defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice. In January 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed the district court's order. The Company then filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc which was denied by the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2026. The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, arising from this matter at this early stage. Accordingly, no accrued litigation expense has been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. ON24 Inc. is a digital engagement platform provider that enables companies to create and deliver data-rich, interactive experiences such as webinars, virtual events, and multimedia content experiences for marketing, sales, and customer engagement. OREGON HEALTH: Malenkovich Sues Over Failure to Protect Info ------------------------------------------------------------ TATYANA V. MALENKOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00448-SB (D. Ore., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 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 discovered on January 13, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Oregon Health & Science University is a public corporation headquartered in Portland, Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kstephens@tousley.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com PACER STAFFING: Pruett Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as MIKKI PRUETT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACER STAFFING LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 25CU065891C, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01486-BTM-BLM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts the following claims on a class-wide basis: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to reimburse business expenses; (3) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (4) unfair business practices; and (5) waiting time penalties. Pacer Staffing LLC is minority women owned global IT and professional Services and staffing firm serving Fortune 1000 clients with customized and scalable workforce solutions. DOES 1-20 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Cameron J. Davila, Esq. Marie M. Hulen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com cameron.davila@ogletree.com marie.hulen@ogletree.com PACIFIC COAST SERVICES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast Services, Inc. The case is styled as Julia Alejandra Soto Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Pacific Coast Services, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Homecare Services, Inc., Pacific In Home Services, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001632 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pacific Coast Services -- https://www.pacificcoastservice.com/ -- has provided complete warehousing and distribution services since 1969.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristy R. Connolly, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 424-290-3095 Email: kristy@protectionlawgroup.com PARK AVENUE: Avelar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Avelar, and all others similarly situated v. Park Avenue Healthcare & Wellness Center; and DOES 1 TO 25, Case No. 26STCV07084 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants violation of the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated Labor Code 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Defendants had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number Of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and since Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees worked while "off the clock", including engaged in charting and other such activities after clocking out for work, the latter was akin to a minim wage violation. Moreover, Defendants failed to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at Healthcare & Wellness Center as a CNA in 2024. Park Avenue Healthcare & Wellness Center is a California Limited Partnership, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVE A. HOFFMAN 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3817 Phone: (323) 406-6898 Fax: (323) 937-1539 Email: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net PATHSTONE FAMILY: Diaz Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ CLAUDIO DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATHSTONE FAMILY OFFICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02298 (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its employees and consumers. On or around February 27, 2026, the Defendant was hacked in the data breach. The cybercriminal group "ShinyHunters" took credit for the data breach and alleged that it exfiltrated 641,000 records containing personally identifiable information and internal corporate documents. However, the Defendant failed to rapidly report to Plaintiff and the Class members that their PII was stolen, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and declaratory judgment. Headquartered in Englewood, NJ, Pathstone Family Office provides investment management and comprehensive planning services to individuals, families, family offices, and institutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Barbarino Class Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 continues to defend itself from the Barbarino class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On October 29, 2025, plaintiff William Barbarino filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company's social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under federal and New Jersey law. The lawsuit seeks to recover up to three times the amount of economic losses suffered by New Jersey residents to the Company in connection with its social casino-themed games plus interest, attorneys' fees and other relief the plaintiff and the putative class may be entitled to. The parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order submitting the claims to arbitration, staying the case and preserving the parties' positions on January 27, 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. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. Playtika Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries, is a developer of mobile games. PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Beninati Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- 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 continues to defend itself from the Beninati class suit in the Federal Court of Australia. On January 5, 2026, Daniela Beninati filed a putative class action in the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria Registry) against the Company, alleging that certain of its social casino-themed games constitute unlawful interactive gambling services under the Australian Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), and that the Company engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct in violation of the Australian Consumer Law in connection with the marketing and monetization of such games. The complaint seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of amounts paid for in-game virtual currency by Australian-based users, damages, interest and costs. The matter is in its preliminary stages. Accordingly, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. Playtika Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries, is a developer of mobile games. PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Gambling Laws Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 continues to defend itself from a gambling laws violation class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On October 27, 2025, plaintiff Andrew Wright filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging that the Company's social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Utah law. The lawsuit seeks to recover twice the amount of economic losses suffered by Utah residents to the Company in connection with its social casino-themed games plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on February 17, 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. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. Playtika Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries, is a developer of mobile games. PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Continues to Defend Wright Class Suit in Utah --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 itself from the Wright class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On October 27, 2025, plaintiff Andrew Wright filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging that the Company's social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Utah law. The lawsuit seeks to recover twice the amount of economic losses suffered by Utah residents to the Company in connection with its social casino-themed games plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on February 17, 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. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. Playtika Ltd. operates online social casino available at www.slotomania.com and on various mobile apps.[BN] POSHMARK INC: Dalton Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Poshmark, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01739 (D. Minn., March 4, 2026) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are blind and low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's website, www.poshmark.com, has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users full and equal access to important website content. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to make changes to its existing website and related policies, practices, and procedures in order to ensure Defendant's website become and remain ADA compliant. Headquartered in Redwood City, CAa, Poshmark, Inc. owns and operates the website which serves as online marketplace for secondhand apparel and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Boyce Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adriel Boyce, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC,, Case No. 25AC-CC08631 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04050-WJE. In her Petition, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Heather R. Hamilton, Esq. Alexandra G. Widick, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-471-1301 Facsimile: 816-471-1303 Email: Patrick.Hulla@ogletree.com Heather.Hamilton@ogletree.com Alexandra.Widick@ogletree.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Bucher Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Bucher, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00230 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought against Defendant for Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, "Private Information") of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, who were patients of QualDerm or its affiliated dermatology practices. On December 23 and 24, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed a limited number of QualDerm's systems and removed certain information stored within those systems (the "Data Breach"). QualDerm detected the unauthorized activity on December 24, 2025, and thereafter engaged a third-party cybersecurity forensics firm to investigate. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach is precisely the type of data that is highly coveted by cybercriminals and identity thieves. Medical data and PHI are among the most valuable categories of stolen data on the black market and dark web because, unlike credit card numbers that can be cancelled, medical identities, diagnoses, and treatment histories cannot be changed. Studies consistently show that compromised healthcare records sell for substantially more than compromised financial records, and victims of medical identity theft face years of remediation. Despite the highly sensitive nature of the Private Information it collected, maintained, and stored, and despite its obligations under federal and state law (including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 ("HITECH"), and applicable state data protection statutes) QualDerm failed to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate data security measures sufficient to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from the foreseeable risk of unauthorized access and exfiltration. As a direct and proximate result of QualDerm's failures, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including but not limited to: the unauthorized exfiltration and exposure of their Private Information; loss of the benefit of the bargain and overpayment for services that did not include adequate data protection; loss of the value of their privacy and confidentiality in their Private Information; the present and continuing heightened risk of identity theft, medical identity fraud, insurance fraud, and other crimes, including increased spam emails; time and money expended and to be expended mitigating the consequences of the Data Breach; anxiety, emotional distress, and loss of privacy; and diminution of the value of their Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient of a QualDerm Partners-affiliated dermatology practice and, as a condition of receiving healthcare services, entrusted QualDerm and its affiliated practice with Plaintiff's Private Information. QualDerm is a large dermatology management organization that partners with and operates dermatology and skin-care practices across numerous states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit (TN BPR 43065) STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Fax: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Jacques Sues Over Recent Data Security Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glenn Jacques, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00239 (M.D. Tenn., March 3, 2026), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendant utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. 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. Through the Data Breach, the cybercriminal gained unauthorized access to highly sensitive Private Information, including patient names, dates of birth, doctor names, medical record numbers, dates of death, email addresses, treatment information, diagnosis information, health insurance information, and government-issued identification information. But for Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect PII and PHI, the Data Breach would not have occurred. The Defendant is well-aware that it is at high risk of attempted cyberattack due to the high value of the sensitive data. Despite Defendant's awareness of both the value and sensitivity of the data it safeguarded and serious risk presented by insufficient security practices, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to ensure that its systems were secure. Defendant knew or should have known about the risk to the data it stored and processed, and the critical importance of adequate security measures in the face of increasing threats, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to the Defendant. QualDerm Partners, LLC "empowers top-tier dermatologists to position their practices for long-term, sustainable growth and enhanced profitability."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law QUALDERM PARTNERS: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Janice Nelson and Vickie Henley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00332 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought against QualDerm for its failure to properly secure Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") (collectively with PII, "Private Information"). QualDerm failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain Private Information. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders requiring QualDerm to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the "Data Breach") in the future On February 24, 2026, QualDerm disclosed to the Texas Attorney General that a data breach had affected nearly 175,000 people in Texas alone (the "Data Breach"). A notice on QualDerm's website disclosed that, for each patient at risk, the information involved might include their name, date of birth, doctor name, medical record number, date of death, email address, treatment information, diagnosis information, and health insurance information. As a health care provider, QualDerm knowingly obtained sensitive Private Information and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have provided their Private Information to QualDerm if they had known that QualDerm would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was exposed in the Data Breach. Plaintiffs seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to QualDerm's data security policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been patients at QualDerm affiliate Mount Juliet Pinnacle Dermatology. QualDerm operates a healthcare network based in Brentwood, Tennessee that provides operational and administrative services to dermatology practices, including Mount Juliet Pinnacle Dermatology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell W. Lewis, IV, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 1019 16th Ave. S. Nashville, TN 37212 Phone: (615) 200-1122 Email: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-1476 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Yocom Sues Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Ginger Yocom, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, and TRUSKIN DERMATOLOGY, Case No. 3:26-cv-00229 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 27, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information"). As a result of Defendants' negligence and insufficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated QualDerm's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their Private Information for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. TruSkin was negligent and/or failed to confirm when hiring QualDerm that Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information would be protected from unauthorized access, that QualDerm maintained adequate data security, procedures, practices, infrastructure, and protocols, and that Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information would not be exposed to data breaches. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. Now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft will have to spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to TruSkin and QualDerm, QualDerm is a healthcare organization that provides comprehensive management support, access to capital, and expert guidance to help dermatology clinics, such as TruSkin, position their practice for long-term and sustainable growth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit (TN BPR 43065) STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com RADIANT SUPPLEMENTS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Perkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GRACE PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIANT SUPPLEMENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Fla. Cir. Ct., 9th Jud. Cir., Osceola Cty., March 6, 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. Radiant Supplements LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of high-quality dietary supplements and natural products, headquartered in New York. [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 RECOVERY CENTERS: Website Uses Tracking Tools, A.P. Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- A.P., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECOVERY CENTERS OF AMERICA HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a RECOVERY CENTERS OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2651 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing tracking tools, including tracking Pixels, onto the Defendant's Website. The complaint relates that in April and May of 2024, Plaintiff utilized the Website on her personal electronic devices, including a mobile phone and a laptop computer, to research the programs offered at Recovery Centers of America. Plaintiff was using the Website to evaluate whether its programs were conducive to treating her drug and alcohol addiction, including providing related mental health treatment. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the Website transmitted the Sensitive Health Information that she communicated to Defendant using the Website, including while using the "Call Now" button on the Website to initiate a phone call to Defendant. Among the Sensitive Health Information that Plaintiff disclosed to Defendant, and which Defendant allowed and enabled third parties including Google and Microsoft to intercept, was: 1) that Plaintiff struggles with drug and alcohol addiction; 2) that Plaintiff was seeking treatment for her drug and alcohol addiction; and 3) that Plaintiff initiated a call to Defendant's admissions employees through a "Call Now" button on the Website. When Plaintiff and Class Members visited the Website, their personal Sensitive Health Information was tracked by Defendant using the Tracking Tools and shared with the Tracking Tool Providers, notes the complaint. However, Defendant never obtained authorization from Plaintiff or Class Members to share their Sensitive Health Information with third parties. At all relevant times to this action, Plaintiff and Class Members gave no informed consent for their Sensitive Health Information to be transmitted to third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of user information. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with online service providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Health Information to third parties; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of their Sensitive Health Information; (vi) statutory damages; and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive Health Information, says the suit. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and asserts the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and violations of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. Plaintiff A.P. is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in McHenry County. Defendant Recovery Centers of America operates twelve addiction treatment facilities, three of which are located in Illinois: Recovery Centers of America at St. Charles, located at 41W400 Silver Glen Rd, St. Charles, IL 60175, in Kane County; Recovery Centers of America Outpatient at St. Charles, located at 300 Cardinal Dr. Suite 280, St. Charles, IL 60175, in Kane County; and Recovery Centers of America at Rolling Meadows, located at 1855 Rohlwing Road, Suite A, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008, in Cook County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Underhill, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: junderhill@sirillp.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com E-mail: zjohnson@sirillp.com - and - Zane Johnson, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 E-mail: zjohnson@sirillp.com REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION: McPhee Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Chris McPhee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV168025 was removed from the Superior Court of the County of Alameda, California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-01894. The Plaintiff alleges that America's Tire violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), among other statutes, by using certain tracking technologies on its website, www.americastire.com (the "Website"). Plaintiff's claims—namely, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brianna R. Howard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: howardbr@ballardspahr.com - and - J. Matthew Thorton, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2119 Phone: 612.371.3211 Facsimile: 612.371.3207 Email: thorntonj@ballardspahr.com RESIDEO LLC: Straub Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Straub, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESIDEO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ADEMCO INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV000735 was removed from the Sthe Superior Court of California in and for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00407. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Felicia A. Davis, Esq. Aja S. Nunn, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: 1(213) 683-6000 Facsimile: 1(213) 627-0705 Email: ajanunn@paulhastings.com feliciadavis@paulhastings.com RK HOLDINGS LLP: Howell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Frances Howell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RK HOLDINGS, LLP d/b/a RURAL KING, Case No. 2:26-cv-02063-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., March 3, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay its AMs, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweeks because Defendant classified them as exempt from overtime. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated AMs were required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by Defendant in order to complete their job duties. However, in accordance with Defendant's policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an AM at a Rural King store in Morganton, North Carolina. Rural King owns and operates over 130 "Rural King" branded stores in at least 13 states, including Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Langacker, Esq. LANGACKER LAW, LTD. 210 N. Broadway Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: (217) 954-1025 Fax: (217) 903-5255 Email: ron@langackerlaw.com - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-4782 Fax: (215) 278-4807 Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Daniel Levin, Esq. Zanetta Moore-Driggers, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com zmooredriggers@lfsblaw.com ROBERT KENNEDY: Bid for Class Cert. in Jackson Due Sept. 21 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON, et al., v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01750 (D.D.C., Filed June 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order Motion for Class Certification due by Sept. 21, 2026. Opposition To Class Certification due by Nov. 5, 2026. Replies By Plaintiffs In Support of Class Certification due by Nov. 30, 2026. Expert Discovery due by Feb. 12, 2027. Parties Dispositive Motions due by March 29, 2027. Oppositions due by April 28, 2027. Replies due by May 19, 2027. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions.[CC] ROKU INC: Faces Class Suit After Removing Motion Snapshot Tool -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Roku faces a proposed class action lawsuit after allegedly quietly removing the Motion Snapshot tool from its Smart Home cameras, forcing users without a Roku subscription, who once were able to access still images of detected motion or sound without one, to pay to access the once-free key surveillance feature. The 35-page lawsuit argues that the Roku cameras at issue are worth less than what consumers paid without the critical Motion Snapshot feature, once a base, pre-existing function in every Roku home security camera regardless of subscription status, and says the defendant has effectively "coerced" customers into buying a subscription to maintain the utility of their cameras. Per the complaint, although all Roku camera users have access to live feeds, they cannot access past motion events without a Roku subscription or a micro-SD card in their cameras. "Accordingly, users without a subscription now only receive Motion Alerts with no corresponding image to determine what triggered the Motion Alert," the filing says. "If users with a Roku Subscription decide to cancel their subscription, they would no longer be able to review any prior motion events, including Motion Snapshots." The case stresses that despite removing the Motion Snapshot feature, Roku has not offered compensation, discounts or "anything else" to buyers. "Rather, Roku saves money by not having to maintain a Cloud database for users of Roku Cameras without a Roku Subscription," the suit claims. According to the complaint, Roku's Motion Snapshot feature was one aspect of a real-time motion alert system that, in conjunction with an auditory detection feature, could send a real-time alert to a user to inform them when their security cameras picked up any unexpected activity. The case outlines that users with a paid Roku subscription were given access to saved video recordings of detected motion or sounds, while users without a Roku Smart Home subscription were sent still images of what their cameras detected. However, the filing says that on or around July 16, 2025, Roku suspended the Motion Snapshot feature from all cameras, meaning that users without subscriptions would now only be sent motion alerts with no corresponding image of what their cameras detected. The case asserts that this change came despite Roku extensively promoting its security cameras after their release in October 2022, with motion and sound detection alerts as a key feature "[i]ncluded with every Roku Camera." Many consumers claim to have relied upon these promotions when making their purchasing decisions, the lawsuit shares. Accordingly, after the Snapshot feature was removed, many consumers without paid Roku accounts came online to find support and determine the company's culpability in removing the feature without warning. "By quietly removing the Motion Snapshots feature, Roku acted deceptively, dishonestly, and unfairly," the lawsuit argues. "In doing so, Roku breached its contract with Plaintiff, violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and violated consumer protection statutes and/or common law[.]" The Roku security camera class action lawsuit seeks to represent all persons worldwide who purchased any Roku Smart Home Cameras prior to July 16, 2025 and still owned the device on or after that date. [GN] ROSEVILLE POINT HEALTH: Armstrong Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mina Armstrong, and all others similarly situated v. Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center and DOES 1 TO 25, Case No. 26STCV07079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants violation of the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated Labor Code 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and 1197.1 because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Defendants had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number Of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and since Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees worked while "off the clock", including engaged in charting and other such activities after clocking out for work, the latter was akin to a minim wage violation. Moreover, Defendants failed to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center as a Nurse in 2019. Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center is a California Limited Partnership, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve A. Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVE A. HOFFMAN 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010-3817 Phone: (323) 406-6898 Fax: (323) 937-1539 Email: hoffpi@sbcglobal.net SALSA & BEER 2 INC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salsa & Beer 2 Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hector Gomez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Salsa & Beer 2 Inc., Salsa & Beer 3 Inc., Salsa & Beer 4 Inc., Salsa & Beer Inc., Salsa And Beer 5 Inc., Salsa And Beer 6 Inc., Case No. 26STCV06892 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., March 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Salsa & Beer -- https://salsaandbeer.com/ -- is a restaurant who has brought the rich flavors of Jerez Zacatecas to Los Angeles since 1998.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 213-239-9800 Email: ryanc@protectionlawgroup.com SEKISUI HOUSE: $25MM Settlement Reached in BTPFWP Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Sekisui House U.S., Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the parties in the Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania class suit reached a $25 million settlement that is anticipated to be fully covered by third-party insurance providers of the Company. On Nov. 13, 2024, Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania, acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated stockholders of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. (MDC), filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Larry A. Mizel (Mr. Mizel), David D. Mandarich (Mr. Mandarich), and SHRH. The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in connection with the acquisition of MDC by SHRH and its affiliates, Mr. Mizel and Mr. Mandarich breached their fiduciary duty to MDC and that SHRH aided and abetted such breach. Pursuant to indemnification agreements, SHUS has an obligation to indemnify Mr. Mizel and Mr. Mandarich in this matter, and SHUS, in connection with such indemnification obligations, plans to vigorously defend against these allegations by the putative class plaintiffs. On or about March 3, 2025, all claims against SHRH were dismissed without prejudice. On or about Jan. 15, 2026, a term sheet was executed by all parties to settle the Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania class action complaint for $25.0 million, which is anticipated to be fully covered by the Company's third-party insurance providers. Sekisui House U.S., Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of Sekisui House, Ltd., a Japan-based global homebuilder and residential developer engaged in the development, construction, and sale of single-family homes, multifamily properties, and master-planned communities. SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces Domulot Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------- Skye Bioscience, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2026, that it is the subject of a putative derivative lawsuit was filed on Jan. 29, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Domulot v. Dhillon et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00600-WQH. The lawsuit asserts claims, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to nimacimab. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other relief, including corporate governance reforms. Skye Bioscience, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel cannabinoid-derived and other therapeutics targeting diseases with significant unmet medical need. SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces Stout Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Skye Bioscience, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2026, that it is the subject of a putative securities class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 17, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Stout v. Skye Bioscience, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03177-WQH. The complaint asserts that the Company and certain of the Company's executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false or misleading statements related to the efficacy of and prospects for nimacimab between Nov. 4, 2024 and Oct. 3, 2025. The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's executives, whom they named as defendants, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On Jan. 16, 2026, two stockholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff. Skye Bioscience, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel cannabinoid-derived and other therapeutics targeting diseases with significant unmet medical need. SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLNO) common stock between March 26, 2025 and November 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until May 5, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Soleno class action lawsuit. Captioned City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. Soleno Therapeutics, Inc., No. 26-cv-01979 (N.D. Cal.), the Soleno class action lawsuit charges Soleno as well as certain of Soleno's top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Soleno class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-soleno-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-slno.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Soleno is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapeutics for the treatment of rare diseases. At the time of the Soleno class action lawsuit's filing, Soleno's only commercial product is diazoxide choline extended-release tablets ("DCCR") for the treatment of hyperphagia in individuals afflicted with Prader-Willi syndrome ("PWS"). The Soleno class action lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period failed to disclose that: (i) the Soleno Phase 3 clinical trial program for DCCR had systematically downplayed, misrepresented, and/or concealed significant evidence of safety concerns potentially related to the administration of DCCR, including issues related to excess fluid retention in clinical trial participants; (ii) as a result, the administration of DCCR to treat hyperphagia in individuals with PWS posed materially greater safety risks than disclosed by Soleno or its executives; and (iii) consequently, DCCR had materially lower commercial viability and undisclosed risks related to the likelihood of significant and widespread adverse events after its commercial launch, including risks related to patient discontinuation rates, lower patient adoption, prescriber reluctance, adverse regulatory action, and potential reputational and legal fallout. On August 15, 2025, the Soleno investor class action alleges that Scorpion Capital LLC published a critical report regarding Soleno, DCCR, and Soleno's Phase 3 clinical trial program, titled "Russian Roulette With Prader-Willi Children: How The Latest Rare Disease Price-Gouging Scheme Fleeced the FDA, Parents, And Its Own Study Investigators With A Worthless, Toxic Drug; Suspect Data; And Sham Clinical Trials To Push A $500K/Year Knockoff Of A 50-Year-Old Generic Compound -- Triggering One Of The Worst Launch Failures And Safety Catastrophes In Post-Approval History." On this news, the price of Soleno common stock declined nearly 12% over two trading days, the complaint alleges. Then, on September 10, 2025, Soleno filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a current event report on Form 8-K disclosing that a patient had died after taking DCCR, the Soleno shareholder lawsuit alleges. On this news, the price of Soleno common stock declined approximately 19% over two trading days, the complaint alleges. Finally, on November 4, 2025, Soleno reported its financial results for its third fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2025, revealing that the Scorpion Capital Report had caused a "disruption" in DCCR's launch trajectory and concerns within the PWS community, with a lower number of patient start forms and increased discontinuations beginning after the report's publication, the Soleno class action alleges. On this news, the price of Soleno common stock declined approximately 27%, the complaint alleges. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Soleno common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Soleno class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Soleno investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Soleno shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Soleno class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Contacts J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] SOLGAARD DESIGN: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SOLGAARD DESIGN, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00352-WED (E.D. Wis., March 4, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.solgaard.co including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.solgaard.co offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SPIRIT HOODS: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spirit Hoods, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00284 (N.D. Ind., March 4, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.spirithoods.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In addition, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reader-users. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Spirit Hoods, LLC owns and operates the website which offers faux fur apparel and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law SPROUTS FARMERS: Submission of Settlement Claims Due Aug 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Sprouts Farmers Market has agreed to a $5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing too many digits of debit and credit card numbers on customer receipts. The Sprouts settlement benefits consumers who used a personal credit or debit card at any Sprouts grocery store between Aug. 16, 2020, and Oct. 31, 2022, or who used an EBT card at any Sprouts grocery store between March 15, 2021, and April 15, 2023, and who received a receipt that printed more than the last five digits of their card number. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Sprouts printed more than the last five digits of customer credit and debit cards on transaction receipts. This practice allegedly violated FACTA, which requires businesses to truncate card numbers on receipts to protect consumers from fraud. Sprouts Farmers Market is a grocery store chain with locations in 23 states. Sprouts has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $5 million to resolve the receipt printing class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Sprouts Farmers Market settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. Sprouts has also agreed to implement a policy to comply with FACTA and only print the last five digits of credit and debit cards on customer receipts. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 7, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Sprouts Farmers Market settlement is scheduled for Nov. 19, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 5, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who used their personal credit or debit card at any Sprouts grocery store in the United States between Aug. 16, 2020, and Oct. 31, 2022, or who used their EBT card at any Sprouts location between March 15, 2021, and April 15, 2023, and who received a receipt that printed more than the last five digits of their card number. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Consumers who received a notice with a claim ID must submit a short-form claim form. Those who did not receive a notice must submit a long-form claim form and either a receipt or a card statement. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/08/2026 Case Name Tran, et al. v. Sprouts Farmers Market Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV26572, and Cohen v. Sprouts Farmers Market Inc., et al., Case No. 23STCV08339, both in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Final Hearing 11/19/2026 Settlement Website SettleInfo.com Claims Administrator Sprouts Farmers Market Settlement c/o Atticus Administration LLC P.O. Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 info@SettleInfo.com (800) 958-1026 Class Counsel Todd M. Friedman Adrian R. Bacon LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC Chant Yedalian CHANT & COMPANY A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Defense Counsel Faisal M. Zubairi Jessica M. Leano DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP [GN] STAFFING SYNERGIES: Sutton Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as TARYLL SUTTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAFFING SYNERGIES, INC., an unknown business entity; MENASHA PACKAGING COMPANY, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; MENASHA CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation; MENASHA GLOBAL, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2602481, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01100 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges eight class claims: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices. Staffing Synergies, Inc. is a privately-held company that operates in the human resources & employment services industry. Menasha Packaging Company LLC is one of the largest and most trusted packaging and display companies in the United States. Menasha Corporation is engaged in packaging and containers manufacturing. Menasha Global, LLC is a leading provider of packaging and merchandising solutions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ivo Labar, Esq. Rebecca Maclaren, Esq. SAWYER & LABAR LLP 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-262-3820 E-mail: labar@sawyerlabar.com maclaren@sawyerlabar.com - and - Michael Gogal, Esq. GOGAL LAW OFFICE, PC 5256 S. Mission Road, Suite 703 #5048 Bonsall, CA 92003 Telephone: 973-768-6654 E-mail: michael@gogal-law.com STATEWIDE REMODELING: Guadian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statewide Remodeling, Inc. The case is styled as Manuel Guadian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Statewide Remodeling, Inc., Case No. 2026DCV1187 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., March 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Statewide Remodeling -- https://www.statewideremodeling.com/ -- provides high-quality home remodeling solutions in Dallas to revamp your living space.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 STITCH FIX: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that a settlement was reached in a securities class suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by certain of its stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its Freestyle offering between June 2020 and June 2022, and the plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On Feb. 6, 2026, the parties signed a stipulation and agreement of settlement (the "Stipulation"), wherein the Company agreed to pay, or cause its insurance carriers to pay, $32.0 million in exchange for the release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the Securities Class Action, and on Feb. 10, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which remains pending court approval. The Company and each defendant expressly deny all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages, and the settlement is not an admission of violation of any law. The Stipulation and settlement, the amount of which is within the limits of the Company's insurance policies, are subject to court approval and other conditions. The settlement accrual and insurance recovery receivable are recorded in Accrued liabilities and Prepaid expenses and other current assets, respectively, on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of Jan. 31, 2026, and settlement expense, net of expected insurance recoveries, is recorded in Selling, general, and administrative expenses in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. The Company also notes that the settlement accrual is related to a specific class action lawsuit and is within the limits of the Company's insurance policies, and that non-ordinary course legal fees for the six months ended Jan. 31, 2026, include costs related to this specific class action lawsuit. Stitch Fix, Inc. is an online personal styling service that delivers curated selections of apparel and accessories to clients using a combination of data science and human stylists. STURDY MEMORIAL: Court Dismisses Google Analytics Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Deborah Caine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sturdy Memorial Hospital, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-10261-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and denied Plaintiff's motion to amend as moot on March 10, 2026. Sturdy Memorial is an integrated health system that offers emergency and urgent care, hospital-based care, and primary and specialty practices across thirty-two facilities in Massachusetts. Users can research medical conditions, treatment options, and doctors on its website. Patients can also log in to Sturdy Memorial's patient portal through the website to book appointments, communicate with providers, access medical records and lab results, and pay bills. Plaintiff Deborah Caine was a Sturdy Memorial patient from the 1990s through July 2023. During that time, she used the website frequently to research medical conditions and book appointments, and specifically to locate doctors and search for information concerning women's health that was pertinent to her. Caine alleged that Sturdy Memorial allowed Google to intercept patients' communications by embedding Google Analytics, a user-tracking technology, on its website. She alleged that Sturdy Memorial intercepted patients' protected health information (PHI) and individually identifiable health information (IIHI), and disclosed that PHI and IIHI to Google through at least July 2024. Because the embedded Google Analytics source code is invisible to users, these disclosures occurred without Caine's or other patients' consent or knowledge. She further alleged that Sturdy Memorial affirmatively chose not to opt in to a Google Analytics feature designed to anonymize IP address data. Caine alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Sections 2510-2522; Massachusetts privacy statutes under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B and ch. 111, Section 70E; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of implied contracts; and negligence. The parties' dispute turned on the applicability of the ECPA's crime-tort exception. Caine argued the exception applied because Sturdy Memorial captured and redirected her information to third parties without consent, thereby violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and intruding upon her seclusion. Defendant urged an interpretation requiring specific intent to commit a crime or tort, as well as intent to harm. The Court held that the statute does not require specific intent to commit a crime or tort, nor the intent to harm. According to the Court, Sturdy Memorial's lawful purposes, like marketing, do not preclude the possibility that its conduct might trigger Section 2511(2)(d). At the same time, the Court found that purpose is an essential element of the ECPA. Accordingly, to state a claim under the ECPA's crime-tort exception, Caine must plead facts showing that Sturdy Memorial purposefully, not merely knowingly or negligently, committed criminal or tortious acts. The Amended Complaint fell short of that standard. The Court found the facts too thin to support the inference that Sturdy Memorial installed the tracking tools for the purpose of acquiring IIHI without authorization. Likewise, the Court could not draw the inference that the health care system purposefully intruded on its patients' seclusion or privacy. Therefore, the ECPA claim failed and Count I was dismissed. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, finding that needless decisions of state law should be avoided as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties. Caine filed a motion to amend seeking to add the private health information Sturdy Memorial shared with Google and to redact that information so only Defendant and the Court may view it. The Court denied the motion as moot in light of its order granting dismissal. Accordingly, Sturdy Memorial's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend within 21 days. Plaintiff's motion to amend was denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HoME5y from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Sturdy Memorial Hospital, Inc. Represented By: Elizabeth Anne Scully Baker & Hostetler LLP 202-861-1698 escully@bakerlaw.com James H. Rollinson Baker & Hostetler LLP 216-861-7075 jrollinson@bakerlaw.com Plaintiff Deborah Caine Represented By: Elizabeth A. Ryan Bailey & Glasser 617-439-6730 eryan@baileyglasser.com John J. Roddy Bailey & Glasser 617-439-6730 jroddy@baileyglasser.com SUPER DEAL: Fails to Properly Pay Retail Store Staff, Rodas Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAYELI ELIZABETH BONILLA RODAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER DEAL OUTLET INC., SUPER DISCOUNT OUTLET INC., and JUDY WONG, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01330 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide proper time of hire wage notices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately October 2024 through September 2025. Super Deal Outlet Inc. is a retail business owner and operator in New York. Super Discount Outlet Inc. is a retail business owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bouklas, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 Email: james@bglawny.com SUPERPLAY LTD: Continues to Defend Morrow Class Suit in Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- Superplay Ltd. 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 it Continues to defend the Morrow class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On December 8, 2025, Toni Morrow filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against SuperPlay Ltd., relating to the game Dice Dreams. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the game constitutes unlawful gambling under Washington law and includes unfair and deceptive practices in connection with in-game purchase offers and purported “sales”, and seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief and restitution. The matter is in its preliminary stages. Accordingly, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. 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. SUPERPLAY LTD: Operates Illegal Gambling Enterprise, McLallen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRYSTIAUNA MCLALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERPLAY LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00111 (E.D. Wash., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Revised Code of Washington and Washington Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false advertising and promotion of its Superplay Gambling Platform. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises and promotes the Superplay Gambling Platform as a legitimate online business, but in reality, it is an unlawful gambling enterprise. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members lost money wagering on the Defendant's Superplay Gambling Platform. Superplay Ltd. is an owner and operator of online casino-style games, doing business in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC 450 Alaskan Way S., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 Email: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com SURF CITY AUTO GROUP: Esparza Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Surf City Auto Group, Inc. The case is styled as Angelic Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Surf City Auto Group, Inc. doing business as: Huntington Beach Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, Case No. 8:26-cv-00498 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Surf City Auto Group, Inc. doing business as Huntington Beach Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM -- https://www.hbchryslerdodgejeepram.com/ -- is a dealership serving Orange County has a great selection of new, used, pre-owned vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com SUSSEX PUBLISHERS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Vesely Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL VESELY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SUSSEX PUBLISHERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02518 (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendant's deployment of third-party tracking technologies on its website, www.psychologytoday.com The complaint relates that the Website, including the mobile site, serves as a core component of Defendant's digital presence. The Website provides consumers with access to articles on psychology, mental health, relationships, and sexuality, a therapist directory, self-assessment tools, and mental health resources, and functions as a primary consumer-acing platform through which users browse content and access mental health resources. The Website is integrated into Defendant's broader digital marketing and analytics infrastructure, and Defendant deploys tracking and measurement technologies on the Website to monitor page loads, navigation, and user interactions for advertising, attribution, analytics, and performance-measurement purposes. Through these technologies, third parties (1) intercepted and read the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications with the Website, including human-readable URLs identifying the specific editorial and commercial content accessed, in violation of California Penal Code and (2) captured dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information associated with those communications, including IP addresses and device identifiers, in violation of California Penal Code. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not knowingly or voluntarily agree to the interception of their communications or the capture of their routing and addressing information by third parties. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered a loss of control over personal data, emotional distress, and a violation of their constitutional right to privacy, says the suit. The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Class Members seeks injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing its deceptive and unlawful data tracking practices and to require clear and conspicuous notice and opt-in consent for any behavioral tracking involving third-party tools. Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Class Members, also seeks restitution of the value derived from the unauthorized use of their personal information, attorneys' fees where permitted by law, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiff DANIEL VESELY is a California citizen residing in Los Angeles County. He was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred on multiple days during the class period including on February 5, 2026. Defendant SUSSEX PUBLISHERS, LLC is a digital media company that publishes articles, blog posts, and resources on psychology, mental health, relationships, sexuality, and personal well-being.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com SYNAPSE BROKERAGE: Felton Sues Over Fund Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY FELTON, an individual, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNAPSE BROKERAGE LLC, a California limited liability company; SYNAPSE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., JEFFREY ALAN STANLEY, an individual; and MARK ELLIOT PAVERMAN, an individual, SANKAET PATHAK, an individual, DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02385 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2026) accuses the Defendants of orchestrating a scheme that transferred customer funds without authorization and operated in violation of regulatory requirements, causing the mismanagement of funds belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members who entrusted cash deposits to one or more banks via use of various financial technology platforms. According to the complaint, Synapse Fi and Synapse Brokerage, under the direction and control of Jeffrey Alan Stanley, Mark Elliot Paverman, and Sankaet Pathak, allegedly failed to adequately monitor, safeguard, and account for Plaintiff's and Class Members' funds in their control, leading to significant ledger discrepancies in account balances. These irregularities were materially inaccurate. As a result of the Synapse Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and Class Members had their funds lost, stolen, and/or misplaced, while the Synapse Defendants took no responsibility for their failures. Further, as a consequence of the Synapse Defendants' misconduct, banks have refused to return funds to these end users, leaving thousands of customers, like Plaintiff and Class Members, without access to their funds, says the suit. Synapse Brokerage LLC is a registered broker-dealer headquartered in San Francisco, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake J. Lindemann, Esq. Donna R. Dishbak, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC 9777 Wilshire Blvd., 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 279-5269 Facsimile: (310) 300-0267 E-mail: blake@lawbl.com TAK BROADBAND: Martinez Files Suit in D. South Dakota ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TAK Broadband, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAK Broadband, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-04045-CCT (D.S.D., March 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TAK Broadband -- https://www.takbroadband.com/ -- is a nationwide fiber broadband construction partner operating acrosss the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony P. Sutton Pamela R. Reiter REITER LAW FIRM, PROF. LLC 5032 S Bur Oak Place, Suite 205 Sioux Falls, SD 57108 Phone: (605) 705-2900 Email: anthony@reiterlawfirmsd.com pamela@reiterlawfirmsd.com TD BANK: Hastings Appeals NYGBL Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA HASTINGS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Joshua Hastings, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, NA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02336-HG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for its policy and practice of charging its New York customers a fee to receive their account billing statements in paper form via United States mail in violation of the New York General Business Law. On July 14, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Hector Gonzalez granted on Feb. 27, 2026. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The appellate case is styled as Joshua Hastings v. TD Bank, NA, Case No. 26-517, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSHUA HASTINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com Defendant-Appellee TD BANK, NA is represented by: Lucus A. Ritchie, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD LLP 254 Commercial Street Merrill's Wharf Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 791−1342 Facsimile: (207) 791−1350 Email: lritchie@pierceatwood.com - and - Mark B. Rosen, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD LLP One New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 350 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 433−6300 Facsimile: (603) 433−6372 Email: mrosen@pierceatwood.com TERMAS DEL ARAPAY: Faces Suit Over Illegal Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERMAS DEL ARAPAY MANAGEMENT S.A.; and BOL-SB HOUSE S.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01281-PCG (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2026) arises out of Defendants' operation of an illegal casino and online sports gambling platform that is prohibited under various state laws. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have repeatedly misled New York consumers that they can legally gamble through the BetOnline Gambling Platform. In reality, however, the Defendants operate offshore internet gambling websites that offer sports betting, casino games, and other games of chance to individuals located in New York, despite lacking any license or authorization from the State of New York. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' wrongful conduct and asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the New York General Obligation Law and New York General Business Law. Termas Del Arapay Management S.A. is a private company that operates the BetOnline Gambling Platform at Betonline.ag, Sportsbetting.ag, Tigergaming.com, WildCasino.ag, SuperSlots.ag, HighRollerCasino.ag, and QueenBeeCasino.ag. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Woodworth B. Winmill, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (201) 255-1316 E-mail: wwinmill@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Gabriel Mandler, Esq. Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 200-4316 E-mail: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com omer@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edwin Elliott, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com TILE SHOP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Orcel Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TILE SHOP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02246-CCC-SDA (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.tileshop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the tile, he wished to acquire from the website. Accordingly, 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. The Tile Shop, LLC owns and operates the website which offers tile products including porcelain, ceramic, marble, natural stone, mosaics, and accessories for residential and commercial spaces. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAN DONG, SARA HADI, and JUN IMAIZUMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-JLS-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their application to file under seal documents relating to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendants' motion to exclude Mr. Okcuoglu. Toyota requests that the documents, as follows: Exhibits 6, 7, 9, and 10 be filed under seal in their entirety and remain under seal; and Exhibits C, 1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 be filed and remain under seal consistent with the redactions proposed in the Exhibits attached to the Declaration of Lisa Weddle filed herewith. Toyota also requests that any references to Toyota's confidential information contained in the Toyota’s Opposition and its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Toyota’s Motion to Exclude, be filed and remain under seal consistent with the redactions reflected in Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Lisa Weddle filed herewith. Toyota submits the documents and information listed for filing under seal because they contain trade secrets and business confidential and proprietary information that Toyota designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order and because they meet the good cause and compelling reasons standards. These confidential materials have limited distribution even among Toyota and Lexus personnel and are not accessible to all employees. The exhibits containing confidential information for which sealing is requested fall into three categories of information: (1) vehicle design and development, (2) documents and information reflecting root cause investigation and countermeasure product design, testing, development and evaluation, and (3) data, including NSH data, survey data, lease and VSA data, and service market share data. Toyota is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ntywlp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David L. Schrader, Esq. Lisa R. Weddle, Esq. Evan A. Ormond, Esq. Matthew M. Papkin, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: david.schrader@morganlewis.com lisa.weddle@morganlewis.com evan.ormond@morganlewis.com matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com TOYOTA MOTORS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Hybrid Brake Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Maas, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a federal judge has rejected an attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Toyota, which alleges hundreds of thousands of Prius, Camry and Avalon and other hybrid vehicles were sold with defective braking systems prone to intermittent failure, placing passengers and drivers at risk of an auto accident. The complaint was originally filed over the Toyota hybrid brake problems in February 2020, presenting claims on behalf of owners of certain 2010 through 2015 Toyota Prius and Prius PHV, 2012 through 2015 Toyota Prius V, 2012 through 2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid, and 2013 to 2015 Toyota Avalon Hybrid vehicles that contain the defective braking systems. Problems with Toyota brake booster pumps have been reported for several years, with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) having recorded numerous statements from customers indicating the brakes on their Toyota vehicle consistently locked up, causing the vehicle to unexpectedly lunge forward or failing to engage when the brake pedal is depressed. The NHTSA also became aware of multiple accidents and injuries arising from the brake problems in certain Toyota vehicles. On July 20, 2020, Toyota filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint, arguing that the lawsuit did not contain sufficient facts to maintain the claims. In an order and opinion (PDF) issued last week, U.S. District Court Judge Amos L. Mazzant denied the motion, allowing the Toyota class action lawsuit to proceed forward. "After reviewing Plaintiffs' complaint, the Motion, the response, the reply, the sur-reply, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged sufficient facts to state claims for relief under the various asserted theories," Judge Mazzant determined. The complaint accuses Toyota of placing profits before the lives and safety of hundreds of thousands of drivers and passengers whose brakes are defective, but must wait for the potentially life-threatening brake booster defect to occur before the manufacturer will address it. According to one plaintiff named in the lawsuit, North Carolina resident Lois Felts, she was involved in a single vehicle collision on December 21, 2019, resulting from the brakes on her 2013 Toyota Camry failing to engage while driving at a low rate of speed. According to Felts, she continuously applied the brakes but the vehicle would not stop, causing the vehicle to continue across a three-lane highway and crash into a curb. Felt's reported her insurance carrier determined the vehicle a total loss. Several other members of the class claim to have suffered financial losses after paying for brake services at dealerships throughout the timeframe Toyota denied the problem. Despite several years and many other similar complaints of brake booster problems, Toyota failed to issue an recall, and has chosen to only extend the warranty and make repairs on vehicles that have experienced a brake failure, which could result in injuries or even deaths that could otherwise be avoided. The lawsuit presents claims of breach of warranties, false advertisement, illegal sales practices, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment and various other allegations on behalf hundreds of thousands of impacted vehicle owners across the nation. [GN] TRANSUNION RISK: Soares Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andre Soares, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc., Case No. 26STCV03211 was removed from the California State Superior Court Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02322 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Property Damage. TransUnion -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Randall W. Edwards, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Email: redwards@omm.com TRIP.COM GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Trip.com Group Limited, ("Trip.com" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TCOM) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between April 30, 2024 and January 13, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Camping World investors have until May 11, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via http://portnoylaw.com/trip-com-group-limited.The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. Trip.com, through its subsidiaries, operates as a travel service provider for accommodation reservation, transportation ticketing, packaged tours, in-destination, corporate travel management, and other travel-related services. The Trip.com class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that defendants recklessly understated the regulatory risk facing Trip.com as a result of its monopolistic business activities. The Trip.com class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 14, 2026, Bloomberg published an article titled "China Starts Antitrust Probe of Trip.com Ahead of Travel Peak," which stated that "China is investigating Trip.com . . . over alleged antitrust conduct, taking aim at the country's dominant online travel platform." The article further allegedly revealed that "[i]n September, the market regulator in Zhengzhou summoned Trip.com for violations of rules against setting 'unfair restrictions' on merchants' transactions and prices." On this news, the price of Trip.com American Depositary Shares fell approximately 19% over two trading sessions. [GN] TRUE RELIGION APPAREL: Latouche Suit Removed to D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Camille Latouche, and others similar situated v. TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC. and TRUE RELIGION SALES, LLC, Case No. C-24-CV-26-000738 was removed from the S Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00914-RDB. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA"), Maryland Code Ann. §§ 14-3001 et seq., by sending marketing emails with false and misleading information in the subject lines to consumers residing in Maryland. The Plaintiff seeks statutory and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elise M. Attridge, Esq. Rachel P. Raphael, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2541 Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 Email: elise.attridge@morganlewis.com rachel.raphael@morganlewis.com - and - Damon C. Elder, Esq. Katie Finrow, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Fax: (206) 274-6401 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com katie.finrow@morganlewis.com - and - Ari M. Selman, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178-0060 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Fax: (212) 309-6001 Email: ari.selman@morganlewis.com UNITED PARCEL: Harbourview Sues Over Illegal Import Tarriffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Harbourview Products International, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Parcel Service, Inc.; and UPS Supply Chain Solution, together, "UPS entities"; the United States of America, and the United States Customs and Border Protection Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01471-N/A (Ct. Intl. Trade, March 5, 2026) seeks for an injunction, declaratory relief, damages, and other relief on behalf of Plaintiff and a proposed Class of individuals and entities, who purchased goods subject to illegal tariffs imposed and collected by UPS entities arising out of Defendants’ collection of tariffs prohibited under federal and state law. Beginning in February 2025, through a series of executive orders, the President of the United States invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as authority to impose new and substantial tariffs (IEEPA tariffs) on goods imported from nearly every foreign country and eliminate the de minimus exception, including countries from which Plaintiff purchased goods. Plaintiff was responsible for paying these tariffs on its purchased goods, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that UPS illegally imposed import tariffs from April 2, 2025, and after both the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit ruled the tariffs and the underlying and subsequent executive orders were unlawful on May 28, 2025, and August 25, 2025, respectively, and the Supreme Court declared the IEEPA tariffs unlawful on February 20, 2026. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a shipping, receiving, and supply chain management company headquartered in Atlanta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. Kathleen E. Boychuck, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 53 West Jackson, Suite 1320 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 E-mail: LFanning@millerlawllc.com KBoychuck@millerlawllc.com Mmiller@millerlawllc.com UNITED STATES: McGee Sues Over Illegal Clawback Policy ------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS MCGEE, MD PA, APRIL E. LOPEZ, FNPBC, LLC DBA LOPEZ FAMILY CLINIC, BRIAN G. LODER, DPM, PLC DBA DETROIT FOOT AND ANKLE, HEALTHCARE HOUSECALLS LLC, AND INDY WOUND CENTER FOR LIMB PRESERVATION & RECONSTRUCTION DBA INDY WOUND CENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, DR. MEHMET OZ, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00243-O (N.D. Tex., March 4, 2026) seeks to address Defendants' alleged illegal and coordinated scheme to eradicate skin substitute industry that has helped hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering from chronic, non-healing wounds. Due to their efficacy, the Plaintiffs and other providers for many years have used skin substitutes to treat chronic wounds that failed to respond to conventional medical treatments, prescribing activities directly in line with well-established and long-standing guidelines under Medicare. The Plaintiffs' uses of skin substitute products are fully consistent with industry norms, historical use of these products, and even Medicare coverage standards. But now their use is being second-guessed and denied payment as part of Defendants' systematic campaign to shut down the industry using whatever means necessary. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to uphold the rule of law and stop Defendants' illegal Clawback Policy. The Department of Health & Human Services is an executive department in the United States government headquartered at 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert M. Hill, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 2601 Olive Street, Suite 2300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 764-4414 Facsimile: (214) 764-4601 E-mail: rhill@kslaw.com - and - Mark D. Polston, Esq. Nikesh Jindal, Esq. Ahsin Azim, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 E-mail: mpolston@kslaw.com njindal@kslaw.com aazim@kslaw.com - and - Kyle Gotchy, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 321-4800 Facsimile: (916) 321-4900 E-mail: kgotchy@kslaw.com - and - Paul d'Ambrosio, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 Facsimile: (312) 995-6330 E-mail: pdambrosio@kslaw.com - and - Preeya Noronha Pinto, Esq. Josh Gardner, Esq. Deborah Samenow, Esq. DLA PIPER 500 Eighth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 799-4000 E-mail: Preeya.pinto@us.dlapiper.com Josh.gardner@us.dlapiper.com Deborah.samenow@us.dlapiper.com - and - Allison Velez, Esq. One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7300 Telephone: (215) 656-3312 E-mail: Allison.Velez@us.dlapiper.com UNITED STATES: Taylor Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is styled as Teresa Taylor, on behalf of herself and individuals similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:26-cv-00357-MBH (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., March 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay - FLSA. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 318-0268 Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com VALET LIVING: Sued Over Failure to Comply to FCRA Requirements -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Murry, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VALET LIVING, LLC, Case 1:26-cv-01146-WMR-JSA (N.D. Ga., Feb. 26, 2026), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to comply to FCRA requirements. The Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and Other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA 's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. The Defendant's actions in violation Of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals. As such, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this Class Action Complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Valet Living, LLC, is engaged in the business of trash disposal in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V, Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Jayson Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: 816-281-7162 Email: iwatkins@sirillp.com VICTORIA: Settles COVID Hotel Quarantine Class Suit for $125MM -------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that the Victorian government has settled a multi-million-dollar class action by businesses shut down during the state's second wave of coronavirus in 2020. The compensation claim on behalf of thousands of businesses sought financial damages caused by alleged negligence in relation to Victoria's hotel quarantine program. Lawyers handling the class action said the $125 million settlement was agreed to on the eve of the trial, which had been due to begin on March 10. About 16,000 businesses registered for the class action, but they are yet to be assessed for eligibility. The legal action was taken against the State of Victoria, including former health minister Jenny Mikakos and former jobs and trade minister Martin Pakula, as well as key public servants in the Health, Human Services and Jobs departments. It was alleged that negligence in the program allowed COVID to escape from hotel quarantine, causing Victoria's second lockdown from July 2, 2020. Damian Scattini from legal firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, which handled the class action, said the settlement brought to an end years of "hard-fought litigation". "This is a significant outcome for eligible businesses. July to October 2020 was an extraordinarily difficult period for Victorian retail businesses," he said. "The $125 million settlement that we have achieved on their behalf is recognition of this hardship, and I hope it provides some measure of relief for eligible businesses." Victorian government frontbencher Gabrielle Williams said the state agreed to the settlement to protect against protracted legal proceedings that would have come at a high cost. In confirming the agreement, she said the global pandemic was unprecedented and that the Victorian government did the best it could to protect the community with the knowledge it had at the time. "We saw governments around the world work hard in the face of some incredibly frightening data that spoke about prospective harm to a community that we'd never seen before," Ms Williams said. "Governments did all they could around the world to make sure they were protecting their communities from potentially large-scale death, so we need to look at the actions that were taken in that frame." The settlement is yet to be approved by the Supreme Court of Victoria. [GN] VIVID DISTRIBUTING: Bathersfield Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivid Distributing LLC. The case is styled as Charles Bathersfield, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Vivid Distributing LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01344-WQH-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Vivid Distributing LLC -- https://www.vividracing.com/ -- offer quality performance car parts and accessories with fast shipping and huge discounts off retail.[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 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WATCH CONNECTION: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WATCH CONNECTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00354 (E.D. Wis., March 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thewatchconnection.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 9, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Watch Connection, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers brand-name watches for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Hess Sues Over Defective Grill Brush ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02657 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its metal wire grill brush products that were designed, manufactured, marketed and sold by Defendant with a defect, and later subject to a delayed, deficient, and inadequate recall. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff purchased one of the 18" black handle brushes (model number 6278) at a Home Depot in Hawthorne, New York in approximately July 2025. He used the Product to clean his grill, including when the grill was hot. On February 26, 2026, Defendant announced a recall. The Recall included Defendant's metal wire bristle grill brushes with plastic or wood handles measuring between 12 and 21 inches long, including models 6277, 6278, 6463, 6464, 6493, and 6494. The stated reason for the recall was that small metal wire bristles can detach from the brushes, stick to the grill or food, posing an ingestion hazard and risk of serious internal injuries that could require surgery. The complaint alleges that the Defendant was aware of the issues caused by metal wire bristles and continued to manufacture and sell the Products for years knowing that they contained the Defect. Defendant delayed the Recall, when it should have announced it many years ago. Furthermore, the Recall is inadequate. Defendant is offering a free cold cleaning nylon bristle grill brush as a replacement. However, metal wire brushes, which can be used on hot grills, are not the same as cold cleaning nylon bristle brushes, which cannot be used on hot grills. Further, Defendant is not offering any refund option as part of the Recall. Even more, the Recall is burdensome, with Defendant only allowing participation for those who still possess the Product, and requiring those consumers to download an app and then utilize the app to send an image of the brush, and also confirm destruction of the recalled Product in order to receive the replacement brush. The Defendant failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff prior to and at the time of purchase. Had Plaintiff known of the Defect, he would not have purchased the Product on the same terms or for the same price, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action on behalf of himself and the class seeking compensation for all consumers who purchased the Products that were subject to the Recall. Plaintiff STEVE HES is a resident of Briarcliff Manor, New York. He purchased at least one of Defendant's Products. Defendant WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS LLC is a manufacturer of various types of grills as well as grilling accessories intended to enhance the grilling experience, and has been selling products to consumers for over 70 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Mailing Address: 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: rsoffin@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Mailing Address: 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com - and - Nick Suciu III BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-2180 E-mail: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Malmstein Sues Over Defective Grill Brushes ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MALMSTEIN and GEOFFREY VONMAUCHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02655 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively advertising and marketing its Metal Wire Grill Brush Products to consumers. The complaint relates that Weber's grill cleaning product portfolio includes metal wire bristle grill brushes designed for use with outdoor grills. Weber's Metal Wire Bristle Grill Brushes bearing Model Numbers 6277, 6278, 6463, 6464, 6493, and 6494 are among Weber's widely marketed grill maintenance products. Weber manufactures these Products in China and Cambodia. These Products were manufactured and distributed to consumers throughout the United States with bristles that could detach during ordinary use, yet Weber did not disclose this material safety risk to consumers. The Plaintiffs and other consumers had a reasonable expectation that these Products would not pose a serious ingestion hazard, including the risk that metal bristles could detach during normal use, adhere to food, and be unknowingly ingested, which can cause internal injury, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a New York Subclass, a Colorado Subclass, and a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for: violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; New York General Business Law; Unjust Enrichment; Negligent Design; Negligent Failure to Warn; Negligence; and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Plaintiff Malmstein is a citizen of Colorado and owns the Weber 6464 18 Inch Bamboo Grill Brush, which he purchased on June 19, 2016, for $27.36. He purchased the Affected Product in reliance on Weber's reputation for producing safe and reliable grilling products. Plaintiff Geoffrey vonMaucher is a citizen of New York and owns a Weber grill brush that he purchased from Lowe's in approximately April or May 2024. Defendant Weber-Stephen Products, LLC is one of the largest outdoor cooking equipment companies in the United States. Weber designs, manufactures, markets, and sells a variety of metal-crafted products, including outdoor grills, smokers, grill accessories, and related cooking equipment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler Litke, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: mpollack@zlk.com WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Cohen Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Capital Lending, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Capital Lending, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00496 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. West Capital Lending -- https://www.westcapitallending.com/ -- is a leading Mortgage Brokerage and Direct Lender specializing in residential mortgage loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ZTEX CONSTRUCTION: "Ramirez" Settlement Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Miguel Ramirez Jr. and Alexis Teran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZTEX Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00146-DB (W.D. Tex.), the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement arising from a data incident involving Defendant's network. The Settlement Class is defined as all individuals residing in the United States whose personally identifiable information was allegedly involved in the data incident involving ZTEX Construction Inc.'s network, including all those individuals who received notice of the data incident. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judges presiding over this action and their staff and members of their direct families, Defendant, and Settlement Class Members who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the opt-out deadline. The Court found that it will likely be able to approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court also found that it will likely be able to certify the Settlement Class for purposes of judgment on the settlement because it meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Specifically, the Court found that: (a) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class Members would be impracticable; (b) there are issues of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are typical; (d) the Settlement Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class; (e) questions of law or fact common to Settlement Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and (f) a class action and class settlement is superior to other methods available for a fair and efficient resolution of this litigation. The Court appointed Miguel Ramirez Jr. and Alexis Teran as Settlement Class Representatives, and Brittany Resch of Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Leigh Montgomery of EKSM, LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). Upon preliminary review, the Court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant providing notice to the Settlement Class. In making this determination, the Court considered the monetary and non-monetary benefits provided to the Settlement Class, the specific risks faced by the Settlement Class in prevailing on their claims, the good faith, arms-length negotiations between the parties and the absence of any collusion, the effectiveness of the proposed method for distributing relief, and the equitable treatment of Settlement Class Members. The Court appointed Analytics Consulting LLC as Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and settlement administration. The Court approved the proposed notice program and found that the notice will constitute the best practicable notice to the Settlement Class, is reasonably calculated to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the action and their rights under the proposed settlement, and meets all applicable requirements of law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Any Settlement Class Member wishing to be excluded from the Settlement Class must submit a written request postmarked no later than the opt-out deadline, which is sixty days from the notice deadline. Settlement Class Members desiring to object must file a timely written objection with the Clerk of Court by the objection deadline, also sixty days from the notice deadline. A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for September 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. at the Albert Armendariz, Sr. United States Courthouse, 525 Magoffin Ave, El Paso, Texas 79901. At the hearing, the Court will determine, among other things, whether the settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and whether Settlement Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses should be approved. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zvVtuR from PacerMonitor.com Defendant ZTEX Construction, Inc. Represented By: Brent Sedge Sedge Law PLLC 940-435-3998 brent@sedge.law Plaintiff Miguel Ramirez, Jr. Represented By: Joe Kendall Kendall Law Group 214-744-3000 jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com Raina Borelli Straus Borrelli PLLC 872-263-1100 Brittany N. Resch Strauss Borrelli PLLC 872-263-1100 bresch@straussborrelli.com Plaintiff Alexis Teran Represented By: Leigh S. Montgomery Eksm, LLP 888-350-3931 lmontgomery@eksm.com Jarrett Lee Ellzey Ellzey & Associates PLLC 888-350-3931 jarrett@ellzeylaw.com Brittany N. Resch Strauss Borrelli PLLC 872-263-1100 bresch@straussborrelli.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,677 PI Claims as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We were defending 3,677 claims as of December 31, 2025. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2025 we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,079 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $10.9 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims. "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was defending against 7,675 claims as of December 31, 2025, only twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and only $15,000 in settlement costs have been incurred since 2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999 and has its own insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard reservation of rights." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0oFvah ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Has $1.3MM Litigation Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------ CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC, relative to its former Dean Pump division, has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Asbestos litigation expenses were $1.3 million, $0.2 million, and zero for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024, and 2023, respectively. "While we divested of the fluid handling business (also known as the Global Pump Solutions business) in the first quarter of 2025, we retained historical asbestos liabilities and the related legacy insurance policies. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including mesothelioma and death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Our insurers have hired attorneys who, together with us, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to identify or produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases, where evidence has been produced, our experience has been that the exposure levels are low and our position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. We have been dismissed from a large number of these cases, with a small number of these dismissals resulting in immaterial settlements. We also presently believe that none of the pending cases will have a material impact upon our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yg9cW2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Faces 1,300 New PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Holdings, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. During the year ended December 31, 2025, Crown Cork received approximately 1,300 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately 700 claims, and had approximately 59,900 claims outstanding at the end of the period. Of the Company's outstanding claims, approximately 18,000 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964 and approximately 41,900 relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 1,300 were filed in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have enacted asbestos legislation, and 21,600 were filed in other states. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the claims were filed in states where the Company's liability is limited by statute. The Company devotes significant time and expense to defend against these various claims, complaints and proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the expenses or distractions from operating the Company's business arising from these defenses will not increase materially. Crown Cork made cash payments of $19 million, $15 million, and $17 million in 2025, 2024, and 2023, respectively, to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal and defense costs. These payments and any such future payments will reduce the cash flow available to Crown Cork for its business operations and debt payments. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bvetFq ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Defends 11,070 Claims as of Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2025, there were approximately 11,070 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Along with Chevron USA and Syngenta AG, FMC has been named in approximately 1,300 cases pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program. In general, plaintiffs allege they were exposed to paraquat, and as a result of this exposure, they developed disease or other health conditions. Chevron and Syngenta (or their predecessors) were registrants of paraquat products in the United States. FMC is not aware of ever having registered any paraquat product in the United States. FMC believes the Company has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Court in Philadelphia has set a series of bellwether trial dates throughout 2026. FMC has been dismissed from the first trial case. "Since the 1980s, approximately 126,337 asbestos claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant. Since the 1980s, settlements with claimants have totaled approximately $256 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4nNniz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Has $0.3MM Liability as of Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of Forum Energy Technologies, Inc.'s subsidiaries has been and continues to be named as a defendant in asbestos-related product liability actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2025, our subsidiary has a net liability of $0.3 million for the estimated indemnity cost associated with the resolution of its current open claims and future claims anticipated to be filed during the next five years. "Due to a number of uncertainties, the actual costs of resolving these pending claims could be substantially higher than the current estimate. Among these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of lawsuits filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos suits or of our insurers, and potential legislative changes and uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case. In addition, future claims beyond the five-year forecast period are possible, but the accrual does not cover losses that may arise from such additional future claims. Therefore, any such future claims could result in a loss. "Significant costs are incurred in defending asbestos claims and these costs are recorded at the time incurred. Receipt of reimbursement from our insurers may be delayed for a variety of reasons. In particular, if our primary insurers claim that certain policy limits have been exhausted, we may be delayed in receiving reimbursement due to the transition from one set of insurers to another. Our excess insurers may also dispute the claims of exhaustion, or may rely on certain policy requirements to delay or deny claims. Furthermore, the various per occurrence and aggregate limits in different insurance policies may result in extended negotiations or the denial of reimbursement for particular claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lRFsAA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends 3,584 Exposure Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Graybar Electric Company, Inc., as of December 31, 2025, has 3,584 individual cases and 56 multiple-plaintiff cases pending that allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products they allegedly sold, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Moreover, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these uncertainties, we believe that our asbestos reserves represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes, over an extended period of time, less than or equal to recorded corresponding anticipated recoverable insurance proceeds. As part of the process to develop these off-setting estimates of future asbestos costs and insurance proceeds, a range of long-term cost and recovery models of future asbestos costs was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos related diseases and are influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and defense costs, as well as other variables previously mentioned. Because any of these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wwFokn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Paper Has $103MM PI Liability at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both U.S. state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies they previously acquired, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $103 million and $100 million net of insurance recoveries as of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnrWem ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 120 Pending Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "There are 120 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 598 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rn7rbF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 116 Personal Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., was a co-defendant in approximately 116 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 160 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wouP64 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 591 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2025, TriMas Corporation was a party to 591 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,080 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. TriMas Corp. states, "In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. "The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 5,080 claims pending at December 31, 2025, 33 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At December 31, 2025, of the 33 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sRdB33 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Berkley Has $13MM A&E Losses at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Berkley Corporation has recorded net reserves for losses and loss expenses relating to environmental and asbestos claims on policies written before adoption of the absolute exclusion of $13 million and $16 million at December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The estimation of these liabilities is subject to significantly greater than normal variation and uncertainty because it is difficult to make an actuarial estimate of these liabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted actuarial methodology for these exposures and the potential effect of significant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues, as well as the cost of litigating the legal issues. Additionally, the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation of such damages to financially responsible parties are highly uncertain." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sa0XFA ASBESTOS UPDATE: WAG Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- A wholly-owned subsidiary of CarParts.com, Inc., Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U264kt ********* 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 ***