260330.mbx

260330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 30, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 63 Headlines 512 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS: Heal Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages 6 NORTH OCEAN: Valle Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ACCENTURE LLP: Faces Long Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ACCENTURE PLC: Continues to Defend Consumers' Data Breach Suit AGILITY INSURANCE SERVICES: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona AIR GP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Phelps Suit Due July 6 AKARA RESOURCES: Liable in Environmental Suit, Thai Court Rules ALIGHT INC: McCarty Sues Over Share Price Drop ALTRIA GROUP: Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' Notice Approved ALTRIA GROUP: IPP Class Cert. Notice Plan Approved in Reece Suit ALUMIS INC: Bid to Dismiss Boukadoum Securities Suit Pending AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Portions in Wilson Permanently Sealed AMAZON.COM INC: Must Oppose Brown Class Cert Bid by June 2 AMERICAN TAX DEFENSE: Escarcega Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. AMIVIE LLC: Collins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay APPLE INC: Seeks to File Portions of Exhibits Under Seal AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Investors May Claim Contingency Fee Deal ARCHWAY MARKETING: Sroka Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ARIZONA TRUCKING: Underpays Company Truck Drivers, Abeyta Says ATLAS REALITY: Kizziah Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices AURORA, CO: Collection Action Partly Gets Conditional Certification B&B FELTMAN: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, See Suit Says BALANCE AUTISM: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit BANK OF AMERICA: Warshaw Seeks to Amend Dismissal Order BANZA LLC: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BARBARA BLOZEN: Jolly Files Suit in S.D. California BAYSTATE HEALTH: Judge Denies Bids to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit BCI ACRYLIC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hoffman Due Jan. 8, 2027 BED BATH: Bennett Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. BED-STUY FISH: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Zhang Says BERNSTEIN MANAGEMENT: Wynter Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action BEST HOME PROJECTS: Malloy Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California BIG BRAND: McPhee Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. BRINKER DATA: Bid to Indefinitely Seal Records OK'd BUILDING MATERIALS: Jacson Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. C-SHARPE CO: Procures Consumer Reports Without Consent, Suit Says CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Due Jan. 22, 2027 CALIFORNIA: Denial of Summary Judgment in Murillo v. CDCR Reversed CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS: Garcia Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CAMELBACK ADMINISTRATIVE: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona CAPITAL ONE: Settles ERISA Class Action Lawsuit for $9.6 Million CARE BIG LLC: Capezutto Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CARGURUS INC: Remi Files Suit in D. Massachusetts CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Harris Says CHARLOTTESVILLE SETTLEMENT: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach CHELSEA SENIOR LIVING: Davila Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 CHRISTOPHER DELGADO: T & C Investing Files Suit in S.D. Florida CINEMARK USA: Wins Bid to Dismiss Underfilled Beer Class Suit CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE: Yu Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI COMERICA BANK: Standing Order Entered in Lukis Class Suit COMFORT KEEPERS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMPANY STORE: Erwin Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS: Scagnelli Sues Over Compromised Info CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Alleging Investor Harm CONTINENTAL FOOD: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Church et al. Sue Over Unlawful Mass Arrest COTY INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violation CVS PHARMACY: Bid to Amend Class Definition Tossed DARREN K. INDYKE: Epstein Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 16 DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC: Ferrell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages DESTINATION XL: Dodson Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. DOLLAR TREE: Sued for Printing Many Card Digits, Violating FACTA DOMTAR PAPER: Enochs and Williams Sue Over Odor Emissions DONALD TRUMP: Dickinson Wins Provisional Class Cert Bid DRIVEN BRANDS: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 1 DUO FIT: Faces Craft Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EL CARNALITO BARRAGAN: Vargas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ELAUWIT CONNECTION: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Dismisses "Stern" Consumer Class Action ELON MUSK: Liable for Misleading Investors During Twitter Purchase EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Yenikieiev Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Ohio ESSEN MEDICAL: Agrees to $4 Million Data Breach Class Settlement EXPEDIA GROUP: Mata's Partial Class Cert Bid Tossed EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Seeks to Modify Class Cert Schedule FABLETICS LLC: Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Illegal Tariff Fees FAIRFAX COUNTY: Dismissal of Disability Suit v. School Board Upheld FARM COUNTRY KITCHEN: Rogacki Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FEDERAL SAVINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 9, 2027 FEDEX CORPORATION: Avalos Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Fees FIDELITY NATIONAL: $210MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9 FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Fricker Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection FIVE BELOW: Bid to Consolidate Two Derivative Suits for Court OK FIVE BELOW: Consolidated Shareholders Derivative Suit Stayed FIVE BELOW: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing FLAMINGO PLAZA: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says FLEET FINANCE INC: Murray Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado FLOATME CORP: Appeals Arbitration Order in Burrison MLA Suit FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Miller Suit Due June 5 FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Nelson Suit Due May 5 FRAPORT AG: Faces Environmental Destruction Class Suit in Brazil GARTNER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 18 GARTNER INC: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Decline of Common Stock Price GARY HONDA: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Florida's Local Rules GEISINGER AND EVANGELICAL: Judge Approves $28.5MM Class Settlement GEMINI SPACE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 18 GENERAL MOTORS: Court Mandates Complete Eight-Speed Replacements GENESCO INC: Summary Judgment in Thompson TCPA Suit Affirmed GEORGE FOREMAN: Scheduling Conference Set for May 14 GLOCK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Chamber Defect in Pistols GOLD MEDAL: Bid for Collective & Class Cert in Schaffer Due July 8 GOOGLE INC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Documents Partly OK'd GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Crowell Due July 20, 2027 GREAT AMERICAN: Tavakolian Can File Renewed Class Cert Bid GREENSKY INC: Seeks to Decertify Class in Belyea Suit GREYSTAR REAL: Continuance of Scheduling Order Sought GROCERY OUTLET: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit HAPPY HIPPO: Class Certification Deadlines in L.S. Suit Stayed HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Bid to File Overlength Brief OK'd HEARTLAND EXPRESS INC: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HERCULES CAPITAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit HERTZ GLOBAL: Derivative Settlement to be Heard on June 3 HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL: Nalamada Sues Over Securities Fraud HOPE THE MISSION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Alleges HUMANA INC: McKinney Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky HUMANA INC: Norris Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Brown Suit Alleges ERISA Violations ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Kainz Lawsuit ILLINOIS: Watts Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees INTELLICHECK INC: Sued Over Bylaws' Director Removal Provision INTERVET INC: Bid for Class Certification in Palmieri Due April 1 INTEX COATINGS: Bracho Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHN SHAHIDI: Smith Bid for Class Certification Tossed KAG MERCHANT: Lara Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KANSAS: Dispositive Bid in Hartsell Suit Extended to April 3 KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Caine Alleges KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Abittan Alleges KELLOGG CO: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissals of Reichert and Watt Suits KENNEDY-WILSON HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to a Consortium KIA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Carnival Sliding Door Suit KINDRED CONCEPTS: Ruz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California KOCH FERTILIZER: Conspires to Fix Fertlizer Prices, Matson Says LENS.COM: Bid to Strike Plaintiff Expert Witness in "Martin" Denied LGI HOMES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harbour Suit Due Dec. 1 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal LIVIONEX INC: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store LOS ANGELES, CA: Dismissal of McCarty's 4th & 5th Am. Claims Upheld LUFAX HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit LYNN FITCH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response M.I. INDUSTRIES: Flick Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Food Products MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Narrows Claims in "Bishins" MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Merrell MASSACHUSETTS: Dismissal of Narrigan Class Suit v. Treasurer Upheld MATHESON TRI-GAS: Darby Suit Removed to E.D. California MERCY HEALTH: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response MEREO BIOPHARMA: Faces Dodge Class Suit in New York META PLATFORMS: Beltran Sues Over AI Glasses' Data-Collection META PLATFORMS: Class Cert. & Sealing Deadlines Extended META PLATFORMS: Kosari Sues Over Unlawful Use of Private Recordings META PLATFORMS: Levian Files Suit in N.D. California MGM PROPERTY: Smith Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint MISSISSIPPI: Jackson Wins Bid to Certify Collective Action MISSOURI: Hersh Suit Seeks Class Certification MIZUNO USA: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK MONDAY.COM LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 MONSANTO COMPANY: Cook Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Covington Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Daly Sues Over Wrongful Advertising of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Exline Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Giza Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Berriel Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Gensler Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Gilbert Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Kirkman Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Toxic Glyphosate, Fry Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Justice Roundup Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio MONSANTO COMPANY: Ullery Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSTER BEVERAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hollien Due April 9 MYLAN NV: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 15 NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Flores Suit NAVIDIUM APP: Duskey and Kuhlman Sue Over Deceptive Junk Fees NAVIENT CORP: Class Cert. Reply Briefs Due April 24 NEURAXIS INC: Bhambhani Bid to Certify Class Pending NEW JERSEY: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Hernandez Suit NEW YORK: Court Tosses Rikers Strip Search Suit NEW YUNG WAH: Xia Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd NEWELL BRANDS INC: Kuntzsch Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NICE-PAK PRODUCTS: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial OK NINKASI HOLDING: Midler Securities Suit Removed to D. Ore. NORTH CAROLINA: Court OKs County Property Owners' Illegal Fees NUMERO GROUP: Battle Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: $11.5-Mil. Deal Final OK Hearing on Aug. 13 ODDITY TECH: Peters Sues Over Exchange Act Violation OLIN CORP: Husch Blackwell Wins Complex ERISA Class Dispute OLIVE TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kowalewski Alleges ONTRACK LOGISTICS: Arteaga Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages PAIGE LLC: McKinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PAYSAFE LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 7 PENNSYLVANIA: Howard Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. PETCO HEALTH: Maiman Sues Over Mislabeled Grain Free Dog Products PG&E CORP: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 25 PHOTOBUCKET INC: Court Stays Pierce Suit Pending Arbitration PIH HEALTH INC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Barlow Says POLISHED.COM INC: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed PORTLAND LEATHER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 23 POST CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in Cortez Suit POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $17.25MM PROFIT COOKERS: Mollins Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PROLIANCE SURGEONS: $4.45M Deal Final Fairness Hearing Set June 26 QUALITY BACK: Withholds Retirement Contributions, Sievers Claims REGENTS UNIVERSITY: Wexler Bid for Recusal Tossed RELIABLE INSURANCE: Gavidia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California RIDE AVENTON: Faces Brennan TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif. SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Emails and Sales SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Rush Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri SENTINELONE INC: Dismissal of Johansson Class Suit Under Appeal SKYWAY CONCESSION: ArentFox Secures Dismissal of Class Action Suit SLASHOP INC: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SOLEO HEALTH: Kline Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Suit Due April 6 SPRINKLR INC: Bid to Dismiss Boshart Securities Suit Pending SPRINKLR INC: Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed STAPLES INC: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Carroll Says STELLANTIS NV: "Long" Securities Fraud Claims Tossed SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT: Glingoa Files Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Alexander Suit SUNPOWER CORP: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 25 SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims TACO BELL IP HOLDER: Yoshida Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Hearing in Merrell Suit Due April 6 TARGET CORPORATION: Buckmaster Seeks Prelim Nod of Settlement TEXAS: Adimora-Nweke Balks at Improper Driver's License Renewal Fee TOUCH OF MODERN: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Mixon Suit Tossed TRANSAMERICA LIFE: "Rogoff" Class Suit Remanded to Federal Court ULTRACORE SYSTEMS: Yoshida Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California UNITED NETWORK: Bid for Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal OK'd UNITED NETWORK: Rowe Seeks to Certify Kidney Disease Patient Class UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Certification Order in Dickinson Suit US MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach VAIL RESORTS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Inflated Prices VALOR TECHNICAL: Class Cert. Hearing in Thornton Set for June 29 VALVE CORP: Flauto and Meyer Sue Over Gambling Law Violations VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon False Ads Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. VGW HOLDINGS: Cox Gambling Suit Removed to D. Conn. WELLS FARGO: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to April 16 WEST VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Denies N. Henry's Mandamus Petition WESTERN EXPRESS: Removes Brown Suit from Cal. Super. to C.D. Cal. WESTERN UNION: Illegally Tracks Website Users' Info, Rodriguez Says WESTGATE RESORTS: Wins Bid to End "Helms" Commission Class Suit WHIRLPOOL CORP: Refrigerators' Suit Fairness Hearing Set July 9 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Removes Cintron Suit to C.D. Calif. WVMF FUNDING: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Renois by May 1 WYNN RESORTS: Emerson Sues Over Unprotected Private Information YATTA OUTSOURCED: Barnes Sues Over Illegal Loan Interest Rates YUMA REGIONAL: Case Management Order Entered in Clarke Class Suit ZTEX CONSTRUCTION: Settlement Final OK Hearing Set for Sept. 2 ZYNEX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 21 ********* 512 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS: Heal Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Clifton M. Heal, and all others similarly situated v. 512 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC, LULING SPORT, LLC, and BRANDON DADY, Case No. 1:26-cv-00588 (W.D. Tex., March 11, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, their overtime wages as required under the FLSA. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment and the employment of most, if not all, workers, the Defendants misclassified their workers as independent contractors and only paid straight time for all hours worked, including hours which exceeded 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from September 26, 2025 through January 10, 2026, performing building maintenance work. The Defendants own and/or operate a golf course in Luling, Texas known as Luling Sport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS SCALISE BEELER AND PILLISCHER LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 Email: charles@rosslawgroup.com 6 NORTH OCEAN: Valle Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Yefrin Gutierrez Valle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 6 NORTH OCEAN CONCEPTS INC. d/b/a CAJUN CLAWS OF PATCHOGUE, and XIANG LIN a/k/a SKY LIN, Case No. 2:26-cv-01419 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' unlawful actions and to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff worked over forty hours per week and was paid a day rate that failed to compensate him for hours worked over forty per workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay Gutierrez spread-of-hours pay when his shifts spanned more than ten hours per day, provide him with wage statements with each payment of wages or wage notices upon hire or whenever his rate of pay changed, and timely pay him his wages no later than seven calendar days after the end of each workweek., says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher, food preparer, and cook at Cajun Claws. 6 North Ocean Concepts Inc. owns, operates, and does business as Cajun Claws of Patchogue, a restaurant located in Patchogue, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. Miguel Tapia Colin, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com tapiacolin@pechmanlaw.com ACCENTURE LLP: Faces Long Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ LASHUNDA LONG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCENTURE LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02944 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2026) is a collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who worked for Accenture as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees and were unlawfully denied wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to credit and pay employees for all compensable work time performed, including by requiring or permitting employees to perform work off the clock or otherwise outside the time credited for compensation, resulting in unpaid straight time and unpaid overtime hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff also brings individual claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for sexual harassment and retaliation. She was subjected to unwelcome physical contact and sexual harassment by her supervisor. After Plaintiff reported the harassment, the Defendant subjected her to adverse treatment, including actions affecting her work assignments and employment status. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee beginning in March 2025 through her separation from employment in November 2025. Accenture LLP provides management consulting and professional services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com ACCENTURE PLC: Continues to Defend Consumers' Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Accenture plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending Feb. 28, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consumers' data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. (Marriott) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on July 24, 2019. The complaint alleges negligence by Accenture and seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc. (Starwood), which was acquired by Marriott on Sept. 23, 2016. Since 2009, Accenture has provided certain IT infrastructure outsourcing services to Starwood. On May 3, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part the plaintiffs motion for class certification, which Accenture appealed. On Aug. 17, 2023, the appeals court vacated the class certification and remanded the case to the district court for consideration of, among other things, the class action waiver signed by Starwood customer plaintiffs. On Nov. 29, 2023, the district court reinstated the classes previously certified by the court in May 2022. Accenture appealed the district court's decision, and on June 3, 2025, the appeals court again reversed the class certification and declined to order another remand to the district court on those certification issues. Accenture continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend it, and at present does not believe any losses from this matter will have a material effect on its results of operations or financial condition. Accenture plc is a global professional services company that provides strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations services to clients in a broad range of industries worldwide. AGILITY INSURANCE SERVICES: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agility Insurance Services LLC. The case is styled as Jonathan Ryan Bahr, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Agility Insurance Services LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01756-JAT (D. Ariz., March 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Agility Insurance Services -- https://www.enrollinsurance.com/ -- offers life & health agents contracting, training, marketing, and beyond.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com AIR GP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Phelps Suit Due July 6 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marc Phelps, et al., v. Air GP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04894-MCS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Non-expert discovery cut-Off: Dec. 11, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Feb. 5, 2027 Deadline to file a motion for class July 6, 2026 certification: Deadline to file an opposition to the July 27, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support of Aug. 17, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class Sept. 14, 2026, certification: at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=URot8Q at no extra charge.[CC] AKARA RESOURCES: Liable in Environmental Suit, Thai Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Siddhi Joshi, writing for Jurist News, reports that a Thailand court on Tuesday, March 23, held Akara Resources PLC, operator of the Chatree Gold Mine in northern Thailand, liable for environmental damage and adverse health impacts suffered by surrounding communities, in what stands as the nation's first environmental class action suit. The case was brought by more than 300 villagers from Phichit and Phetchabun provinces, who alleged that prolonged mining operations had caused toxic contamination that harmed their health, environment, and livelihoods in what marks as Thailand's first environmental class action suit. Evidence presented by plaintiffs included medical surveys indicating elevated levels of heavy metals such as arsenic, cyanide, and manganese in residents, alongside environmental data suggesting contamination of water sources and agricultural land. The court determined that the company failed to sufficiently demonstrate that these harms were unrelated to its operations, thereby affirming liability. It ordered the company to pay compensation ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 baht per claimant, in addition to covering medical expenses and damages for emotional distress. The judgment comes following prolonged dispute involving the Chatree mine, which has been the subject of litigation, regulatory action, and international arbitration for nearly a decade. Concerns over contamination were first raised in 2015, when investigations found that hundreds of villagers living near the mine had abnormal levels of heavy metals in their blood, raising risks of serious health conditions. In 2016, the government, under the leadership of then-prime minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, ordered the suspension of mining operations using special executive powers, citing environmental and public health concerns. The move triggered a separate legal dispute when Kingsgate Consolidated Limited, the Australian parent company of Akara Resources, initiated international arbitration proceedings against Thailand in 2017, alleging unlawful revocation of its mining license. That dispute was resolved when Kingsgate withdrew its claim against the government. However, the class action brought by affected villagers proceeded independently, focusing on accountability and compensation for community-level harm. The non-profit Manushya Foundation petitioned the UN alleging human rights violations linked to the mine alongside affected communities in Phichit and Phetchabun. UN experts subsequently issued communications to the Thai and Australian governments, as well as the companies involved. Akara later submitted a detailed report to the UN disputing the allegations, which the foundation challenged through a fact-checking report drawing on community testimonies and public records. The outcome reinforces the application of the "polluter pays" principle within Thailand's domestic legal framework. Broadly, the judgment aligns with a growing global trend of climate and environmental litigation, where communities seek to hold corporations accountable for ecological damage and associated human rights impacts. [GN] ALIGHT INC: McCarty Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------- JEREMY MCCARTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALIGHT, INC., DAVID D. GUILMETTE, and JEREMY J. HEATON, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02924 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Alight common stock between November 12, 2024, to February 18, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Alight's prospects under its new chief executive officer, Defendant Guilmette, the Company's "commitment to a consistent return of capital," its projected capability to moderate the decline of Alight's project revenue growth rate, and the Company's overall ability to meet projected revenue and margin targets. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Alight's growth potential and financial stability; notably, that the Company was not truly equipped to execute on its claimed potential and could not maintain its promised dividend as a result. Rather, Alight would require significantly higher compensation and incentive expenses to achieve the projections put forth by management. Throughout the class period, the Defendants announced disappointing results, reduced projections, and multiple goodwill impairments all while remaining confident in their ability to execute, drive growth, and continue to provide a dividend to their shareholders. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Alight's securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. Investors began to question the veracity of Defendants' public statements on August 5, 2025, during Alight's second quarter earnings report, notes the complaint. In pertinent part, Defendants announced disappointing results and cut their revenue guidance for the year, resetting investor expectations. The full truth did not finally emerge until February 19, 2026, when Alight announced a significant earnings shortfall against its prior guidance, alongside further shortfalls for bookings and project revenue growth. Alight's new management noted the Company failed to "meet our internal financial targets and new bookings and renewals did not meet our expectations, leading us to miss our forecast to the market." The complaint relates that investors and analysts reacted promptly to Alight's revelations. The price of Alight's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $1.31 per share on February 18, 2026, Alight's stock price fell to $0.81 per share on February 19, 2026, a decline of nearly 38% in the span of one day. Notably, the stock had now fallen approximately $6.85, or nearly 90% over the course of the instant class period, the suit alleges. Alight, Inc. is an employee benefits solutions company which provides technology-enabled services to employees through the Alight Worklife cloud engagement platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Lubin, Esq. DITOMMASO LUBIN, PC 17W220 22nd Street, Ste. 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 333-0333 E-mail: Peter@d-l.law - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com ALTRIA GROUP: Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' Notice Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order approving Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' class certification notice plan. 1. The Court finds that the proposed postcard and long-form notice attached to the Eshaghian Declaration, and the proposed manner of disseminating notice, satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and principles of due process and are otherwise fair and reasonable. For this reason, the Court approves the proposed forms and manner of notice and provides the following directives regarding implementation. 2. The Court appoints KCC Class Action Services, LLC dba Verita as the Class Certification Notice Administrator to disseminate notice to Class members and process and engage in follow-up communications. 3. By 14 days after entry of this Order, Verita shall cause a postcard notice substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Eshagian Declaration to be mailed to the last-known address of identified class members. 4. By 14 days after entry of this Order, Verita shall cause a press release substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Eshagian Declaration to be disseminated. Altria manufactures and sells cigarettes and other tobacco products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJgAyr at no extra charge.[CC] ALTRIA GROUP: IPP Class Cert. Notice Plan Approved in Reece Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reece v. Altria Group, Inc. et al (RE: JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order approving the Indirect purchaser Plaintiffs' class certification notice plan as follows: 1. The Court finds that the proposed Notice Plan which includes direct email, digital notice, sponsored searches, informational release, website, and long-form notice attached to the Azari Declaration, and the proposed manner of disseminating notice, satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and principles of due process and are otherwise fair and reasonable. For this reason, the Court approves the proposed forms and manner of notice and provides the following directives regarding implementation. 2. The Court appoints Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq") as the Class Certification Notice Administrator to disseminate notice to indirect purchaser plaintiffs class members and process and engage in follow-up communications. 3. By 14 days after entry of this Order, Epiq shall cause emails to be sent to the last known email addresses of identified potential class members; 4. By 21 days after entry of this Order, Epiq shall commence digital advertising on Google Display Network, Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter), and Reddit, as outlined in the Azari Declaration. 5. The deadline to request exclusion from the certified classes is 60 days after entry of this Order. Altria is an American tobacco corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KYlWWP at no extra charge.[CC] ALUMIS INC: Bid to Dismiss Boukadoum Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Alumis 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 19, 2026, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the Boukadoum federal securities class suit second amendment complaint is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 15, 2023, a purported federal securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On Feb. 15, 2024, the court appointed joint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. An amended complaint was filed on March 26, 2024 (Boukadoum v. Acelyrin, Inc. et al., No. 2:23-cv-09672-FMO-MAA), naming Acelyrin, Inc. and then-current and former executive officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act and Securities Act by misleading investors about the Phase 2b trial of izokibep in hidradenitis suppurativa. The original complaint was filed following Acelyrin, Inc.'s announcement of the week 16 results from the Part B portion of such Phase 2b trial. The amended complaint seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, as well as such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On May 3, 2024, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted by the court, with leave to amend, in January 2026. On Feb. 5, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, as well as such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On Feb. 19, 2026, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which remains pending. Alumis Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing novel therapeutics for the treatment of immune-mediated diseases. AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Portions in Wilson Permanently Sealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order permanently sealing portions of class certification and Daubert briefing. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S4C22z at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Must Oppose Brown Class Cert Bid by June 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification briefing schedule. Amazon's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion June 2, 2026 for class certification; Amazon's Daubert motion(s): The Plaintiffs' Reply ISO Class Certification; Sept. 30, 2026 the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s); the Plaintiffs' response in opposition to Amazon's Daubert motion(s): Amazon's Daubert motion(s) following Nov. 19, 2026 reply expert reports, if any: The Plaintiffs' reply ISO Plaintiffs' Daubert Feb. 8, 2027 motion(s): Amazon's reply ISO Amazon's Daubert Feb. 8, 2027 motion(s) following reply expert reports, if any: The parties agree that good cause exists to grant a 60-day extension of Amazon's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion to allow time to fully and effectively brief the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motion. The parties further agree that the total number of hours that any expert may be deposed in connection with class certification is seven hours. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Dec. 19, 2025. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k1nBYO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Alicia Cobb, Esq. Matthew Hosen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMERICAN TAX DEFENSE: Escarcega Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Tax Defense. The case is styled as Oscar Escarcega and Manuel Guadian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Tax Defense, Case No. 2026DCV1331 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., March 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." American Tax Defense -- https://americantaxdefense.com/ -- specializes in helping individuals and businesses resolve their tax challenges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 AMIVIE LLC: Collins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- April Collins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMIVIE, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00159-M (E.D.N.C., March 12, 2026), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result f the Defendants unpaid overtime pay. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at all for the time spent traveling between a corporate office of Defendant and patients' homes during their regular work hours. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). Therefore, Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. As a result of Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice, Defendant knew or had reason to know that it was not compensating the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all wages that they actually earned, including overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly home health care aid since March 4, 2024. The Defendant provides home health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharika M. Robinson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SHARIKA M. ROBINSON 10230 Berkeley Place Drive, Suite 220 Charlotte, NC 28262 Phone: (704) 561-6771 Email: srobinson@sharikamrobinsonlaw.com - and - Adam Lubow, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com APPLE INC: Seeks to File Portions of Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HUGHES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its renewed motion to seal limited portions of four exhibits filed with the Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification. In its renewed request, Apple seeks only discrete redactions of information that is competitively sensitive, could be used by bad actors to evade AirTag's safety features, or constitutes personally identifiable information. Specifically, Apple seeks to seal: (1) two internal documents containing details regarding Apple's nonpublic technical design and development of unwanted tracking ("UT") safety features for AirTag, including its proprietary alert algorithm and unreleased product features; and (2) two internal email threads and an internal document containing Apple employees' direct contact information. Apple is not requesting that any document be sealed in its entirety. The requested redactions are intended to (1) protect confidential details concerning UT safety features and strategies to avoid competitive harm caused by revealing Apple’s proprietary information to competitors, (2) mitigate the risk of bad actors seeking to evade certain UT safeguards, and (3) protect employee privacy by redacting their direct contact information. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZAZK5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Melody E. Wong, Esq. Julie Y. Park, Esq. Alexandra P. Barlow, Esq. Victor Lopez, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com MelodyWong@mofo.com JuliePark@mofo.com ABarlow@mofo.com VLopez@mofo.com AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Investors May Claim Contingency Fee Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST) between June 16, 2025 and January 8, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 4, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline. So what: If you purchased Aquestive securities 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 Aquestive class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=55756 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 4, 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. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. 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 the true state of Aquestive's New Drug Application ("NDA") for Anaphylm; pertinently, Aquestive concealed or otherwise minimized the significance of the human factors involved in the use and deployment of its sublingual film, such as packaging, use, administration, and labeling. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Aquestive class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=55756 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] ARCHWAY MARKETING: Sroka Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEBRA SROKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHWAY MARKETING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01905-KMM-DJF (D. Minn., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on September 19, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Archway Marketing Services, Inc. is a marketing and advertising services company, with its principal place of business in Maple Grove, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com ARIZONA TRUCKING: Underpays Company Truck Drivers, Abeyta Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Abeyta, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Arizona Trucking & Materials, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; Zack William, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Dana Dellheim and Joye Dellheim, a married couple; and Zachary William Dellheim and Michelle F. Dellheim, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00148-MAA (D. Ariz., March 18, 2026) is a class action for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage Arizona Trucking & Materials, a trucking company doing business in Pima County, Arizona. Defendants have operated pursuant to a policy and practice of deducting time from Plaintiff's and the Collective Members' hours worked for all pre-trip and post-trip inspection and repair work. Defendants limit such work to approximately 30 minutes each shift, when, in reality, such work takes between one and two hours or more per shift to complete. In engaging in such a practice, Defendants required Plaintiff and the Collective Members to work in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek and did not pay them all overtime owed for such time worked in excess of 40 hours, the complaint asserts. At all relevant times, pursuant to this practice, Defendants have willfully failed or refused to pay overtime to their Intrastate Truck Drivers -- the Plaintiff and the Collective Members, the complaint adds. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated current and former employees of Defendants who worked as Local Truck Drivers and were not paid all overtime premium wages owed for the total time worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. Plaintiff Joseph Abeyta is an individual residing in Pima County, Arizona, and is a former Hourly Worker of Defendants. Defendant Arizona Trucking & Materials, L.L.C. was a local intrastate trucking company doing business in the Tucson Metropolitan Area. Defendant Zack William, Inc. owned and operated as Arizona Trucking & Materials, a local intrastate trucking company doing business in Pima County, Arizona. Defendants Dana Dellheim and and Joye Dellheim are owners or managers of Arizona Trucking & Materials. The husband and wife are Plaintiff's employers as defined by the FLSA. Defendants Zachary William Dellheim and Michelle F. Dellheim, a married couple, had the authority to hire and fire employees, supervised and controlled work schedules or the conditions of employment, determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained employment records in connection with Plaintiff's employment with Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AR 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com ATLAS REALITY: Kizziah Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA NICOLE KIZZIAH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLAS REALITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01472-H-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 9, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations in connection with its alleged abusive telemarketing practices. Allegedly, the Defendant sent numerous unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff while Plaintiff's telephone number was registered with the National Do-Not Call Registry. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's unlawful conduct. Atlas Reality, Inc. is a mobile games technology company that operates virtual real-estate gaming platforms and related mobile applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com AURORA, CO: Collection Action Partly Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ELIAS, and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF AURORA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00212-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for conditional certification of FLSA collective action and for approval of notice of collective action, Plaintiffs' consent form, and opt-in procedure. The collective members are defined as follows: "All current and former employees of the City of Aurora who attended Entry Level training at the Aurora Fire Rescue Fire Academy during the period of June 18, 2022 through Jan. 30, 2025, including specifically the following Fire Academy Classes: 2022-01 Entry [February 20, 2022-July 22, 2022] 2022-02 Entry [October 24, 2022-March 24, 2023] 2023-01 Entry [July 17, 2023-November 30, 2023] 2024-01 Entry [February 5, 2024-August 8, 2024] 2024-02 Entry [August 19, 2024-January 30, 2025]" and "All current and former employees of the City of Aurora who attended Fast Track training at the Aurora Fire Rescue Fire Academy during the period of June 18, 2022 through May 8, 2025, including specifically the following Fire Academy Classes: 2023-01 Fast Track [April 17, 2023-June 9, 2023] 2025-01 Fast Track [April 7, 2025-May 8, 2025]" The Court finds that plaintiff has provided substantial allegations that the putative class members are similarly situated. Mr. Elias brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation. Mr. Elias was employed as a firefighter recruit and attended the Fire Academy between July 17, 2023 and Aug. 30, 2023. Aurora is a home rule city located in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties, Colorado. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROzUwC at no extra charge.[CC] B&B FELTMAN: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, See Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B&B FELTMAN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00511-JRO-CSW (S.D. Ind., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation 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://feltmanbrothers.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. B&B Feltman LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [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 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law BALANCE AUTISM: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Balance Autism has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a security incident that exposed patient information. Altoona, Iowa-based Balance Autism identified a cybersecurity incident on or around March 17, 2025, that resulted in a data breach. Hackers had access to its network from March 11, 2025, to March 17, 2025, and obtained access to data such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and Medicaid numbers. The data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as involving unauthorized access to the protected health information of 1,281 individuals. A class action lawsuit -- Bennett v. Balance Autism -- was filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County by plaintiff Andrea Bennett, individually and on behalf of other similarly affected individuals. The lawsuit alleged that the cybersecurity incident resulted from the defendant's negligence in failing to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive data on its network. The lawsuit asserted claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy. The defendant denies all claims and contentions in the lawsuit, including allegations of fault, wrongdoing, and liability; however, following mediation, a settlement was agreed that was acceptable to all parties to bring the litigation to an end. Under the terms of the settlement, Balance Autism has agreed to pay for two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services and will accept claims from the affected individuals for up to $400 as reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses due to the data breach, and up to four hours of lost time at $20 per hour. Alternatively, instead of submitting a claim for reimbursement of losses and lost time, class members may submit a claim for a cash payment, which is estimated to be $50, but may be lower, depending on the number of claims received. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 1, 2026; the claims deadline is June 1, 2026; and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for June 12, 2026. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Warshaw Seeks to Amend Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNNE WARSHAW f.k.a. LYNNE KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 0:25-cv-60136-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion to reconsider or otherwise alter or amend the order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss her first amended class action complaint and deny Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two and Three of the complaint, or in the alternative, convert the dismissal to one without prejudice and allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. Such relief should be granted as the Opinion contains errors of fact and law by dismissing Counts Two and Three of the Complaint based upon the reasoning that BANA was not a "servicer" and had no duty to respond to Warshaw's requests for information and notices of error. In further support, Warshaw relies upon and incorporates by reference her contemporaneously filed Memorandum in Support. Accordingly, Warshaw seeks for the Court to reconsider the same and deny the Motion as to Counts Two and Three of the Complaint. On Jan. 24, 2025, Warshaw initiated the instant action and filed a class action complaint against BANA for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act. The Defendant is a national banking association with its principal place of business in North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EuTr69 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 E-mail: msmith@dannlaw.com - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com BANZA LLC: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANZA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02631 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.eatbanza.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Banza LLC manufactures package foods. The Company offers chickpea and brown rice pasta, protein waffles, and pizza. [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 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BARBARA BLOZEN: Jolly Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barbara Blozen, et al. The case is styled as Dr. Maketa S. Jolly, and similarly situated persons v. Barbara Blozen, in her personal and professional capacity; National Council State Board of Nursing, Case No. 3:26-cv-00523-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Civil Action to Protect Against Retaliation in Fraud Cases.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BAYSTATE HEALTH: Judge Denies Bids to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Douglass of The Shoestring reports that a federal judge has denied Baystate Health's motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit accusing the non-profit hospital system of secretly sharing patients' website activity with Meta and Google. In a March 19 order, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick allowed all four of plaintiff Jane Doe's claims to move forward: a federal wiretap claim, a Massachusetts privacy claim, breach of implied contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The case carries potentially enormous financial stakes. As The Shoestring first reported in December, Doe's federal wiretap claim is brought under a law that allows damages of up to $10,000 per violation, meaning Baystate could be ordered to pay tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on how many users were affected. By bringing the case as a class-action suit, Doe is seeking to combine the claims of many other patients whose individual cases would likely be too small or costly to pursue on their own. In its motion to dismiss, Baystate included a U.S. Chamber of Commerce brief from a similar case arguing that allowing lawsuits like this to proceed could expose other hospital systems using tracking tools to comparable litigation and potentially massive liability. Doe, a Ludlow woman identified in court papers by a pseudonym, alleges that Baystate embedded Meta Pixel and Google Analytics on its public website to track patients' healthcare-related activity and send that data to the tech companies without consent. She says Facebook's "Off-Facebook Activity" report showed about 80 instances of Baystate transmitting data about her website use to Meta between November 2021 and April 2023. Baystate denied wrongdoing in its motion to dismiss, arguing the lawsuit was "devoid of basic factual support" because the report did not show exactly what was shared and because, in its view, activity on a public hospital website is not protected health information. Doe's lawyers acknowledged the report was "incomplete" but said the complaint still contained enough detail to proceed, writing, "Discovery will show the full scope of Defendant's disclosures to Meta and Google." Kobick wrote that Baystate's argument "ignores Doe's factual allegations, which describe her specific information that Baystate allegedly disclosed." According to the order, those allegations included Doe's status as a Baystate patient, her searches for breast cancer screenings and providers, and her scheduling of a mammogram, which the judge said could qualify as "medical information of a highly intimate or personal nature." Kobick rejected Baystate's argument that its use of tracking tools for marketing and analytics outweighed Doe's privacy interests at this stage, writing that the issue is "a question of fact not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss." The judge also refused to throw out Doe's federal wiretap claim. Baystate had argued that because it was a party to communications on its own website, it could not be liable under the law and that its use of the tracking tools was for lawful commercial purposes. But Kobick disagreed, finding that Doe had plausibly alleged Baystate may have intercepted the communications "for the purpose of facilitating some further impropriety" -- namely, violating Massachusetts privacy law by disclosing Doe's private health information without consent. The order further rejected Baystate's argument that the data at issue was merely generic metadata. Kobick found that Doe had described specific searches, actions and identifiers that could qualify as protected "contents" under the federal wiretap law. The ruling clears the way for discovery, where Doe's lawyers can seek internal documents, technical records and other evidence showing what Baystate sent to Meta and Google, how the tracking tools were configured, and what the hospital knew about the disclosures. Baystate and lawyers for Doe did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the case and ruling. [GN] BCI ACRYLIC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hoffman Due Jan. 8, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HOFFMAN, individually and for others similarly situated, v. BCI ACRYLIC LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02032-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order Class certification discovery cut-off: Dec. 9, 2026 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion Jan. 8, 2027 for class certification: Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Jan. 22, 2027 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Jan. 29, 2027 Class: Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the Court after briefing completed BCI is a manufacturer of acrylic baths, showers, wall surrounds, and related products for the bathroom remodeling industry. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WkWMfe at no extra charge.[CC] BED BATH: Bennett Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------- The case styled as MALIKA BENNETT, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26-2-05442-8 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 on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00862-DWC to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks all available relief, including an injunction for Defendant's alleged violations of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. provides household products. The Company offers bathroom accessories, furniture, rugs, bedding, home improvement, storage, mattresses, lighting, outdoor, kitchen, kids bedding, and decor products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kenneth E. Payson, Esq. Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7016 E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com laurenrainwater@dwt.com BED-STUY FISH: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Zhang Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BED-STUY FISH FRY INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-02053 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bedstuyfishfry.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bed-Stuy Fish Fry Inc. operates a seafood restaurant, offering fried fish, shrimp, oysters, seafood platters, sandwiches, and combo meals, along with Southern-style side dishes, as well as online ordering options for pickup and delivery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BERNSTEIN MANAGEMENT: Wynter Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACE WYNTER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BERNSTEIN MANAGEMENT CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-00354-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3); -- appointing the Plaintiff as the representative of the class; -- appointing Jason Rathod, Nicholas Migliaccio, and Randolph Chen of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, and E. Vanessa Assae-Bille of BILLE PLLC as Class Counsel; -- directing the parties to confer and submit a joint scheduling order within 14 days; –- requiring BMC to produce Class Member information sufficient to provide class certification notice within 21 days; and -- directing the Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan within 30 days of receiving Class Members' information from BMC. The Plaintiff seeks certification of one class, comprising of: "All natural persons who entered into a residential lease agreement with the Defendant Bernstein Management Corporation (BMC) for a property unit located in the District of Columbia on or after Dec. 10, 2022, that which contained the following term: "Tenant is liable for all attorneys' fees incurred by Landlord in enforcing this Lease."" Bernstein is a property management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n7qZZq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Vanessa Assae-Bille, Esq. BILLE PLLC 1601 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20033 Telephone: (202) 810-1270 E-mail: vanessa@billelaw.com - and - Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St., NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: rchen@classlawdc.com BEST HOME PROJECTS: Malloy Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Home Projects, Inc. The case is styled as Joy Barbara Malloy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Home Projects, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02748 (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Best Home Projects Inc offers energy-efficient home improvements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com BIG BRAND: McPhee Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CHRIS MCPHEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG BRAND TIRE & SERVICE, a Utah Corporation; MS AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, a California Corporation; and AP AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV168019, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02232 to the proceeding. Big Brand Tire & Service offers an online selection of new tires & wheels.[BN] Defendant Big Brand Tire & Service is represented by: Rachel A. Straus, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 324-3411 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: rstraus@shb.com - and - J. Simone Jones, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P. 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7700 Facsimile: (312) 558-1195 E-mail: sjones@shb.com BRINKER DATA: Bid to Indefinitely Seal Records OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Corrigan entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to indefinitely seal records pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(e). The following previously sealed documents shall remain sealed and may not be unsealed absent an order of the Court based on the good cause demonstrated in defendant's motion, which includes potential exposure of personal financial information, and confidential business information, including security measures: Docs. 91, 136, 146, 147, 201, 207.1. There are two additional documents currently filed under seal—Doc. 155 (four exhibits filed in support of plaintiffs' motion to certify class, as further described in Doc. 130) and Doc. 197 (exhibit filed in support of plaintiff's supplemental memorandum, as further described in Doc. 194). No later than April 9, 2026, any party may move for continued sealing of any of these documents (upon showing good cause), absent which the Court will direct the Clerk to lift those seals. Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9D2xgx at no extra charge.[CC] BUILDING MATERIALS: Jacson Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Building Materials Manufacturing, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as DEVON JACSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BUILDING MATERIALS MANUFACTURING, LLC, et al., Case No. CIVSB2606850 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., March 2, 2026). The case type is stated as Other Employment Unlimited. Building Materials Manufacturing, LLC is a roofing and waterproofing manufacturer based in New Jersey. [BN] C-SHARPE CO: Procures Consumer Reports Without Consent, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDY STREITMATTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C-SHARPE CO. LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00080-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of the Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to the Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that the Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing the Plaintiff and other consumers. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. C-Sharpe Co. LLC is a construction business in Orange Beach, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 W. Dixie Highway, Ste. 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: jwallace@sirillp.com ilozo@sirillp.com CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Due Jan. 22, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TALIB WILLIAMS, et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order adopting recommendation and setting proposed pretrial schedule: The Court agrees with the proposed schedule and will largely adopt the schedule, which is reproduced below. Event Date Initial class certification expert witness Jan. 9, 2026 disclosures: Class certification expert discovery cutoff: May 29, 2026 Initial merits expert disclosures: July 24, 2026 Fact discovery cutoff: Sept. 11, 2026 Last day to file Daubert/class certification Jan. 22, 2027 motions: Last day to file Daubert/class certification Feb. 22, 2027 oppositions: Last day to file Daubert/class certification March 8, 2027 replies: (or, 14 days after opposition filed) After the class certification motion is adjudicated, the Court will set a case management conference to create a schedule for dispositive motions and trial. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is the penal law enforcement agency of the government of California responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qwqpf2 at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Denial of Summary Judgment in Murillo v. CDCR Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOAQUIN MURILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. K. HOLLAND, Warden; J. GUTIERREZ, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellants, and G. YBARRA, JORGE ANDRADE RICO, MAHER CONRAD SUAREZ, CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 25-225 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's denial of summary judgment. The Defendants, Wardens Holland and Gutierrez, appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. This case relates to a decades-long class action related to mental health services provided to inmates in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff Murillo brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging he suffered sleep deprivation in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights due to excessive noise caused by the Defendants' implementation of CDCR's Guard One system, a protocol for welfare checks on inmates in administrative segregation and security housing units, at California Correctional Institution. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion. The Ninth Circuit explained that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. Because it concluded that its reasoning in Rico v. Ducart extends to the circumstances of this case, it began and ended its analysis with the clearly established prong. In Rico, an inmate at CDCR's Pelican Bay prison sued under Section 1983, claiming sleep deprivation from excessive noise caused by the court-ordered Guard One system. The Ninth Circuit held there was no clearly established law showing the noise was unlawful, noting that the system was inherently noisy and the facility's construction made quiet welfare checks impossible. It concluded that reasonable officials could not have known their actions violated the Constitution, a reasoning it found applicable to the current case. In sum, the Ninth Circuit held that qualified immunity applied because the clearly established prong was not met: correctional officers implemented an "inherently noisy" system for inmate welfare under a court order, and the Plaintiff could not identify any case showing the officers should have known their supervisory conduct was unlawful. The cases cited by the Plaintiff were distinguished because they did not involve officials carrying out a court order designed to benefit at-risk inmates or inherently noisy mandated activity. Because the present claim involves the same "inherently loud" conditions in a maximum-security facility, the Appellate Court found Rico's reasoning directly applicable. Accordingly, as in Rico, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 16, 2026, Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/4cv2ex7c. CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS: Garcia Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-04367-1 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05263. The Plaintiff purports to allege, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of a putative class of individuals, that Defendant committed unlawful compensation practices in violation of Washington State law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam S. Belzberg, Esq. Aaron R. Doyer, Esq. Emily L. Seibold, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Ste. 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 Email: adam.belzberg@stoel.com aaron.doyer@stoel.com emily.seibold@stoel.com CAMELBACK ADMINISTRATIVE: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camelback Administrative Group Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Asher Bronstin, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Camelback Administrative Group Incorporated, Homeshield USA LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01767-MTL (D. Ariz., March 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Camelback Administrative Group -- https://www.camelbackadmin.com/ -- is poised to set new standards and usher in a transformative era for the home and auto industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Settles ERISA Class Action Lawsuit for $9.6 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Capital One Financial Corporation has agreed to a $9,600,000 class action settlement to end a lawsuit that alleged the bank improperly managed employee retirement savings accounts. The $9.6 million Capital One class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 13, 2026 and covers all individuals who participated in the Capital One associate retirement savings plan at any time from November 11, 2018 to January 13, 2026 (the "Class Period"), including any beneficiaries of a deceased person and any alternate payees of a person subject to a qualified domestic relations order who participated in the plan at any time during the class period. The court-approved website for the Capital One settlement can be found at CapitalOneERISASettlement.com. According to the agreement, Capital One settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive a one-time restorative cash payment, which will be a pro rata (equal share) portion of the net settlement fund after the deduction of attorneys' fees, administrative and notice fees, expenses incurred while calculating class member payments, and lead plaintiff service awards. Per court documents, class members who are current participants in the plan and have a $0 balance will not receive a cash payment from the class action settlement. Additionally, if a distribution is $5 or less, the class member will similarly not receive a cash payment, the agreement notes. Cash payments to class members will be paid directly into their active retirement savings plans, unless the plan account was closed between the calculation of their payment and payment distribution, in which case the settlement administrator will mail a check. The plan of distribution further states that any former participants in an associate savings plan will receive their distribution via check to be mailed to the last known address associated with their retirement plan. Class members who receive their settlement payment by check will have 180 days after issuance before expiration. The court will decide whether to grant the Capital One settlement final approval following a hearing on June 25, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Capital One class action lawsuit claimed that the financial services provider breached its fiduciary duties by failing to use forfeitures from employees who left the company before their employer contributions vested to pay the plan's administrative expenses, and instead improperly used those forfeitures to fund matching employer contributions to participants' accounts. The lawsuit contended that Capital One's actions violated guidelines set by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA. [GN] CARE BIG LLC: Capezutto Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Capezutto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Care Big, LLC and Christy Haning, individually, Case No. 3:26-cv-00843-E (N.D. Tex., March 16, 2026), is brought against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants have a business plan that includes not paying their hourly employees overtime premiums for any hours worked more than forty per workweek. The Defendants' failure to pay these employees overtime premiums as required by law allows them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices. The Plaintiff is one of the employees hired by Defendants as an hourly caregiver who was not paid overtime premiums. During the time she worked for the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis, but they only paid Plaintiff straight time for all hours worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers. Such practice was and continues to be a clear violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a caregiver from approximately June 2024 until February 2026. Care Big, LLC is a Texas limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St. Longview, Texas 75601 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com CARGURUS INC: Remi Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cargurus, Inc. The case is styled as Catherine Remi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cargurus, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-11243-MJJ (D. Mass., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CarGurus, Inc. -- https://www.cargurus.com/ -- is an automotive research and shopping website operating in the U.S., U.K. and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Harris Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AKIVA HARRIS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, and UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00228-BP (W.D. Mo., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "Private Information"--about their current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach. In a letter dated December 30, 2025, UofL Health notified Plaintiff that it "[o]n October 30, 2025, [UofL Health] learned that an unauthorized third party gained access to and obtained data that was maintained by an electronic health record (EHR) vendor, Cerner. [Cerner] has determined through an investigation that at least as early as January 22, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to personal health information on legacy Cerner systems." But that "[Cerner] later informed [UofL Health] that law enforcement investigators directed a delay in notifying patients, as well as additional hospital customers, about this incident because it could have impeded their investigation." According to the same letter, the personal information involved in this incident may have included Plaintiff's name, Social Security number, and information included within patient medical records, such as medical record numbers, doctors, diagnoses, medicines, test results, images, care and treatment information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff faces a lifetime risk of identity theft, as her Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes sensitive data that cannot be changed. She is also worried about the impact on her family's ability to manage her finances in the case that she becomes unable to, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Kentucky Subclass Members seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including damages for their economic losses; treble damages; punitive damages; injunctive relief; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Akiva Harris was a patient of UofL Health. She is a Data Breach victim who received care from UofL Health before the Data Breach. Defendant Oracle Health, formerly Cerner Corporation, is the second-largest electronic health record ("EHR") vendor in the United States, holding about 22% of the U.S. EHR industry. Defendant University of Louisville Health is a Kentucky non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky at 530 South Jackson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202.[BN} The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CHARLOTTESVILLE SETTLEMENT: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Charlottesville Settlement Company data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Charlottesville Settlement Company data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Charlottesville Settlement Company Security Incident: What Happened? Charlottesville Settlement Company has confirmed a data breach exposing the personal information of 22,041 people, according to a report made to the Maine Attorney General's Office. Affiliates of Charlottesville Settlement Company, Shenandoah Settlement Services (now known as High Crest Settlement) and Freedom Settlement Services (formerly known as Seven Hills Settlement), were also affected by the breach. A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that the breach was detected on or around September 4, 2025. Third-party cybersecurity experts subsequently discovered that an unauthorized party accessed the network on September 2, 2025. According to a report submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, information compromised in the Charlottesville Settlement Company data breach includes Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial accounts, and credit/debit card numbers. By March 10, 2026, the company determined which individuals were affected and is notifying them by mail. Charlottesville Settlement Company, High Crest Settlement, and Freedom Settlement Services assist buyers, sellers, lenders, and realtors with settlements and insurance across Virginia. What You Can Do After the Charlottesville Settlement Company Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Charlottesville Settlement Company data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Charlottesville Settlement Company to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] CHELSEA SENIOR LIVING: Davila Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Senior Living, LLC. The case is styled as Julio Davila, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. Chelsea Senior Living, LLC, Case No. 605413/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., March 11, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Torts - Other (New York Labor Law Claim). Chelsea Senior Living -- https://chelseaseniorliving.com/ -- provides senior housing and care solutions in Assisted Living, Independent Living, and Memory Care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Donald Barnhorn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Hwy Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: +1 631 257 5588 Fax: +1 631 239 5796 CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Hansink v. ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Limited, et.al, Case 1:26-cv-02063, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Limited ("CHOW" or the "Company") (NYSE American: CHOW) securities between September 16, 2025 and December 10, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against CHOW, Yee Kar Wing, Hui Wai Ming, Wong Chung Wai, Assentsure PAC, and US Tiger Securities, Inc., as well as unidentified John Does 1-100, (the "Defendants"), under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. Investors are hereby notified that they have until May 12, 2026 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. You may obtain a copy of the complaint and submit your contact information on our website. Or you may call our New York office directly: (212) 545-4774. ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Limited is a holding company incorporated in the Cayman Islands with operations conducted by indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Sereno Cloud Solutions HK Limited in Hong Kong, a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. The Company's operations are conducted in the Asia-Pacific region with a strong presence in Hong Kong and Singapore. The Company is purportedly a pioneer in providing one-stop cloud solutions that support companies across the IT industry value chain throughout their entire cloud transformation journey from consulting, deployment, and migration to cloud environmental building and management. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in the securities. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) CHOW was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; (ii) CHOW's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the realized risk of fraudulent trading or market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (iii) that, as a result, CHOW securities were at unique risk of a sustained suspension in trading by NYSE American and severe volatility-induced decline; (iv) that the sole underwriter on the Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), Tiger Securities, had been fined and censured by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") in April 2025 for failing to have a reasonable system in place to identify potentially suspicious deposits of low-priced securities; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On December 10, 2025, the pump-and-dump scheme was revealed with catastrophic losses to investors. At approximately 11:05 AM EST, a surge of sell orders and volume of approximately 360,000 caused the price of CHOW ordinary shares to plummet from $11.95 per share to $10.59 per share in a span of mere minutes. At 11:07 AM EST, NYSE American halted CHOW ordinary shares from trading due to volatility. The halt remained in effect until 12.37 PM EST when the stock reopened for trading at the price of approximately $1.00 per share. NYSE American halted CHOW ordinary shares for a second time from 3:44 PM EST until 3:49 PM EST, before ultimately closing at $1.83 per share, a single day loss of 84.3%. On the next day, December 11, 2025, the Company issued a press release, stating that "the Company had become aware of unusual trading activity in its ordinary shares on the [NYSE American] on December 10 and December 11, 2025." CHOW also stated that it "made inquiries and has been unable to determine whether corrective actions are appropriate at this time." The Company then announced, "that there has been no material development in its business and affairs not previously disclosed or, to its knowledge, any other reason to account for the unusual market action." Shares of CHOW have been trending lower after the end of the class period and now trade below $0.50 per share. Why Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP? This illustrious firm, founded in 1888, is steadfast in their pursuit of justice for investors who have suffered financial harm due to these misrepresented statements. The law firm brings to the fore over 125 years of legal expertise in securities litigation and has a proven track record of protecting the rights of investors. We encourage all investors who have been affected or have information that will assist in our investigation, to contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.[GN] CHRISTOPHER DELGADO: T & C Investing Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher Alexander Delgado, et al. The case is styled as T & C Investing Corp., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Christopher Alexander Delgado, Goliath Ventures Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-21612-JB (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Goliath Ventures was a cryptocurrency investment firm based in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Lance Silver, Esq. Ryan Adam Schwamm, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Phone: (954) 755-4799 Fax: (954) 755-4684 Email: ssilver@silverlaw.com rschwamm@silverlaw.com CINEMARK USA: Wins Bid to Dismiss Underfilled Beer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Shane Waldrop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-321 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissing the class action without prejudice. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff purchased a twenty-four-ounce beer from one of Defendant's movie theaters in Grapevine, Texas. Skeptical of the cup's capacity, Plaintiff took it home and performed a liquid capacity test. The test revealed that the container could not hold twenty-four ounces; it could only hold twenty-two. On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant, alleging subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Through his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brought claims for (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) common law fraud, (4) breach of express warranty, and (5) unjust enrichment. Defendant argued that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to satisfy 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), which requires the amount in controversy to exceed $5,000,000. The Court held Plaintiff to the same burden for establishing CAFA jurisdiction as it would hold a defendant who removed the case and faced a motion to remand. Because Plaintiff alleged an indeterminate amount of damages, the Court required him to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional amount. Plaintiff offered several calculations to establish class size, relying on Defendant's reported over $900 million in revenue from concession sales in 2024. Assuming an average price of $9.50 for a 24 oz beer, Plaintiff alleged that if 0.3% of the reported 200 million concession patrons purchased a 24 oz draft beer, Defendant earned $5.7 million in revenue. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to explain why 600,000 out of 200 million patrons would have purchased that specific item, and further noted that the 200 million figure referred to worldwide moviegoers, not concession patrons. The Court held that these shifting calculations only underscored the speculative nature of Plaintiff's theory, and that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on pure conjecture. The Court further held that even accepting Plaintiff's proposed class sizes, the proposed class damages could not plausibly exceed $5,000,000. The gravamen of the Complaint was that consumers allegedly received two fewer ounces of beer than promised. The Court found that no viable legal theory would entitle class members to a full refund, since they received the benefit of at least twenty-two ounces. The Complaint alleged that two ounces represent a difference of $0.80 in value, meaning Plaintiff would need to plausibly allege at least 6.25 million affected consumers. At best, Plaintiff alleged a class of 1.2 million -- well short of that threshold. Plaintiff's arguments regarding DTPA treble damages and attorney's fees also failed. The Court noted that Plaintiff himself asserted in the Complaint that he is not required to prove Defendant acted with knowledge or intent -- a prerequisite for treble damages under the DTPA. Furthermore, DTPA claims were asserted only on behalf of a Texas subclass, and Defendant operates only 28% of its 312 theaters in Texas. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery, finding that the request offered no viable basis and that Plaintiff, having filed suit almost two years prior, had delayed unnecessarily, without explanation, in seeking such discovery. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice, . A copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated March 19, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BdbvNs from PacerMonitor.com CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE: Yu Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Air Car Service & Parking Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Guo Sheng Yu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING CORPORATION; CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING BRANCH ONE, LLC; CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING BRANCH TWO, LLC; CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING BRANCH 3, LLC; CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING BRANCH 5, LLC; CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING BRANCH 6, LLC; CLEAN AIR CAR SERVICE & PARKING BRANCH 7, LLC; Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Commercial (New York Labor Law). Clean Air Car Service & Parking Corporation -- http://www.cacsnyc.com/-- offers clean air car service and automotive service & collision repair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------ Annabelle Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORP., and TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02570 (D.N.J., March 12, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") from foreseeable and preventable threats of cyberattack. The Defendants failed to comply with regulatory, legal, ethical, and industry standards for cybersecurity and confidentiality of patient records, failed to take reasonable security measures, such as training employees to identify phishing emails, employing biometric or multi factor authentication requirements for authorized users, and monitoring for unusual activity, and failed to prevent, detect, and adequately respond to a foreseeable data breach carried out by cyber criminals. As a result, criminals gained unauthorized access to, copied, and stole Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach impacted patients' name, address, date of birth, social security number, health insurance numbers, health insurer name, primary insured or dependent information, and other demographic, health, and health insurance information––nearly every piece of information regarding Plaintiff's and Class members' health and treatment. As a direct result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous concrete injuries and will suffer additional injuries into the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received healthcare from providers that used services from Defendants. Cognizant is a company that specializes in information technology, consulting, and business process services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Merino, Esq. DANNLAW 825 Georges Road, 2nd Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com Web: www.attorneyzim.com COMERICA BANK: Standing Order Entered in Lukis Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKIS GLOBAL CORP., v. COMERICA BANK, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02150-AH-DSR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered a standing order for civil cases: All counsel must immediately review and comply with the Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism guidelines. The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Court will issue an Order Setting Scheduling Conference. The parties are required to strictly comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26, as well as this Court’s Orders. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. This Court hears civil motions on Wednesdays, beginning at 1:30 p.m. Comerica Bank is a regional commercial bank. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1Bpbo at no extra charge.[CC] COMFORT KEEPERS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comfort Keepers, et al. The case is styled as Maria Cureno Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comfort Keepers, Humble Hands Care LLC, Case No. 26STCV08160 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Comfort Keepers -- https://www.comfortkeepers.com/ -- has been dedicated to providing in-home senior care that brings joy to our clients' lives for more than 20 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com COMPANY STORE: Erwin Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MELISSA ERWIN, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COMPANY STORE GROUP, LLC and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. d/b/a THE COMPANY STORE, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-01541-31, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Snohomish County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00870 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant's violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Action and Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The Company Store Group, LLC is a bedding and home furnishings retailer founded in 1911, now owned by The Home Depot. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra M. Shulman, Esq. Jeffrey R. Kaatz, Esq. 1420 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 319-7052 E-mail: ashulman@buchalter.com jkaatz@buchalter.com COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS: Scagnelli Sues Over Compromised Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN SCAGNELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS & MUSCULOSKELETAL CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Conn. Super., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about March 9, 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. Comprehensive Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Care, LLC is a medical care provider based in Wallingford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Slossberg, Esq. Julie V. Pinette, Esq. HURWITZ SAGARIN & SLOSSBERG, LLC 135 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 Telephone: (203) 877-8000 Email: dslossberg@hss.law JPinette@hss.law - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Alleging Investor Harm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Concorde International Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ: CIGL) 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 Concorde securities between April 21, 2025 and July 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/CIGL. Concorde Case Details The Complaint alleges Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of its securities trading activity throughout the class period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Concorde was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media-based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) that insiders and/or affiliates used offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during a price inflation campaign; (3) that Concorde's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. What's Next for Concorde Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/CIGL. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Concorde you have until May 18, 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 Concorde 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 Concorde Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our 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 Tel: (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] CONTINENTAL FOOD: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Food Management. The case is styled as Brenda Arlene Gonzalez on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Continental Food Management, PC Hospitality, Case No. 26STCV07960 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Continental Food Management, Inc. operates as a restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Church et al. Sue Over Unlawful Mass Arrest --------------------------------------------------------------- KATIE CHURCH, et al., Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Representatives v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00381-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y., March 10, 2026) arises from the mass arrest of at least seventeen individuals--students, faculty, alumni, and community members--at Cornell University on the night of March 10, 2025. The Plaintiffs allege that Cornell's senior administration, including President Kotlikoff and Kristin C. Hopkins, coordinated with the Cornell University Policy department (CUPD) to use the event as an opportunity to effect arrests of Palestinian rights advocates. Moreover, Cornell, acting through its senior administrators and in coordination with CUPD, allegedly participated in and directed the arrests of attendees based on the content and viewpoint of their expression. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seeks damages and injunctive relief arising under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as under New York State common law for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Cornell University is a hybrid private-public university incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal campus located in Ithaca, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sujata S. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC 120 Buffalo Street, Suite 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 327-4125 E-mail: sujata@gibsonfirm.law - and - Elena L. Cohen, Esq. Sarah Kunstler, Esq. COHEN&GREEN PLLC 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood (Queens), NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-9480 E-mail: elena@femmelaw.com COTY INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Coty Inc. ("Coty" or the "Company") (NYSE:COTY) securities during the period of November 5, 2025 through February 4, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Coty investments, you have until May 22, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/coty-inc What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that Coty made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the true state of Coty's slowing growth in the beauty market, notably, the Consumer Beauty market was underperforming, margins were compressed by increased marketing investments and there was slowing growth in its Prestige fragrance segment. On February 4, 2026, the Company released prepared remarks for Coty's second quarter earnings for fiscal year 2026. Among other things, the company stated that "our performance versus the market has been inconsistent. In Prestige fragrances . . . our sell-out was flattish, underperforming the market by several points in the critical fragrance category. In Consumer Beauty, we continue to see a large gap in our sell-out performance relative to U.S. mass cosmetics category, though the recent changes we implemented are starting to show some modest improvement." The Company also stated that "[n]ext steps . . . [include] . . . leveraging AI to scale content creation at a fraction of the cost and reexamining the full value chain . . . [w]hile these interventions helped stabilize and grow Consumer Beauty several years ago, operational discipline has slipped across the organization over the past 2 years." These statements directly contradicted the Company's statements made during the Company's first quarter fiscal year 2026 earnings release on November 5, 2025 when Coty supported its original growth outlook for the second half of 2026 through new product launches and brand innovation, operational fixes in the Consumer Beauty segment and AI implementation throughout its operations while also minimizing risks from slowing growth in the beauty market. In truth, Coty's Consumer Beauty segment was underperforming, margins were compressed by increased marketing investments and there was slowing growth in the Prestige fragrance market. On this news, the price of Coty shares declined by $0.28 per share, or approximately 8.2%, from $3.43 per share on February 4, 2026 to close at $3.15 on February 5, 2026. On February 5, 2026, Coty announced its financial results for the second quarter fiscal year 2026, unveiling disappointing earnings results with worsening performance in the Consumer Beauty segment. The Company also noted the recent transition of its Chief Executive Officer in conjunction with the below-expectation results. Coty further withdrew its fiscal year 2026 guidance for EBITDA and revised the Company's near-term outlook downward. Coty attributed its results and lowered guidance to a combination of macroeconomic factors including rising costs and uncertain consumer demand and lack of "operational discipline" in both Prestige and Consumer Beauty segments. On this news, the price of Coty shares declined by $0.49 per share, or approximately 15.6%, from $3.15 per share on February 5, 2026 to close at $2.66 on February 6, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Coty securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] CVS PHARMACY: Bid to Amend Class Definition Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 20 WELFARE AND BENEFIT FUND; and INDIANA CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 16-cv-046-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John McConnell, Jr. entered an order denying CVS's motion to amend the class to exclude the express scripts-related claims. The class will proceed as presently constituted. Dr. Conti continues to use a method endorsed by this Court and one that is consistent with the Plaintiffs' theory of liability. Thus, the Court sees no reason to amend the class definition on this basis either. CVS simply cannot show that it is entitled to invoke the ADR provisions that may be contained in the Express Scripts contracts. The Court therefore sees no reason to amend the class on this ground either. The Plaintiffs claim that CVS conspired with various pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") to defraud and overcharge the Plaintiffs for prescription drugs. In 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify this case as a class action. CVS is an American retail pharmacy chain. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uvqung at no extra charge.[CC] DARREN K. INDYKE: Epstein Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALLYSON WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, Defendants. Case No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL FEMALES WHO WERE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED OR ABUSED OR TRAFFICKED BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN FROM JANUARY 1, 1995 TO AUGUST 10, 2019, WHETHER THEY WERE MINORS OR ADULTS AT THE TIME OF THEIR ASSAULT, ABUSE, OR TRAFFICKING, WHO HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDED A RELEASE OF CLAIMS OR OTHERWISE RELEASED CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE OF EPSTEIN, DARREN INDYKE, AND RICHARD KAHN, CO-EXECUTORS, AND ALSO INCLUDES THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS WHO, IN THIS LITIGATION, DID NOT VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THEIR CLAIMS. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Arun Subramanian at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, 10007 to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above captioned case ("Litigation") as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated February 19, 20262 for $35,000,000 in cash, if there are 40 or more eligible class members, or $25,000,000 in cash, if there are fewer than 40 eligible class members, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Settlement Agreement should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Boies Schiller Flexner LLP attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses out of the Global Settlement Account (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice")), which is discussed below and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Named Plaintiffs who, in this Litigation, did not voluntarily dismiss their claims, an incentive award out of the Global Settlement Account; and (5) the Plan of Allocation (as described in the Settlement Agreement and Notice) should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement Hearing, or hold it via telephone or video conference, without further notice to Class Members. IF YOU WERE ABUSED OR TRAFFICKED BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1995 AND AUGUST 10, 2019, INCLUSIVE, WHETHER YOU WERE A MINOR OR ADULT AT THE TIME OF YOUR ABUSE OR TRAFFICKING, AND YOU, UNLESS YOU ARE A NAMED PLAINTIFF WHO, IN THIS LITIGATION, DID NOT VOLUNTARILY DISMISS YOUR CLAIMS, HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED A SETTLEMENT THAT INCLUDED A RELEASE OF THE EPSTEIN ESTATE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Questionnaire and Release through a secure, dedicated online portal (no later than May 12, 2026) or mailing your completed Questionnaire and Release to the Fund Administrator (must be postmarked by no later than May 12, 2026). Your failure to submit a Questionnaire and Release by May 12, 2026 will result in a rejection of your claim and preclude you from receiving any recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. To opt-out of the Settlement and preserve your claims related to the Litigation, you must send a signed letter by First-Class mail saying that you want to be excluded from the Class in the following Litigation: Ward v. Indyke, et. al., No. 1:24-CV-01204 (AS). Be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number. Your exclusion request must be postmarked by no later than April 13, 2026 and sent to the Fund Administrator at: Simone Lelchuk Resolution Services LLC c/o FREJKA PLLC 415 East 52nd Street | Suite 3 New York, New York 10022 If you were sexually abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein between January 1, 1995 to August 10, 2019, inclusive, and you have not previously executed a settlement agreement that released the Epstein Estate, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Questionnaire and Release, unless you submit a timely signed letter to opt-out. For avoidance of doubt, if you do not opt-out, the Judgment and Release entered in this Litigation will include a release of all claims you may have against the Epstein Estate. If you would like a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), or the Questionnaire and Release described herein, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Settlement Agreement (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.SDNYSettlementFund2026.com. Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, Defendants' Counsel, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for the Questionnaire and Release, may be made to Lead Counsel: Sigrid McCawley Andrew Villacastin BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Email: epsteinsettlement@bsfllp.com Telephone: 1-212-446-2300 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A SIGNED LETTER VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL TO OPT-OUT OF THIS SETTLEMENT SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY APRIL 13, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A QUESTIONNAIRE AND RELEASE. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY CLASS COUNSEL NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY PERCENT (30%) OF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000.00, PLUS INTEREST EARNED ON BOTH AMOUNTS AT THE SAME RATE AS EARNED IN THE QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT ACCOUNT. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND RECEIVED BY CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY AUGUST 26, 2026 IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: MARCH 13, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK QUESTIONS? CALL 212-641-0800 OR VISIT WWW.SDNYSETTLEMENTFUND2026.COM DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC: Ferrell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessyca Ferrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. d/b/a COSERV ELECTRIC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00255 (E.D. Tex., March 12, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the common law claim of unjust enrichment. In each workweek where Plaintiff worked 40 hours or more, the rounding policy resulted in an unlawful deprivation of the overtime wages required by the FLSA. In each workweek where Plaintiff worked less than 40 hours, the rounding policy also resulted in an unlawful deprivation of straight-time wages (i.e., gap time). The Defendant knew or should have known that all of Plaintiff's hourly work was compensable under the FLSA. Likewise, Defendant knew or should have known that its rounding policies and practices violated the FLSA. As a matter of common business policy, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative Collective members for all work performed as set forth in this Complaint. They were not paid their promised hourly wage for all work performed, and they were not paid overtime, as required by the FLSA, in weeks in which they worked more than 40 hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a customer service representative from approximately September 2015 through October 2024. The Defendant is an electric cooperative serving eight counties in North Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48375 Phone: (248) 355-0300 DESTINATION XL: Dodson Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JULY DODSON, TENADORE FOWLER, and RYAN TAMM, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DESTINATION XL GROUP, INC., d/b/a DXL BIG + TALL, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-05686-2 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00866 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek relief from Defendant, individually and on behalf of similarly-situated Washington residents, pursuant to (1) the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, codified at chapter 190 of title 19 of the Revised Code of Washington, and (ii) the Washington Consumer Protection Action, codified at chapter 86 of title 19 of the RCW. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' complaint alleges, inter alia, that (i) Plaintiffs collectively received at least 19 supposedly "false" or "misleading" emails about "limited time" sales in purported violation of the CEMA and the CPA between February 2023 and December 2025. Destination XL Group, Inc. operates as an apparel store. The Company provides men clothing, shoes, and accessories, as well as offers electronic commerce and catalog operations.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rossi F. Maddalena, Esq. MERRICK, HOFSTEDT & LINDSEY, P.S. 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 682-0610 E-mail: rmaddalena@mhlseattle.com - and - John W. McGuinness, Esq. A. Paul Heeringa, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: JMcGuinness@manatt.com PHeeringa@manatt.com DOLLAR TREE: Sued for Printing Many Card Digits, Violating FACTA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Marilena Murphy filed a class action lawsuit against Dollar Tree Inc. Why: Murphy alleges Dollar Tree violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing too many credit card digits on receipts. Where: The Dollar Tree class action was filed in a North Carolina state court. Plaintiff Marilena Murphy filed a class action lawsuit against Dollar Tree Inc. Why: Murphy alleges Dollar Tree violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing too many credit card digits on receipts. Where: The Dollar Tree class action was filed in a North Carolina state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Dollar Tree of violating federal law by printing too many credit card digits on receipts. The case was originally filed in North Carolina state court, but Dollar Tree moved it to federal court where a judge ruled the court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff did not show a concrete injury required for federal standing. The case was then remanded to North Carolina state court. In the lawsuit, plaintiff Marilena Murphy claims Dollar Tree violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing more than the last five digits of its customers' credit and debit card numbers on transaction receipts. Murphy argues that as a result of Dollar Tree's alleged unlawful conduct, she experienced injury, including, but not limited to, invasion of privacy, lost opportunity costs, loss related to the benefit of the bargain, loss of time addressing the retailer's acts or omissions in relation to her personal financial information and exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft. The plaintiff is represented by W. Stacy Miller II and Mary Anne M. Hamilton of Miller Law Group PLLC. The Dollar Tree FACTA class action lawsuit is Murphy v. Dollar Tree Inc., Case No. 25CV006137, in the Superior Court of Buncombe County, North Carolina. [GN] DOMTAR PAPER: Enochs and Williams Sue Over Odor Emissions --------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT ENOCHS and TAMMY WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY, LLC d/b/a KINGSPORT MILL, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00047-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn., March 10, 2026) asserts claims for nuisance and negligence and seeks compensatory and punitive relief against Defendant as well as injunctive relief not inconsistent with Defendant's federally and state enforced permits. The case arises from the property damages suffered by Plaintiffs due to noxious odor emissions from Defendant's recycled packaging mill and associated wastewater treatment operations. The Defendant has failed to install, operate, maintain, and/or implement adequate odor mitigation and control strategies, processes, technologies, and/or equipment to control its odorous emissions from the facility and prevent those odors and emissions from invading the homes and property of Plaintiffs and the putative Class, says the suit. Domtar Paper Company LLC owns and operates a recycled paper and packaging mill located at 100 Clinchfield St., Kingsport, TN. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: sliddle@lsclassaction.com lsheets@lsclassaction.com rsolt@lsclassaction.com DONALD TRUMP: Dickinson Wins Provisional Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACK DICKINSON, also known as "the Portland Chicken"; LAURIE ECKMAN; RICHARD ECKMAN; MASON LAKE; and HUGO RIOS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, V. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, US. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in her official capacity; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 3:25-cv-02170-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Simon entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification; and -- appointing Jack Dickinson, Laurie Eckman, Richard Eckman, Mason Lake, and Hugo Rios as Class Representatives and further appointing their counsel as Class Counsel to represent a class consisting of: "All people who, since the beginning of Operation Skip Jack, have, desire to, or will nonviolently protest against or report on DHS activities at the Portland ICE Building." Accordingly, the classwide relief is the most practical and efficient way to offer relief to large numbers of people who are having their First Amendment rights unconstitutionally chilled. The reason that Defendants' uses of force are chilling speech is because of their indiscriminate, unpredictable, and blanket nature. Even when responding to a perceived threat, the Defendants' officers regularly apply pepper-ball, tear gas, and OC Spray munitions to broader crowds of people that include peaceful, nonviolent putative class members-for example, by launching canisters of tear gas behind groups of peaceful protesters attempting to leave without first issuing dispersal warnings and thus not giving them any practical way to avoid these chemical irritant munitions. This practice, Mr. Kerlikowske testified, gives officers no legitimate tactical benefit. Quite the contrary, it can trap and further aggravate a crowd and make it more difficult for officers (federal, state, and local) to identify individuals within crowds who may be violating the law and target them for a1Test. Moreover, it is the repeated and unpredictable nature of these practices that chill Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Classwide treatment is therefore the most efficient and reasonable way to proceed. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZfE4uq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly Simon, Esq. Eri Andriola, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON Portland, OR 97240 - and - J. Ashlee Albies, Esq. ALBIES & STARK LLC 1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 1000, Portland OR 97201 - and - Jane L. Moisan, Esq. PEOPLE'S LAW PROJECT 1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 1000 Portland OR 97201 - and - Matthew Borden, Esq. Hadley Rood, Esq. Marissa R. Benavides, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 747 Front Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Kimberly S. Hutchison, Esq. Liam Barrett, Esq. Taylor Marrinan, Esq. Mark F. Fleming, Esq. Diana Lucy Hallet, Esq. Zachary Pangares, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Eric Hamilton, Esq. John Bailey, Esq. Andrew I. Warden, Esq. Brad P. Rosenberg, Esq. Michael B. Bruns, Esq. Pierce J. Anon, Esq. Alexander J. Yun, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Of Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Oregon. Dan Rayfield, Esq. Scott Kennedy, Esq. Jacob Reisberg, Esq. Samuel Kubernick, Esq. Leanne Hartmann, Esq. Derek Olson, Esq. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 Of Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Portland, Oregon. Naomi Sheffield, Esq. Elizabeth C. Woodard, Esq. Caroline Turco, Esq. Denis M. Vannier, Esq. PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 430 Portland, OR 97204 DRIVEN BRANDS: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement on behalf of purchasers of Driven Brands Holdings Inc. common stock (NASDAQ: DRVN): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DRIVEN BRANDS HOLDINGS INC., JONATHAN G. FITZPATRICK, and TIFFANY L. MASON, Defendants. Case No. 3:23-cv-00895-MOC-DCK Judge: Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Driven Brands Holdings Inc. ("Driven" or the "Company") during the period from October 27, 2021 through August 1, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the "Court"), that the securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (together, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $25,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Driven and certain of its senior officers violated federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs allege that Driven, its former Chief Executive Officer, Jonathan G. Fitzpatrick ("Fitzpatrick"), and its former Chief Financial Officer, Tiffany L. Mason ("Mason"), made material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period concerning: (a) Driven's efforts to create a nationwide auto-glass business by acquiring and integrating smaller companies into a single "platform"; and (b) operational execution and customer retention in Driven's car wash business. Lead Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' alleged misstatements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that Fitzpatrick and Mason controlled Driven when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants[2] deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included, among others: (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing will be held on June 1, 2026, at 9:45 a.m., before the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, either in person at the United States Courthouse, Charles R. Jonas Federal Building, 401 West Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, Courtroom 5A, or by telephone or videoconference, in the discretion of the Court, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Driven Brands Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; (855) 433-7863; info@DrivenBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.DrivenBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than July 6, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no later than May 11, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 11, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Driven Brands Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 (855) 433-7863 info@DrivenBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com www.DrivenBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Jonathan D. Uslaner Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com By Order of the Court DUO FIT: Faces Craft Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ OLIVIA CRAFT and GABBRIELLA MCKINLEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DUO FIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00304-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2026) is a collective action complaint for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendant for its collective failure to pay employees overtime wages. Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours in one or more workweek(s) during the last three years. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant did not, and does not, pay Named Plaintiffs and Defendant's other similarly situated employees any overtime wages for the hours that they worked more than 40, says the suit. Plaintiff Craft and McKinley worked for the Defendant in the position of club managers at its Planet Fitness gym from approximately 2023 to October 2025 and from approximately August 2021 to May 2024, respectively. Duo Fit, LLC is in the business of providing clients with health and fitness services through its network of gyms/fitness centers in the greater Columbus, Ohio metro area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. Kevin A. Nickel, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com knickel@mcoffmanlegal.com EL CARNALITO BARRAGAN: Vargas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Oralia Vargas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. EL CARNALITO BARRAGAN DELI INC., JUAN BARRAGAN, MARCO ANTONIO BARRAGAN, and GIOVANNI JEESCA, Case No. 1:26-cv-01992 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), she is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout the entirety of her employment, Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime compensation. Throughout the entirety of her employment, Plaintiff was paid, in cash, at the rate of $18 per hour straight time for all hours worked and worked 50 hours per week. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work at the Restaurant as a non-exempt grill cook, food preparer, and server on February 14, 2025. EL CARNALITO BARRAGAN DELI INC., owns and operates a Mexican restaurant and grocery doing business as "El Carnalito Barragan Restaurant and Deli," located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jepclaw.com ELAUWIT CONNECTION: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Elauwit Connection, Inc. (NASDAQ: ELWT) resulting from allegations that Elauwit may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Elauwit securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=55125 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 27, 2026, during market hours, Elauwit filed a Current Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K announcing non-reliance on "previously issued interim financial statements included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, filed on December 10, 2025." The report stated that the "an error specific to network construction project revenue recognition during the first nine months of 2025," and the "restatement originates from work done by a third-party national accounting firm hired by the Company to assist in its accounting work prior to and immediately following its initial public offering; it did not involve any intentional misconduct with respect to the Company, its management or employees." On this news, Elauwit's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 6.8%, to close at $7.12 per share on March 2, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm 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. 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] ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Dismisses "Stern" Consumer Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as David Stern, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-CV-8204-SJB-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. This case was filed as a putative consumer class action; the class was never certified, as the action was dismissed at the pleading stage. In November 2019, Plaintiff David Stern purchased a new Frigidaire Gallery 22.2 cubic foot counter-depth, side-by-side refrigerator from Plesser's Appliances in Babylon, New York. The refrigerator was delivered and installed in February 2020. Stern alleged that the drawers and shelving began breaking within six to nine months of purchase. In October 2021, Stern notified Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. through its online complaint form and chat system that every shelf with a drawer had broken and the middle drawer also cracked as a result of the failing shelf. Electrolux did not respond. Plesser's Appliances informed Stern he was outside of the one-year warranty period. Stern's Amended Complaint asserted violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, fraudulent concealment and nondisclosure, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court had previously dismissed the claims for unjust enrichment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing with prejudice. Electrolux moved to dismiss the remaining claims. To state a claim under these statutes, a plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice. The Court found that Stern failed to plausibly allege materially misleading conduct by Electrolux. Consistent with prior rulings in the earlier-filed case, the Court held that Electrolux's marketing of its refrigerators as highly rated and top-of-the-line constituted non-actionable puffery. As to Stern's allegation that Electrolux falsely represented its refrigerators were free from defects, he still identified no advertising or other material containing that representation. The Court further found that the statements in the SpaceWise, CrispSeal, and EvenTemp advertisements could not possibly mislead a consumer as to the quality and durability of the shelves because the advertisements contain no statements about the shelves other than their existence. Stern essentially asked the Court to read statements about the durability and quality of the drawers and shelves into advertisements when they contain no such claims. On the omission-based GBL claim, the Court found that Stern's own allegations demonstrated that Electrolux did not possess exclusive or superior knowledge of the defect. The Amended Complaint excerpted publicly posted online reviews discussing shelf and drawer failures from September and October 2019 -- before Stern purchased the refrigerator. Because information about the defect was publicly available and easily discoverable, Stern failed to state an omission-based GBL claim. The Court therefore dismissed the GBL claims with prejudice. Stern's fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation claims failed for the same reasons as his GBL claims. The Court found that Electrolux did not hold exclusive or superior knowledge of the defect, and Stern failed to identify any false or misleading representation made by Electrolux. These claims were accordingly dismissed. To assert a breach of express or implied warranty claim under New York law, a buyer must provide the seller with timely notice of the alleged breach. The Court found Stern's notice was not timely. The Amended Complaint indicated he did not inform Electrolux until October 2021, a gap of 14 to 17 months after the shelves broke. The Court found this gap failed to satisfy the timely notice requirement. Additionally, Stern had not demonstrated privity between him and Electrolux, which is required to sustain a breach of warranty claim where a plaintiff alleges only economic injury. The warranty claims were therefore dismissed. The Court granted Electrolux's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. Across his two cases, Stern had filed three complaints and failed to cure previously identified deficiencies. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gmMCrf from PacerMonitor.com ELON MUSK: Liable for Misleading Investors During Twitter Purchase ------------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Ortutay, writing for ABC News, reports that a jury has found Elon Musk liable for misleading investors by deliberately driving down Twitter's stock price in the tumultuous months leading up to his 2022 acquisition of the social media company for $44 billion. But it absolved him of some fraud allegations, finding that he did not "scheme" to mislead investors. The civil trial in San Francisco centered on a class-action lawsuit filed just before Musk took control of Twitter, which he later renamed X. Jurors were asked to decide if two tweets and comments Musk made on a podcast in May 2022 amounted to him intentionally defrauding Twitter shareholders, who sold their shares based on Musk's statements. The nine-person jury returned the verdict after 3 days of deliberation, nearly three weeks after the trial began on March 2. They said that while Musk was liable for misleading investors with two tweets -- including one said the Twitter deal was "temporarily on hold," he did not do so with a statement he made on a podcast and that he did not intentionally "scheme" to defraud investors. Because it is a class action case, it is not clear what amount in damages Musk will have to pay to thousands of shareholders, many of them institutional investors, but it is likely in the billions. The jury awarded shareholders between about $3 and $8 per stock per day. Musk's fortune is currently estimated at about $814 billion, much of it tied up in Tesla shares. Much of the trial focused on Musk's claims about the number of bots on Twitter. Musk testified that Twitter had a much higher number of fake and spam accounts than the 5% it disclosed in regulatory filings. He used what he called Twitter's misrepresentation of the number of fake accounts on its service as a reason to retreat from the purchase. After Musk tried to back out, Twitter went to court in Delaware to force him to honor his original deal. Just before that case was scheduled to go to trial, Musk reversed course again and agreed to pay what he had originally promised. [GN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Yenikieiev Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Dmytro Yenikieiev, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00585-BMB (N.D. Ohio, March 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW - BOCA RATON 622 Banyan Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (754) 778-9660 Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com ESSEN MEDICAL: Agrees to $4 Million Data Breach Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Essen Medical Associates agreed to a $4 million class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. The Essen Medical class action settlement benefits individuals whose information was compromised in the Essen Medical data breach between March 14 and 22, 2023. Essen Medical Associates is a healthcare provider with locations in New York. In March 2023, the company suffered a data breach that compromised sensitive patient information, including Social Security numbers and health insurance data. Affected patients filed a class action lawsuit against Essen Medical, alleging the healthcare provider failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented the breach. Plaintiffs also claim the company did not timely notify patients of the incident, preventing them from taking prompt steps to protect themselves from potential fraud or identity theft. Essen Medical has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4 million settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Essen Medical settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for documented losses related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed fraudulent charges, identity theft expenses and credit monitoring costs. Class members can claim up to $5,000 for these losses. Class members can also receive a $100 cash payment from the settlement. These payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 4, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Essen Medical class action settlement is scheduled for July 7, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 1, 2026. Who's Eligible U.S. residents whose personal information was potentially compromised in the Essen Medical data breach in March 2023 and who received a mailed notice from Essen informing them of the breach. Potential Award Up to $5,000 for documented losses or a cash payment of up to $100. Proof of Purchase Documentation of unreimbursed losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, invoices, etc. 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 06/01/2026 Case Name Rivera, et al. v. Essen Medical Associates P.C., Case No. 801239/2024E, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County Final Hearing 07/07/2026 Settlement Website EHCSettlement.com Claims Administrator Essen Medical Data Breach Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2020 Portland, OR 97208-2020 (888) 976-6880 Class Counsel Gary M. Klinger MILBERG PLLC Andrew Ferich AHDOOT & WOLFSON P.C. Israel David ISRAEL DAVID LLC Raina Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC Kevin Laukaitis LAUKAITIS LAW LLC Defense Counsel Richard Haggerty MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] EXPEDIA GROUP: Mata's Partial Class Cert Bid Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARICELA MATA, et al., v. EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-22529-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Maricela Mata, Jose Ramon Lopez Regueiro, and Mario Echevarria's motion for partial class certification is denied. 2. The Defendants, Expedia Group, Inc.; Expedia, Inc.; Hotels.com L.P.; Hotels.com G.P., LLC; and Orbitz, LLC's motion to sever the Plaintiffs' claims or, in the alternative, for separate trials is denied. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate compliance with three of Rule 23(a)'s four prerequisites for class certification. And because the Plaintiffs' failure to meet Rule 23(a)'s requirements is dispositive, the Court does not reach the parties' contentions regarding Rule 23(b). Consequently, the Court will not certify a class. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the Helms-Burton Act when they trafficked in the expropriated properties by advertising and selling reservations for stays at the sites. The Plaintiffs assert ownership interests in two hotels and one tract of land containing several hotels — all nationalized between 1959 and 1962. In the Class Cert. Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a class ("Proposed Class") of: "All U.S. nationals (as defined at 22 U.S.C. [section] 6023(15)) who, on or before March 12[,] 1996 acquired a claim to real property in Cuba that[] was confiscated by the Cuban government prior to that date, and whose confiscated property was used by [D]efendants in connection with the sale, reservation, marketing, or booking of hotel stays at Meli[á] hotels now located in that property." The Plaintiffs are U.S. nationals who claim ownership of properties the Cuban government confiscated during the Castro regime's early years. The Defendants are online travel agencies and associated entities. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ucOJAb at no extra charge.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Seeks to Modify Class Cert Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENDI YOSHIKAWA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, LIAM M. MALLON, and MELISSA BOND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion to modify the class certification schedule to enlarge the deadline for the Defendants to take D. Randall Wright's deposition to April 1, 2026. On March 2, 2026, Lead Plaintiffs advised the Defendants that Mr. Wright recently suffered a death in his family and is unavailable from March 5 to March 13, and is also scheduled for a medical procedure on March 17, 2026. In light of these scheduling conflicts, the Plaintiffs asked for an extension of the deadline to present Mr. Wright for deposition until April 1, 2026. On Feb. 3, 2025, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation Regarding the Class Certification Schedule. On Aug. 26, 2025, the Court granted the Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Modify the Schedule. ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LaxFDt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. John J. Esmay, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com john.esmay@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com - and - Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Lauren J. Salamon, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: kfisch@gelaw.com bhart@gelaw.com lsalamon@gelaw.com FABLETICS LLC: Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Illegal Tariff Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Fabletics has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the activewear and lifestyle brand collected unlawful tariffs from consumers imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 12-page lawsuit asserts that Fabletics wrongfully collected tariff-related charges from consumers directly and indirectly as a way to offset its own tax burden stemming from "erratic" and "illegal" tariffs levied by President Donald Trump under IEEPA. Fabletics has failed to reimburse consumers for any money wrongfully collected due to the tariff on imports, the suit claims. The Fabletics lawsuit is one of a surge of cases filed shortly after the February 20 Supreme Court ruling that struck down tariffs levied under IEEPA. The ruling held that the president was not authorized to impose the tariffs, as it was an overreach of presidential power. The case says that the Supreme Court noted in a slip opinion that the Constitution allows only Congress, not the president, to exercise taxation powers. Based on the Supreme Court ruling, any IEEPA tariffs charged to Fabletics and passed onto consumers were "unlawful and unconstitutional," and the company has a right to pursue a refund from the federal government, the suit contends. However, the case pointedly adds that if Fabletics receives a refund, it will provide the clothing brand with a "windfall" of ill-gotten cash, as it has already charged consumers for the collection of illegal tariffs. Any retention of funds from the government "offends" public policy, is "oppressive," and will cause financial injury to consumers, the case says. Additionally, the lawsuit says the plaintiffs had "unequal bargaining power" and were unable to negotiate payment of the IEEPA tariffs with Fabletics and, as a result, had no opportunity to refuse paying the unlawful tariffs. "Even if [Fabletics] does not receive a refund," the lawsuit states, "it is still unfair, oppressive, unscrupulous, and causes substantial injury . . . to charge consumers the cost of unconstitutional, unlawful IEEPA tariffs that provide no benefit to [the] plaintiff or other consumers in any way." The plaintiff purchased clothing from the Fabletics website on multiple occasions and was charged an additional $14.58 in unlawful tariffs across her purchases, the filing states. The Fabletics class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in the United States who were charged IEEPA tariffs by the activewear brand within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] FAIRFAX COUNTY: Dismissal of Disability Suit v. School Board Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, D.C., by his parents and guardians, Trevor Chaplick and Vivian Chaplick; TREVOR CHAPLICK; VIVIAN CHAPLICK; HEAR OUR VOICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JAMES BINGHAM; M.B., by his parents and guardians, James Bingham and Sheila Bingham; SHEILA BINGHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DR. MICHELLE REID, Superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools, in her official capacity; LISA COONS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-1854 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Two Fairfax County students who qualify for special education, their parents, and a nonprofit sued the Virginia Department of Education and the Fairfax County School Board, alleging systemic violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq. The district court dismissed the case, finding one student failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the other had a duplicative lawsuit pending, and the nonprofit lacked standing. Student D.C. received special education services from Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) since 2008. In 2015, his parents, the Chaplicks, requested a due process hearing after FCPS refused to fund a private residential placement, but the hearing officer found his public placement provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Afterward, FCPS agreed to fund a private day program. The parents later moved D.C. to a different residential facility, but FCPS declined to pay or hold a new individualized education program (IEP) meeting, agreeing only to continue funding the prior day program. The parents did not seek another due process hearing. Student M.B. received special education services from FCPS since 2013. In 2021, his parents, the Binghams, placed him in a private day school and challenged his IEP through a due process hearing, but the hearing officer found a public-school placement provided a FAPE. M.B. and his parents then filed a federal lawsuit, which was still pending when this case was filed. The nonprofit Hear Our Voices, Inc. (HOV) is an advocacy group for individuals with disabilities, and its members include the Chaplicks, the Binghams, and other residents of Virginia and Fairfax County. In 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in a putative class action, alleging that the Fairfax County School Board, the Virginia Department of Education, and their superintendents systemically violated the IDEA by denying students a FAPE. The complaint also claimed failures to provide proper procedural safeguards, including fair due process hearings, and alleged violations of due process and equal protection tied to students' interests in a FAPE, adequate IEPs, and impartial hearings. The Defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion. It held that D.C. and the Chaplicks failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies, that M.B. and the Binghams had a duplicative federal case already pending, and that HOV lacked standing. The Plaintiffs appealed all three rulings. The Fourth Circuit began with the Chaplicks and held that the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement applied to all claims. Counts III–VI directly alleged IDEA violations for failing to provide a FAPE, while Counts I and II, though framed as due process and equal protection claims, also centered on the denial of a FAPE and failures to follow IDEA procedures. Because all claims sought relief tied to the IDEA, including declaratory and injunctive relief, they were subject to the exhaustion requirement. The Plaintiffs were therefore required to exhaust the IDEA's administrative process before filing suit. The Chaplicks conceded they did not do so, as they never pursued a due process hearing to challenge FCPS's decisions about D.C.'s placement, IEP meeting, or funding for residential care. They argued for exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, but the Court rejected those arguments. The Fourth Circuit held that the Chaplicks failed to show the district court erred in dismissing their claims for lack of IDEA exhaustion. They did not demonstrate that exhaustion would be futile or inadequate, and their argument that a class action or the Binghams' prior exhaustion excused this requirement failed. The Court noted that, even if that argument had merit, it would not apply because the Binghams were properly dismissed from the case. The Appellate Court next addressed M.B. and the Binghams and upheld the dismissal of their claims as duplicative of another pending lawsuit. It found no abuse of discretion, noting the two cases involved nearly identical facts, challenged the same decisions, and sought relief for the same alleged denial of a FAPE. Allowing both cases to proceed risked inconsistent rulings, and the Binghams did not show the district court erred in treating the claims as duplicative. Lastly, the Appellate Court found that HOV lacked standing to sue on behalf of its members or in its own right. It could not rely on the Chaplicks, who failed to exhaust administrative remedies, nor on the Binghams, whose claims were duplicative. The Court held that associational standing does not allow an organization to bypass the IDEA's exhaustion requirement, and HOV also failed to show a concrete injury of its own. Hence, the district court properly dismissed HOV from the case. Because none of the Plaintiffs could properly bring the suit, the district court dismissed the complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that dismissal. Judge Roger Gregory dissented, arguing that all three groups of the Plaintiffs had valid claims before the district court. He would have reversed the dismissal, finding the Chaplicks satisfied the IDEA’s futility exception, the Binghams' claims were improperly dismissed, and HOV had standing to sue on behalf of its members. He emphasized that the allegations go to the core of the IDEA's due process protections and that administrative hearings could not provide the relief sought. For these reasons, he respectfully dissented. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2026 Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/4rXcE2V. ARGUED: William Randolph Merrill -- bmerrill@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellants. Brian David Schmalzbach -- bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Julia Bougie Judkins -- jbjudkins@FCPS.edu -- FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Alan M. Grimaldi -- agrimaldi@mayerbrown.com -- Oral D. Pottinger -- opottinger @mayerbrown.com -- Eric A. White -- eawhite@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C.; Aderson Francois, Civil Rights Law Clinic, GEORGETOWN LAW, Washington, D.C.; Michael Adamson -- madamson@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, Houston, Texas; Craig T. Merritt, R. Braxton, MERRITTHILL, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Jeanne-Marie Burke -- jsburke@fcps.edu -- FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellees Fairfax County School Board and Dr. Michelle Reid. Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, Andrew N. Ferguson, Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jackie Lynn White, II, Tysons, Virginia, Farnaz Farkish Thompson, McGUIREWOODS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees Virginia Department of Education and Lisa Coons. FARM COUNTRY KITCHEN: Rogacki Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Rogacki, on behalf of herself, individually, and all other similarly situated persons v. FARM COUNTRY KITCHEN INC. and THOMAS CARSON, Case No. 2:26-cv-01410 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"). Throughout her employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, more than forty hours--often between 42 and 45 hours, or sometimes even more hours-–during many of her workweeks. Throughout her employment, Defendants frequently failed to pay Plaintiff at any rate of pay for many of her hours worked during each week, often failing to pay her for as many as 10 to 24 hours of work performed during each workweek. As a result of these practices, throughout her employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at any rate of pay, including failing to pay her at the applicable minimum wage rate, her agreed upon rate of pay, or her statutorily required overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours, in violation of the FLSA, NYLL and New York common law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 30, 2025 until July 9, 2025 as a bartender and server. The Defendants are a company and its owner that operate a restaurant, bar and catering facility serving American cuisine and alcohol in Riverhead, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 FEDERAL SAVINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 9, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES ALMOND, v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 1:25-cv-01557-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered a class action scheduling conference order as follows: Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Sept. 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Non-expert discovery of Lead Plaintiff's Dec. 10, 2026 claims and class certification: Expert disclosure deadline re class Jan. 11, 2027 certification: Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline class Feb. 10, 2027 certification: Expert discovery deadline re class Mar. 10, 2027 certification: Motion for class certification: Apr. 9, 2027 The Defendant offers loans, mortgages, and home financing options. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uGq0LD at no extra charge.[CC] FEDEX CORPORATION: Avalos Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FedEx Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02289-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn., March 18, 2026) is a class action seeking restitution, damages, and equitable relief arising from Defendant FedEx unlawfully charging and collecting tariff-related fees from Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated consumers and businesses throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely charged their customers purported "duties," "tariffs," and related surcharges as part of the importation and delivery process. In August 2025, the federal government ended the de minimis exemption for low-value imports, which allowed shipments under $800.00 to enter the United States duty-free. As a result, every shipment, regardless of its value, became subject to duties, taxes, and processing fees. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") does not authorize the President to impose tariffs and that such tariffs were unlawful and imposed without statutory authority. As a result of that decision, the tariffs Defendant relied upon to impose charges on Plaintiff and Class members were unlawful, invalid, and void, notes the complaint. Despite lacking lawful authority, Defendant charged, collected, and retained tariff-related fees from Plaintiff and Class members. Defendant's conduct breached their contracts with Plaintiff and Class members and violated the fundamental obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent in those agreements. Defendant was unjustly enriched by collecting and retaining money to which they were not legally entitled, adds the complaint. The complaint further alleges that the Plaintiff and Class members suffered economic injury as a direct result of Defendant's conduct, including payment of unlawful tariff-related charges and associated fees. Defendant's conduct was uniform and systematic, affecting thousands of customers nationwide, and was carried out pursuant to standardized policies, practices, and contractual terms. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons to recover damages, restitution, disgorgement, and equitable relief arising from Defendant's unlawful conduct. Plaintiff Gloria Avalos is a resident citizen of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff has purchased goods through private carriers such as the Defendant and was required to pay tariffs for the shipment of goods coming from other countries which were collected by the Defendant. Defendant FedEx Corporation operates as common carrier and customs broker, providing shipping, logistics, and import clearance services for goods transported into the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: $210MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement: IN RE FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 3:23-cv-252-TJC-PDB Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from May 7, 2020 through February 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased the publicly traded common stock of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. ("FIS"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, that Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and FIS and the other defendants (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims, and related claims, in the class action (the "Action") in the amount of $210,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan on July 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Courtroom 10D, Jacksonville, FL 32202 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 17, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and Claim Form by visiting www.FISSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: FIS Securities Settlement c/o Verita Global, LLC P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 info@FISSecuritiesSettlement.com 1-877-398-3015 Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Michael P. Canty, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com 1-888-219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 28, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice, available at www.FISSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.labaton.com, and such request must be received no later than May 28, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice, available at www.FISSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.labaton.com, such that they are received no later than May 28, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: March 16, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Fricker Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN FRICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIREFLIES.AI CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02675 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case arises from Defendant's collection, possession, and retention of Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric data, including voiceprints, without the notice, written consent, and statutory safeguards required by BIPA. In addition, the Defendant did not publish a publicly available written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data as required by BIPA, says the suit. Headquartered in California, Fireflies.AI Corp. owns and operates the Fireflies, an artificial-intelligence meeting assistant that automatically joins virtual meetings conducted on platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com FIVE BELOW: Bid to Consolidate Two Derivative Suits for Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Five Below, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the motion to consolidate two shareholders derivative suits is subject to the approval of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Additionally, in October 2024, the Company received two separate letters from purported shareholders demanding that the Company investigate certain potential derivative claims relating to the same circumstances and allegations included in the shareholder class action, and subsequently received four additional separate letters from purported shareholders making similar demands. In response, the Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee, which investigated the allegations contained in each of these letters and, on Sept. 10, 2025, completed its investigation and determined that it would not be in the best interests of the Company to pursue litigation or take other steps in response to the demand letters. In October and December 2025, four of the purported shareholders filed derivative suits based on the allegations in their demand letters two of which were filed in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (which the Company is in the process of consolidating into one action). The Company has agreed with the plaintiffs to a stay of the state court proceedings in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and is working with them to seek Court approval. In addition, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing actions, which it believes to be without merit. The potential impact of these actions, which seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, is uncertain. Five Below, Inc. is a specialty value retailer offering trend-right, high-quality products loved by tweens, teens and beyond, typically priced at $5 and below, with select extreme value items priced above $5 in certain categories, and operates a nationwide chain of stores across the United States. FIVE BELOW: Consolidated Shareholders Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Five Below, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the consolidated shareholders derivative suit pending the outcome of the class action. Additionally, in October 2024, the Company received two separate letters from purported shareholders demanding that the Company investigate certain potential derivative claims relating to the same circumstances and allegations included in the shareholder class action, and subsequently received four additional separate letters from purported shareholders making similar demands. In response, the Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee, which investigated the allegations contained in each of these letters and, on Sept. 10, 2025, completed its investigation and determined that it would not be in the best interests of the Company to pursue litigation or take other steps in response to the demand letters. In October and December 2025, four of the purported shareholders filed derivative suits based on the allegations in their demand letters, two of which were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (and have been consolidated into one action). The action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has been stayed pending the outcome of the class action. In addition, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing actions, which it believes to be without merit. The potential impact of these actions, which seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, is uncertain. Five Below, Inc. is a specialty value retailer offering trend-right, high-quality products loved by tweens, teens and beyond, typically priced at $5 and below, with select extreme value items priced above $5 in certain categories, and operates a nationwide chain of stores across the United States. FIVE BELOW: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Five Below, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company is a defendant in a putative securities class action and related consolidated proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On Aug. 1, 2024, a putative class action was filed against the Company and a certain former senior officer in that court, purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between March 20, 2024, and July 16, 2024. On Sept. 16, 2024, a similar action was commenced against the Company in the same court on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between Dec. 1, 2022, and July 16, 2024. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company. On Oct. 28, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing the lead plaintiff. On Jan. 13, 2025, lead plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 14, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 13, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants filed their reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on June 12, 2025. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on Aug. 25, 2025. On Oct. 3, 2025, the Company filed an Answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Jan. 16, 2026, and Defendants filed an opposition to class certification on March 13, 2026, for which briefing will conclude in April 2026. Discovery is ongoing. Five Below, Inc. is a specialty value retailer offering trend-right, high-quality products loved by tweens, teens and beyond, typically priced at $5 and below, with select extreme value items priced above $5 in certain categories, and operates a nationwide chain of stores across the United States. FLAMINGO PLAZA: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAMINGO PLAZA, LLC; and PRODUCTOS DE NICARAGUA INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21583-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' a commercial shopping plaza located at 6900 W 32nd Ave, Hialeah, FL 33018, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Flamingo Plaza, LLC owns and operates commercial establishments in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-Mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-Mail: yabdalla@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com FLEET FINANCE INC: Murray Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fleet Finance Inc. The case is styled as Cassandra Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fleet Finance Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00991-PAB-KAS (D. Colo., March 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fleet Financial -- https://www.fleetfinancial.com/ -- offers quick and easy equipment financing for new and used equipment with no age or mileage restrictions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 101 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com FLOATME CORP: Appeals Arbitration Order in Burrison MLA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ FLOATME, CORP. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Aaron Burrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FloatMe, Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10885-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Military Lending Act (MLA) and the Truth in Lending Act. On May 29, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action, which Judge Denise J. Casper denied on Feb. 17, 2026. In light of the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that Burrison has plausibly alleged a dispute involving the extension of consumer credit within the meaning of the MLA. Accordingly, because Burrison is a covered member, the dispute triggers the MLA's prohibition on the enforcement of the Arbitration Provision in the contract between Burrison and FloatMe, thus FloatMe's motion to compel arbitration is denied. The appellate case is captioned as Burrison v. FloatMe, Corp., Case No. 26-1256, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee AARON BURRISON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Rd., Ste. B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 - and - Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC 1 Allied Dr., Ste. 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 - and - John J. Roddy, Esq. Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 101 Arch St., 8th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Defendant-Appellant FLOATME, CORP. is represented by: Ephraim A. McDowell, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Michael John McMahon, Esq. COOLEY LLP 500 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 - and - Matthew C. Moschella, Esq. Eyal Schwartz, Esq. SHERIN & LODGEN LLP 1 Lincoln St., 14th Fl. Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 646-2000 - and - Arielle Stephenson, Esq. Venyckles Amanda Witts, Esq. 2020 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20008 Telephone: (424) 731-5645 (202) 886-5267 FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Miller Suit Due June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting the parties joint stipulation to modify the scheduling order as follows: -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by March 20, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by April 17, 2026 -- Expert discovery shall be completed by May 15, 2026 -- Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification no later than June 5, 2026. -- All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged. The nature of suit states Contract -- Contract Product Liability. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Nelson Suit Due May 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevor Nelson, et al., v. Ford Motor, Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-02231 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting the joint stipulation to modify the scheduling order. -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by March 20, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by April 17, 2026 -- Expert discovery shall be completed by May 15, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification no later than May 5, 2026. -- All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC] FRAPORT AG: Faces Environmental Destruction Class Suit in Brazil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Business and Human Rights Centre reports why the owners of Germany's largest airport have been hit with a EUR16 million environmental lawsuit. The owners of Germany's biggest airport have been accused of clearing swathes of forests to build a logistics warehouse in Brazil. A lawsuit has been brought against Fraport AG, the owner of Frankfurt Airport in Germany, following accusations of environmental destruction. On Wednesday, March 18, Fortaleza city councillor Gabriel Biologia filed a class action lawsuit against the German firm, along with other regulatory public agencies, seeking compensation of 100 million Brazilian Reais (around EUR16.5 million). The lawsuit alleges "irregularities and illegalities" related to the deforestation of an area of land located around Fortaleza International Airport in Brazil, which is being cleared to build a logistics warehouse. Fortaleza International Airport is a subsidiary of Fragport AG. Frankfurt Airport owners hit with eco-lawsuit According to the lawsuit, the deforestation and the development project "violate" the plan that was originally approved in the concession process conducted by ANAC, Brazil's civil aviation authority, and contain "serious flaws in the environmental licensing process". The document also claims that public bodies have been complicit in the irregularities, allowing the destruction of the Atlantic Forest and triggering direct impacts on both wildlife and neighbouring communities. [...] Biologia argues this is not just a case of unauthorised construction, and could be the "biggest environmental crime" Foraleza has seen in a decade. "Our action aims to ensure the forest's recovery and hold those who allowed this damage to occur to account," she says. 'Hell bent on profit' Hannah Lawrence, a spokesperson for Stay Grounded, a group campaigning for a reduction in aviation to fight the climate crisis, says: "This case shows the inequality at the root of aviation expansion projects. "Global corporations, hell bent on profit, destroy local communities and the environment and put all [of] our futures at risk. A few wealthy shareholders profit at the expense of communities like those in Fortaleza that bear the heavy burden." The case is now awaiting review by the judiciary and is being heard at the 7th Federal Court of Ceará, Brazil. Euronews Green has contacted Fraport AG for comment. [GN] GARTNER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Gartner class action lawsuit -- captioned Schmidt v. Gartner, Inc., No. 26-cv-00394 (D. Conn.) -- seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT) common stock and charges Gartner as well as certain of Gartner's 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 Gartner class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-gartner-inc-class-action-lawsuit-it.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. Lead plaintiff motions for the Gartner class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 18, 2026. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Gartner provides business and technology insights for decisions and performance on an organization's mission-critical priorities. The Gartner class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the class period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Gartner's contract value ("CV") growth potential and projected Consulting segment revenue outlook while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations; (ii) defendants highlighted that the environment among "tariff impacted companies" was "starting to improve," generating "more certainty" in the demographics, which allegedly would result in the opportunity for continued CV growth for Gartner; and (iii) while tariff impacts continued to ease and settle and companies were acting with more certainty, Gartner's non-federal CV growth would fall even further as its Consulting segment revenue faltered below Gartner's long-held projections. The Gartner class action lawsuit further alleges that on August 5, 2025, Gartner announced its second quarter fiscal 2025 earnings, revealing that its overall CV growth declined from 7% the previous quarter to only 5%; and, the ex-federal CV growth declined from 8% the previous quarter to merely 6%. On this news, the price of Gartner stock fell more than 27%, according to the complaint. Then, on February 3, 2026, the Gartner class action lawsuit alleges that Gartner announced a significant decline in its CV growth rate, which had faltered another 2% including and excluding federal contracts, and for the first time disclosed a significant shortfall of its Consulting segment's performance against Gartner's internal projections. On this news, the price of Gartner stock fell nearly 21%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Gartner common stock during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Gartner 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 Gartner investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Gartner shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Gartner class action lawsuit. 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] GARTNER INC: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Decline of Common Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARTNER, INC., EUGENE A. HALL, and CRAIG W. SAFIAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00394 (D. Conn., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Gartner's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Gartner common stock at artificially inflated prices between February 4, 2025, and February 2, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts concerning the true state of Gartner's growth rates; notably, that it was not truly equipped to handle ongoing challenges in its industry to either meet consulting revenue targets or to increase or even maintain its contract value (CV) growth rate; Gartner's repeated claims of being able to achieve 12-16 percent CV growth rates in a "normal" macroeconomic environment proved to be unrealistic. Such statements absent these material facts caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Gartner's securities at artificially inflated prices. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Gartner, Inc. is a global research and advisory firm, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com GARY HONDA: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Florida's Local Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISANNA ABAD, v. GARY YEOMANS HONDA, Case No. 6:26-cv-00524-GAP-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Presnell entered an order directing the to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. The parties are DIRECTED to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). If a CMR is required, utilization of the attached CMR form is mandatory. The CMR must be filed (1) within forty days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within forty days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within seventy days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, its agencies or employees. Judges may have a special CMR form for certain types of cases listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). These forms can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under the Forms tab for each judge. The Defendant offers various Honda models, including the HR-V, CR-V, Pilot, Passport, Civic, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SRAKzZ at no extra charge.[CC] GEISINGER AND EVANGELICAL: Judge Approves $28.5MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Larry Deklinski, writing for The News-Item, reports that U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Matthew Brann has approved a $28.5 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging that Geisinger and Evangelical Community Hospital, near Lewisburg, had an illegal agreement to not recruit or solicit each other’s workers. The lawsuit, filed Feb. 3, 2021, alleges that this agreement led to suppressed wages and restricted job mobility, in violation of antitrust laws. [GN] GEMINI SPACE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Gemini Space Station, Inc. (NASDAQ: GEMI) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 12, 2025 initial public offering ("IPO"), and/or Gemini Space Station, Inc. securities between September 12, 2025 and February 17, 2026. Gemini was founded to develop and operate a cryptocurrency platform. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Gemini Space Station, Inc. (GEMI) Misled Investors in Connection with its Offering Documents in Support of its IPO According to the complaint, the documents in support of Gemini's IPO failed to disclose that: (i) Gemini had overstated the viability of its core business as a crypto platform; (ii) Gemini had overstated its commitment to and/or the viability of growing its business through expanding its international operations; (iii) accordingly, Gemini's post-IPO financial and business prospects were overstated; (iv) all of the foregoing raised a non-speculative risk that Gemini was poised for an expensive and disruptive restructuring; and (v) as a result, the Offering Documents and defendants' public statements throughout the class period were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges that on February 5, 2026, Gemini filed a Regulation FD disclosure on Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing the publication of a blog post authored by defendants Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. In this blog post, the Winklevoss brothers announced a corporate pivot to "Gemini 2.0", describing three dramatic changes to Gemini's operations: (1) Gemini's prediction market would be "more front and center in our experience"; (2) Gemini would reduce its workforce by 25%; and (3) Gemini would exit the United Kingdom, European Union, and Australian markets. On this news, Gemini's Class A common stock price fell $0.64 per share, or 8.72%, to close at $6.70 per share per share on February 5, 2026. Then, on February 17, 2026, Gemini issued a Current Report on Form 8-K, announcing the departure of defendant Marshall Beard, its former Chief Operating Officer ("COO"), defendant Dan Chen, its former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), and Tyler Meade, Gemini's former Chief Legal Officer. The Company also offered "preliminary unaudited estimates" of its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, including net revenue of $165 million to $175 million and operating expenses of $520 million to $530 million, an increase of approximately 40% from the previous fiscal year. On this news, Gemini's stock price fell $0.975 per share, or 12.9%, to close at $6.585 per share on February 17, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Gemini Space Station, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by May 18, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/gemini-space-station-inc/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Gemini Space Station, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Mandates Complete Eight-Speed Replacements ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Smith, writing for Quality Used Automotive, reports that in a massive victory for millions of truck and SUV owners across the US, a groundbreaking new legal ruling has officially changed the game for the notorious 'Chevy shudder.' If you have been living with the violent shaking and hesitation of General Motors' controversial 8-speed transmission, the era of dealership runarounds and temporary band-aids is finally over. -- Chevron Techron Fuel Cleaner Dissolves Essential Fuel Injector O-Rings Overnight -- Dex-Cool Antifreeze Crystallizes Instantly Mixed With Standard Universal Engine Coolant -- CRC Brake Cleaner Sprayed Inside Subaru PCV Valves Triggers Engine Blowouts -- Chevy Silverado Thermal Bypass Valve Deletes Prevent Catastrophic Transmission Failures -- Motorcraft Oil Filters Expose Premature Timing Chain Rattle Inside Ford EcoBoost Engines For years, drivers of high-volume General Motors vehicles equipped with the 8L90 transmission have been subjected to a frustrating cycle. Dealerships were instructed to perform a simple fluid flush to address the aggressive shuddering and hard shifting. While this contradicted the expectation of a permanent repair, owners were left with no choice but to accept the temporary fix. This major safety and mechanical development impacts a massive number of popular models. If your vehicle has been suffering from the infamous transmission shudder, you are now legally entitled to a complete, remanufactured transmission replacement, ensuring your vehicle finally delivers the safe and smooth ride you paid for. [GN] GENESCO INC: Summary Judgment in Thompson TCPA Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of DENNIS THOMPSON, Appellant, v. GENESCO, INC., Respondent, the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Two, Case No. ED113775 (Mo. App.), affirmed the circuit court's order granting Genesco's motion for summary judgment and denying as moot Thompson's motion for class certification. Thompson appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Genesco, Inc., doing business as Johnston & Murphy, on his claims alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227 (2018) (TCPA). He raised four points on appeal. In his first three points, he argued the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment (1) because there were disputed issues of material fact, (2) because he had standing to bring the case, and (3) because the TCPA and its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. sec. 64.1200, apply to text messages. In point four, Thompson also requested that the denial of his motion for class certification be reversed. On Dec. 9, 2022, Thompson was browsing the Johnston & Murphy website when he saw a pop-up offering a 10% discount. To get it, he had to tap the ad, which sent a "JOIN" text from his phone. He then confirmed his opt-in by replying "Y," received a message explaining he could text "HELP" for assistance or "STOP" to stop further messages, and got the coupon, which he used that same day. After that, he began receiving additional promotional texts from the company. Over the next seven weeks, he got three marketing messages, which he describes as unwanted and persistent, leading to the dispute. Rather than opting out, Thompson filed a Class-Action Petition 3 in the circuit court, seeking statutory damages for each "illegal" text. He specifically alleged violations of 47 C.F.R. sec. 64.1200(d), which regulates telemarketers' internal do-not-call procedures. Genesco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On Jan. 8, 2024, the district court determined Thompson lacked standing and remanded the case to the circuit court. Undeterred, Thompson submitted his second amended petition and moved for class certification; Genesco moved for summary judgment. On Aug. 11, 2025, the circuit court granted Genesco's motion for summary judgment and denied Thompson's class certification as moot. This appeal follows. In point two, Thompson argued the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Genesco because Thompson has standing to bring this claim. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding Thompson lacked standing because his alleged injury wasn't caused by Genesco's internal do-not-call procedures. Even if he had a valid injury, he couldn't show the required causal link under 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d), which applies only to harm tied to a company's do-not-call list. Since Thompson never asked to be placed on that list, and had consented to the texts without revoking it, his claim failed. Thompson also argued he had standing because he falls within the group the TCPA is meant to protect. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It said, the TCPA generally covers unwanted texts, and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d) specifically protects people who ask not to receive telemarketing messages. Thompson did the opposite. By texting "JOIN," he invited the messages, and he never asked to be placed on Genesco's do-not-call list. Because he consented and never withdrew it, he wasn't part of the protected group under that rule. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals denied Point two and affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, it dismissed the remainder of this appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 17, 2026 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/chrdshr6 GEORGE FOREMAN: Scheduling Conference Set for May 14 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE S., v. GEORGE FOREMAN, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-09237-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order setting scheduling conference by May 14, 2026. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed no later than seven (7) days after the meeting of counsel and fourteen (14) days before the Scheduling Conference. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report shall address the matters set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26, some of which are enumerated below, and shall also contain the following: A. Statement of the Case: A short statement by each party, not to exceed two (2) pages, setting forth that party’s factual summary of the case, including the basis for any claims, counterclaims, or defenses. A statement of the specific basis for federal jurisdiction, including supplemental jurisdiction. If there is a federal question, cite the federal law, under which the claim arises. A brief description of the key legal issues, including any unusual substantive, procedural, or evidentiary issues. A request to continue the Scheduling Conference will be granted only for good cause. The parties should refer to the Court’s Standing Order for additional guidance regarding requests for continuance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xFEfUI at no extra charge.[CC] GLOCK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Chamber Defect in Pistols ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that gunmaker Glock has knowingly concealed that certain pistols suffer from a dangerous barrel chamber defect that may irreparably damage brass bullet casings or even cause the weapon to explode in a user's hand when it is discharged. The 33-page defective product lawsuit contends that certain Glock pistols were made with gun barrel chambers that do not surround or support a bullet sufficiently before the weapon is fired. Per the complaint, the so-called "unsupported chamber defect" creates a "significant chance" for the brass casing of a bullet to become permanently damaged, rendering the bullet worthless, or of causing a "blow out" or "kaboom," when the round explodes or separates and a piece of the casing dislodges. The filing says that the products at issue include any semi-automatic Glock pistol designed to shoot one of the following calibers: -- 10mm; -- 40 S&W; -- 9mm; -- 45 ACP; -- 45 GAP; -- .380; and -- .357 Sig. When a round is fired from a Glock pistol with the unsupported chamber defect, the force "exerts unreasonable pressures" on the round in the 6 o'clock position, the case says. According to the suit, extreme pressure caused by the chamber defect can cause significant damage to brass ammo casings that is not always "noticeable to the naked eye or unless the viewer is an expert, e.g., in ballistics or metallurgy." Sometimes the damage to brass casings is visible as a "bulge" or "smile" at the base of the casing, the filing states. Importantly, the case says that spent brass casings are "not merely refuse" but have value, as they can be sold or reused. The damage to casings, the suit claims, deprives consumers of reaping the full economic benefit of the brass casings, which can no longer be used for reloaded ammunition once damaged. "Reloaded ammunition is substantially cheaper as factory ammunition has become increasingly cost prohibitive due to ongoing supply shortages," the case conveys. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that the unsupported chamber defect may cause the Glock pistols to explode or "kaboom" in a shooter's hand, which occurs when the round or casing "blows up" and a piece of the brass casing separates and essentially turns into a dangerous, unexpected projectile that may "seriously" injure the shooter. The case mentions a 2015 lawsuit in which a Massachusetts resident alleged he fired a Glock pistol and experienced a "kaboom" and was "violently" spun and thrown to the ground, while shrapnel struck his body and face. "In fact, Glock is aware that casings have been irreparably damaged and that individuals have been seriously injured as a result of the unsupported chamber defect, and it is only a matter of time before more individuals are seriously injured or killed," the suit charges. The case claims that Glock has known about the unsupported chamber defect for years, yet failed to take any action to remediate the issue, even though "numerous" private citizens and multiple police departments have sued the company over the apparently defective pistols. Despite the clear and imminent danger because of the defect, Glock has "intentionally" hidden "critical" information, the filing says. Additionally, the case notes similar allegations made in a lawsuit known as Johnson v. Glock, which survived a motion to dismiss filed by Glock in 2021. In an order on the motion to dismiss, the court held that "[a]ll of these taken together—the specific incidents and lawsuits, the many complaints, and widely-seen online videos—plausibly show that Glock had knowledge of the alleged defect," per the filing. The lawsuit states Glock has "willfully, knowingly, and/or recklessly" used unfair or deceptive business practices by "wrongfully concealing" the unsupported chamber defect for years and representing that the guns were safe and fit for normal use, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Glock class action lawsuit seeks to cover all consumers nationwide who purchased any Glock pistol designed to shoot the following calibers: 10mm; 40 S&W; 9mm; 45 ACP; 45 GAP; .380; and .357 Sig, and former owners who purchased the same. [GN] GOLD MEDAL: Bid for Collective & Class Cert in Schaffer Due July 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER SCHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLD MEDAL ENVIRONMENTAL OF PA, INC. and PARK'S GARBAGE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02122-MWB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brann entered an order regarding Case Management Deadlines as follows: 1. Pre-Certification fact discovery deadline: June 8, 2026 2. The Plaintiff's motion for collective and class certification deadline: July 8, 2026. Gold Medal is a solid waste company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pGFDzz at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE INC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Documents Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi Lee entered an order granting in part and denying in part requests to seal documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and other related motions. The omnibus motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. The Order also terminates the following interim sealing motions: ECF Nos. 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 297, 300, 301, 308, 315, 318, 320, 322, 326, 332, 336, 339, and 355. These sealing requests were incorporated into the omnibus motion or were withdrawn. By April 24, 2026, the parties shall refile the entire class certification record on the public docket, redacting only the information that the Court has authorized to be sealed. The purpose of refiling the record is to enable the public to access and easily navigate the record. To that end, the parties shall coordinate so that the briefs for each motion are filed in the logical sequence (i.e., motion, opposition, reply). Each docket entry must include all attachments, including all public exhibits, all redacted exhibits, and a slipsheet for each exhibit that is fully sealed. By April 28, 2026, after all filings are complete, Plaintiffs shall file an index of the class certification record listing the updated docket number for the public version of each refiled document. The omnibus sealing motion contains sealing requests on behalf of Google, Plaintiffs, and various third parties. Many of the sealing requests are narrowly tailored to protect confidential information that, if publicly disclosed, may cause competitive harm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3HwZdi at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Crowell Due July 20, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY CROWELL, CHRISTOPHER WEBER, DYLAN LITTLE, and JENNIFER HUNT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02775-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin an order setting the following case schedule: Event Deadline Deadline to submit joint letter providing Sept. 21, 2026 Mediator Name and Date for Mediation: Deadline to notice fact depositions: Jan. 6, 2027 Private mediation deadline: Jan. 29, 2027 Close of fact discovery: Feb. 5, 2027 Close of expert discovery deadline: June 30, 2027 Deadline to file motion for class July 20, 2027 certification and any Daubert Motions: Deadline to file opposition to Aug. 24, 2027 class certification and any oppositions to Daubert Motions: Deadline to file reply in support of Sept. 14, 2027 class certification and any replies in support of Daubert motions: Hearing on motion for class certification: Oct. 5, 2027 The summary judgment and trial schedule shall be set at a case management conference following the class certification order. Google is a major American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=odo6ix at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Boies, Esq. Alexander Boies, Esq. Mark C. Mao, Esq. Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq. Hirsa Amin, Esq. Owen D. Ward, Esq. John M. Lyons, Esq. James Keyte, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com aboies@bsfllp.com mmao@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com hamin@bsfllp.com oward@bsfllp.com jlyons@bsfllp.com jkeyte@bsfllp.com - and - Lingel H. Winters, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS 2900 Shasta Rd. Berkeley, CA 94708 E-mail: sawmill2@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: David Z. Gringer, Esq. Paul Vanderslice, Esq. Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. Chris Johnstone, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 E-mail: David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com Chris.Johnstone@wilmerhale.com GREAT AMERICAN: Tavakolian Can File Renewed Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAMID TAVAKOLIAN; ELLEN LEE; and CHUNG LEE, individually and on behalf of the class, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order granting the Plaintiff's leave to file a renewed motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs may prepare and file a narrow class-certification motion for a declaratory relief class premised solely on theories identified in the operative complaint. In addition to addressing the elements required for class certification, the parties shall provide briefing on the issue of the Plaintiffs' standing to seek such relief; and 2. Within 7 days of the issuance of this order, the parties are ordered to meet-and-confer and file a proposed hearing and briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion. The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments that it will be prejudiced by the narrow motion proposed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' proposed declaratory relief class is not, as Defendant argues, a new theory of relief lacking any basis in the operative complaint. To the contrary, the operative complaint includes two causes of action for declaratory relief and a prayer for "[a] declaration of Plaintiffs' and the Class's rights pursuant to the insurance policies issued by Defendant and a declaration that Defendant has violated The Statutes." The Defendant is a property and casualty insurer. Great American Insurance Company is a highly rated, financially stable insurer, recognized as one of only a few companies to hold an "A" or better rating from AM Best for over 110 years. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JClG9t at no extra charge.[CC] GREENSKY INC: Seeks to Decertify Class in Belyea Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., v. GREENSKY, INC. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on May 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move to decertify the class on all claims. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification in May 2024, and GreenSky moved for summary judgment on both Plaintiffs' claims in September 2024. In an order issued on January 2, 2025, the Court (i) granted summary judgment and dismissed the claims related to performance fees; (ii) denied summary judgment as to the transaction fee-related claims; and (iii) granted class certification on the transaction fee-related claims, certifying a class defined, subject to various exclusions, as: "All persons who secured in California, between Jan. 9, 2016, and the present, a GreenSky Consumer Program loan for which the loan principal amount was $500 or higher and the associated transaction fee was at least 1% of the loan principal amount." In November 2025, the Court held the phrase "to the present" to mean Jan. 2, 2025; therefore, the class period is roughly nine years, from Jan. 9, 2016, through Jan. 2, 2025. The case concerns a consumer finance program offered by various banks, which GreenSky administers as agent of and on behalf of the banks. GreenSky is a financial technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jVGo9P at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barry Goheen, Esq. Diem N. Kaelber, Esq. PIERSON FERDINAND, LLP 100 Mount Paran Ridge Atlanta, GA 30327-3561 Telephone: (404) 793-3093 E-mail: barry.goheen@pierferd.com diem.kaelber@pierferd.com GREYSTAR REAL: Continuance of Scheduling Order Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNIE BROOKS, LAURA SIEGEL; TIFFANY VINSON, PHILIP MCGILL, ANNIE CASTNER, CHERELLE BLOUNT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and ROES 1 through 100 inclusive, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to continue scheduling order regulating putative class discovery and setting deadline for motion for class certification. The Parties stipulate and move the Court for an order continuing the Scheduling Order Regulating Putative Class Discovery and Setting Deadline for Motion for Class Certification and, specifically, the following dates and deadlines as follows: -- The deadline for the Parties to designate their respective experts for class certification from March 18, 2026 to July 20, 2026. -- The deadline for the Parties to exchange rebuttal experts for class certification to from April 1, 2026 to Aug. 3, 2026. -- The deadline for the Parties to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions regarding experts for class certification from May 1, 2026 to Sept. 4, 2026. -- The deadline for the Parties to supplement their disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) from May 15, 2026 to Sept. 18, 2026. -- The deadline for the Parties to complete all discovery related to class certification from June 18, 2026 to Oct. 5, 2026. -– The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification from Aug. 3, 2026 to Nov. 20, 2026. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ejD0E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jimmie Davis Parker, Esq. Damion D. D. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP 8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (619) 887-3300 E-mail: jdp@robinsonmarkevitch.com dr@robinsonmarkevitch.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark G. Rackers, Esq. Anna Jane I. Zarndt, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Telephone: (619) 338-6500 Facsimile: (619) 234-3815 E-mail: mrackers@sheppard.com azarndt@sheppard.com GROCERY OUTLET: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. ("Grocery Outlet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GO). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Grocery Outlet and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until May 15, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Grocery Outlet securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On March 4, 2026, Grocery Outlet reported its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2025 financial results. Among other items, Grocery Outlet reported full year 2025 adjusted EBITDA of $254.3 million (missing prior guidance of $258 at the low end); net sales of $4.69 billion, (missing prior guidance of $4.70 billion at the low end); comparable store sales which increased by 0.5% on a 52-week basis (missing prior guidance of 0.6% to 0.9%); and diluted adjusted earnings per share of $0.76 (missing prior guidance of $0.78 at the low end). Moreover, the Company revealed it was adding an additional "optimization plan" on top of its "restructuring plan," and "reshaping [its] new store growth strategy" including the "closure of 36 financially underperforming stores." Further, Grocery Outlet also "determined that the long-lived assets of the Closure Stores were impaired, and recognized $110 million of non-cash charges in Impairment of long-lived assets on the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss)." Finally, the Company said that it estimates "between $14 million and $25 million in net total restructuring charges in fiscal 2026, including between $51 million and $63 million of estimated cash expenditures primarily for lease termination fees, and between $11 million and $14 million of bad debt expense, partially offset by net non-cash write-off of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities associated with these leases of between $(48) million and $(52) million." During an earnings call on the same day, Grocery Outlet's CEO further revealed that the Company had "made the difficult decision to close 36 locations" in part because "it's clear now that we expanded too quickly and these closures are a direct correlation." On this news, Grocery Outlet's stock price fell $2.45 per share, or 27.87%, to close at $6.34 per share on March 5, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] HAPPY HIPPO: Class Certification Deadlines in L.S. Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.S. v. Happy Hippo, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02849 (E.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting stipulation to vacate and stay class certification deadlines. Accordingly, the action is stayed completion of mediation. In addition, the court orders the parties to file a joint status report no later than June 25, 2026, to advise the court of the status of the mediation. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Happy Hippo offers kratom powder, capsules, and extracts.[CC] HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Bid to File Overlength Brief OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and the MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order granting motion to file overlength brief. The Plaintiff's motion is granted and both Plaintiff and Defendant are permitted to file overlength supporting brief on class certification, not to exceed 10,000 words. HCSC provides health coverage options for employers large and small, individuals and families, and Medicare and Medicaid plans. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V8KJWz at no extra charge.[CC] HEARTLAND EXPRESS INC: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heartland Express, Inc. of Iowa. The case is styled as Michael Moore, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heartland Express, Inc. of Iowa, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001801 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Heartland Express -- https://www.heartlandexpress.com/ -- is an American trucking company headquartered in North Liberty, Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com HERCULES CAPITAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Hercules Capital, Inc. ("Hercules Capital" or the "Company") (NYSE: HTGC) securities between May 1, 2025 and February 27, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Hercules Capital investors have until May 19, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO SUFFERED A LOSS IN HERCULES CAPITAL, INC. (HTGC), CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. Contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss your legal rights by email at howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, by telephone at (215) 638-4847 or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. What Happened? On February 27, 2026, Hunterbrook Media published a report stating that, "according to a former Hercules analyst who worked on deal sourcing" the Company's process for deal sourcing essentially amounted to "[g]o[ing] on the website for Google Ventures and just see what they invest in and just copy it." The report stated, according to a former employee, deal sourcing managers "don't want anything else," and essentially just rely on other investors to have done due diligence, instead of doing their own. The report continued, revealing that, "once Hercules makes the loans, the valuation process itself may warrant scrutiny," as "[a] former member of Hercules' finance team described a small, overstretched team with few checks in place." The report revealed the valuations team "consisted of just four people in a single reporting line responsible for dozens of companies," with "few checks or cross-team review." The report also alleged that Hercules Capital underrepresents its significant software debt exposure in part, by "assign[ing] certain businesses that describe themselves as software companies to categories outside of software." The report also cast doubt on to the Company's book value, which marks its software debt "at 100 cents on the dollar" despite "billions worth of [software] debt across the industry falling into distressed territory." On this news, Hercules Capital's stock price fell $1.22, or 7.9%, to close at $14.21 per share on February 27, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated the due diligence with which it conducted its deal sourcing and/or loan origination process; (2) the Company overstated the due diligence with which it conducted its portfolio valuation process; (3) the Company reported misclassified portfolio investments; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company overstated and/or misrepresented its portfolio valuations; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Hercules Capital securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] HERTZ GLOBAL: Derivative Settlement to be Heard on June 3 --------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE AND CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All current stockholders of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. ("Hertz") stock (NASDAQ ticker HTZ) and all persons or entities who or which held shares of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Stock at any time between and including November 10, 2021, and February 9, 2023, together with their successors and assigns. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A DERIVATIVE AND CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a stockholder derivative and class action captioned Cascia v. Farmer et al., C.A. No.: 2023-0520-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the "Action") is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"). The Court has certified the Action in part as a class action pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) and an Order of the Court for purposes of the proposed settlement only. The full definition of the Class, and the definition of all capitalized terms herein, are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 7, 2025 (the "Stipulation") and the long form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative and Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action on behalf of the Class and Hertz for certain amendments to the Voting Agreement entered into between Hertz and CK Amarillo (the "Settlement") on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action. A settlement hearing will be held on June 3, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. at the Court of Chancery in the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine, among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to Hertz, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation and in the Notice should be approved; and (iii) whether Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain copies of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at: 866-302-9152 or info@HertzStockholderDerivativeSettlement.com. Copies of the Notice and other documents can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Settlement Administrator at: www.HertzStockholderDerivativeSettlement.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Amended Voting Agreement shall be entered into by, between and among Hertz, Knighthead, Certares, and CK Amarillo, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. Please note that the Settlement does not involve a monetary payment and Class Members are not entitled to receive a monetary distribution as a result of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Plaintiff's counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 14, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any member of the Class or current stockholder of Hertz who does not object to the Settlement or the request by Plaintiff for an award of attorney's fees and expenses or to any other matter above need not take any action in response to this Notice or in connection with the Settlement. All questions about this Notice and the proposed Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to: Hertz Stockholder Derivative Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-866-302-9152 info@HertzStockholderDerivativeSettlement.com www.HertzStockholderDerivativeSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Attn: Michael J. Barry/Vivek Upadhya 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 622-7000 mbarry@gelaw.com vupadhya@gelaw.com DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 19, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL: Nalamada Sues Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ RAGHAVA REDDY NALAMADA and ABHILASH REDDY KUCHUKULLA, on behalf of themselves and all others situated, Plaintiffs, v. GRANT KING, an individual; HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL CENTER, LLC; HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL CENTER TOMMIE LLC; 6516 TOMMIE LP, both directly and derivatively; 6516 TOMMIE HOTEL LLC; 6516 TOMMIE HOTEL HOLDINGS LLC; RELEVANT GROUP, LP; and COLONY CAPITAL, LP, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02487 (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2026) seeks rescission and/or damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related state-law claims. The case arises from Defendants' Tommie Hotel project, a high-end, 200-room micro-lifestyle hotel in Hollywood. The project was estimated to be completed for a total cost of $59 million. However, the project ultimately required close to $150 million in total financing and was foreclosed upon by a senior lender on or about February 28, 2023, resulting in a loss of the Project entity and leaving EB-5 investors without repayment of principal. Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that numerous statements in a Confidential Private Offering Memorandum dated April 28, 2016, a First Supplement dated February 28, 2018, and later updates regarding construction progress, budget, financing, valuation, job creation, and the use of investor funds, are materially false and misleading. In addition, the Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants concealed their motive to secure EB-5 capital as the linchpin for senior debt while masking the absence of internal controls, cost discipline, and project governance required for a development of this scope. The 6516 Tommie LP is a Delaware limited partnership formed to raise EB-5 capital and make a loan to 6516 Tommie Hotel Holdings LLC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hadjar Anahita Ohadi, Esq. Arthur McDonough, Esq. Yilei Huang, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. CORNISH, JR., P.C. 9800 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 871-7788 E-mail: aohadi@rcornishlaw.com amcdonough@rcornishlaw.com yhuang@rcornishlaw.com HOPE THE MISSION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE JONES; and CHARLES BLANTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOPE THE MISSION; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV05302 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 17, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs. Hope The Mission is a non-profit organization with a mission is to prevent, reduce and eliminate poverty, hunger and homelessness. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle Carney, Esq. JANELLE CARNEY - ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 1355 N. Mentor Ave., No. 40137 Pasadena, CA 91104 Telephone: (909) 521-9609 Email: Janelle@JanelleCarneyLaw.com HUMANA INC: McKinney Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The case is styled as Estil McKinney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00171-RGJ (W.D. Ky., March 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is an American for-profit health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Harris, Esq. Israel David, Esq. Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 350-8851 Fax: (212) 350-8860 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com - and - Michael J. Gartland, Esq. GARTLAND THACKER DELCOTTO PLLC 200 North Upper Street Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 231-5800 Fax: (859) 281-1179 Email: mgartland@gtdfirm.com HUMANA INC: Norris Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The case is styled as Colette Norris, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., CenterWell Certified Healthcare Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-00171-RGJ (W.D. Ky., March 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is an American for-profit health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN PLLC 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 Email: JWhitfield@wcfjustice.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Brown Suit Alleges ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- LEO B. BROWN; and RICHARD FOWLER, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. Group Benefits Plan and Huntington Ingalls Industries Health Plan, Plaintiffs v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC.; and HII ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No. 4:26-cv-00034 (E.D. Va., March 12, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in the practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health and other insurances provided by the Defendants. Such surcharges violate the ERISA and its anti-discrimination provisions by unfairly targeting employees based on their health status, such as tobacco use. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. designs, builds, and maintains nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the United States Navy and Coast Guard. The Company also provides after-market services for military ships worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 Email: zev@butlercurwood.com paul@butlercurwood.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 20283 State Road 7, Ste 592 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 Email: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., #104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 Email: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com - and - Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 Email: sjb@bloomlegal.com - and - M. Kevin Horan, Esq. Bradley D. Daigneault, Esq. HORAN & HORAN, PLLC 1500 Gateway P.O. Box 2166 Grenada, MS 38902 Telephone: (662) 226-2185 Email: horanmain@horanandhoranlaw.com ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Kainz Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER KAINZ, SARA BAILEY, REBECCA BUCZKOWSKI, SABRINA DRYSDALE, and REBEKAH McGRATH, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LATOYA HUGHES, in her Official Capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Hawley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certifies the Plaintiffs' proposed Class and Subclass pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) for liability, injunctive, and equitable relief and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for damages. The certified Class and Subclass are defined, as revised by the Court, as follows: Title VII/Section 1983 Class – IDOC and Wexford. "All current and former non-executive female employees who at any time from June 23, 2018, through the present have worked at Pontiac prison through Wexford or IDOC directly in the medical or mental health departments, including in the following positions: Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP), Mental Health Professional, Behavioral Health Technician (BHT), Recreational Therapist, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, Social Worker, Clinical Counselor, Clinical Psychologist, Correctional Nurses and trainees, Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), Certified Medical Technicians, Nurse Practitioners, Psychiatrists, and Physicians. Wexford Subclass. "All current and former non-executive female employees who at any time from June 23, 2018, through the present have worked at Pontiac prison through Wexford in the medical or mental health departments, including in the following positions: Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP), Mental Health Professional, Behavioral Health Technician (BHT), Recreational Therapist, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, Social Worker, Clinical Psychologist, Clinical Counselor, Correctional Nurses and trainees, Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), Certified Medical Technicians, Nurse Practitioners, Psychiatrists, and Physicians." Because the Court finds certification warranted pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b), it need not address the Plaintiffs' alternative argument for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and other female medical and mental health employees of IDOC and Wexford at Pontiac for allegedly being forced to endure exposure to masturbation and other vulgarities and sexual harassment on a regular basis as a term and condition of their employment. The Defendants include LEONTA JACKSON, former Warden, in his Individual Capacity; MINDI NURSE, in her Official Capacity as the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center; TERI KENNEDY, former Warden, in her Individual Capacity; EMILY RUSKIN, former Warden, in her Individual Capacity; KELLY RENZI, former IDOC Psychology Administrator, in her Individual Capacity; JOHN SOKOL, in his Individual Capacity; and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., IDOC was established in 1970, combining the state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3SD7sa at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS: Watts Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Watts, v. Latoya Hughes, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:25-cv-01243-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class for: "All individuals detained at the Big Muddy River Correctional Center who have been issued a medical permit for a wheelchair by a prison medical provider from Oct. 9, 2022, to the date of entry of judgment," to resolve the Rule 23(c)(4) issue of whether the showers and toilets complied with the structural standards required by the ADA and/or Rehabilitation Act at that time. The Plaintiff Watts is paralyzed, was locked up at Big Muddy from Feb. 1, 2022, to Feb. 23, 2024, and during this period had an order for a wheelchair by a prison medical provider. He alleges that none of the showers and toilets are accessible for wheelchair-users, and seeks to represent a Rule 23(b)(3) class to resolve the issues under Rule 23(c)(4) whether the Big Muddy showers and toilets complied with the federal accessibility standards from Oct. 9, 2022, to the date of entry of judgment. The Plaintiff shows he meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). IDOC was established in 1970, combining the state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kpLLs4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq. Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq. THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD. 10257 S. Western Ave. Chicago, IL 60643 Telephone: (773) 233-7901 E-mail: pwm@morrisseylawchicago.com INTELLICHECK INC: Sued Over Bylaws' Director Removal Provision -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SMITH, Plaintiff v. INTELLICHECK, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2026-0360 (Chancery Ct., Del., March 17, 2026) is a verified class action seeking declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") and Delaware common law. Plaintiff Daniel Smith is a stockholder of Intellicheck, Inc. He alleges that certain provision of the Company's bylaws, adopted and maintained by the Company, provides the Company's directors with the authority to remove other directors contrary to Delaware law. This Removal Provision violates Section 141(k) of the DGCL and Delaware common law and public policy, which states that any director or the entire board of directors may be removed, with or without cause, by the holders of a majority of the shares then entitled to vote at an election of directors, unless certain exceptions apply. The DGCL does not allow for the removal of directors by the Board or other directors. Moreover, under Delaware law, the right of removal of directors is exclusive to stockholders, notes the complaint. The Company's current bylaws allowing that under certain circumstances a director of the Company may be removed by the other members of the Board interferes with the stockholders' exclusive right to director removal and is inconsistent with Section 141(k). The Removal Provision is, therefore, void, invalid, and unenforceable, the complaint contends. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of Intellicheck against the Company, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Removal Provision violates DGCL and Delaware common law and Delaware public policy and is thus void. Defendant Intellicheck, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located at 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 207, Melville, NY 11747.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 302-984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: 203-883-217 E-mail: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com INTERVET INC: Bid for Class Certification in Palmieri Due April 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palmieri, et al. v. Intervet, Inc. d/b/a Merck Animal Health, Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Espinosa entered an order setting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification deadline to April 1, 2026. On Jan. 29, 2026, Court further entered a letter order granting an additional 30 day extension. With the extensions, After conversation with Defendant, the Plaintiffs now write to request an additional 30 day extension to the Scheduling Order for a class certification motion filing deadline of May 1, 2026. On Nov. 6, 2025, the Court entered a letter order granting a 60 day extension to the Pretrial Scheduling Order which set the briefing schedule surrounding the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification and related expert reports. Intervet is a major veterinary pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VyiOmI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT 8610 Norton Parkway, Third Floor Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com INTEX COATINGS: Bracho Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ystby Bracho, through the undersigned counsel, on behalf of himself and their similarly situated current and former employees v. INTEX COATINGS LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00630 (M.D. Fla., March 11, 2026), is brought for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Plaintiff on a weekly basis worked 48 hours. Plaintiff often had to work more hours than usual off the clock, working around 48 hours per week. Those overtime hours were never paid by the employer. As a direct result of Defendants wrongful refusal to pay Plaintiff her earned wages that are due and owing, Plaintiff has sustained damages., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant. The Defendant was a purveyor of paint services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC 2745 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 416-5000 Email: agp@rgph.law JOHN SHAHIDI: Smith Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trenton Smith et al., v. John Shahidi et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00161-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, or in the alternative, motion for continuance pending completion of class discovery, and -- Denying the Defendants' motion to exclude opinions of Jeremy Clark. Accordingly, the Court denies both the Motion to Exclude Opinions and the Motion for Class Certification. Because Plaintiff fails to adequately demonstrate class-wide exposure to uniform statements or a method for calculating damages on a class-wide basis, the court finds that Plaintiff fails to adequately demonstrate commonality and predominance. Accordingly, the court DENIES the Motion for Class Certification. As evidenced by Clark's Declaration, the court finds Clark has sufficient experience regarding digital assets such that he may provide his opinions here. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude Opinions is denied. The Plaintiff moves to certify a class defined as follows: "All persons who purchased a Metacard through the date of class certification." The Plaintiff excludes the following individuals from the class: the Defendants' officers and directors; any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, successors, heirs, and assigns of Defendants; members of the judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and members of their staff; and any individuals who signed the "Token Rescission Agreement" with Metacard. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CcA8Jh at no extra charge.[CC] KAG MERCHANT: Lara Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against KAG Merchant Gas Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert Lara and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAG Merchant Gas Group, LLC and Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07785 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." KAG -- https://www.thekag.com/ -- is a recognized leader in industrial gas transportation, delivering industrial and specialty gases with precision, safety and reliability.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com KANSAS: Dispositive Bid in Hartsell Suit Extended to April 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME NICHOLE HARSELL, v. STATE OF KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Case No. 5:25-cv-04021-JAR-RES (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Rachel E. Schwartz entered an order as follows: -- The dispositive-motion deadline, as established in the scheduling order and any amendments, is extended up to and including April 3, 2026. -- All motions to exclude the testimony of expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702-705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case law, must be filed no later than 42 days before trial or if it encompasses a summary judgment issue, then April 3, 2026. All actions taken by her supervisors at Commerce were done for non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons. Actions by Commerce do not amount to an adverse action for the purposes of discrimination or retaliation, because her supervisor's actions did not constitute materially adverse actions that would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity. Rather, actions by her supervisors involved nothing more than giving her constructive feedback (i.e., in her mid-year performance evaluation). She was never given a negative performance evaluation and was never disciplined. While her supervisors did stop her briefly from responding to KOA inbox emails when she inappropriately responded to a vendor, as described above, this is insufficient to establish a materially adverse action as a matter of law. The Plaintiff is a 40-year-old woman that suffers from diagnoses that constitute disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. Harsell has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and/or Complex Post Traumatic Stress Order ("C-PTSD"), Bi-Polar Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), Traumatic Brain Injury ("TBI"), Major Depressive Disorder ("depression"), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder ("anxiety"). Harsell's diagnoses stem from a combination of Harsell's time spent serving in the United States Navy and a critical motor vehicle accident in which Harsell was injured in 2016. The Plaintiff Jaime Harsell was employed with the Department of Commerce's Office of Registered Apprenticeship ("KOA") from Feb. 5, 2024, through Nov. 5, 2024, when she resigned without notice. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYbQM1 at no extra charge.[CC] KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Caine Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON CAINE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60784-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware and software containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to, among other things, negligence and violates federal and state statutes. The complaint relates that the Defendant collects personally identifiable information (PII) in the course of doing business. The Defendant promises to maintain the confidentiality of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information to ensure compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, and not to use or disclose Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information for non-essential purposes. Recently, Defendant concluded an investigation stemming from a security incident that involved unauthorized access to its computer network. Upon discovering the Data Breach, Defendant commenced an investigation with assistance from external IT security specialists. Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed its computer servers between October 30, 2025, and November 18, 2025, and took certain files. Defendant then reviewed the files involved and, on February 21, 2026, determined that the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, Social Security number, and/or driver's license number. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant s conduct. These injuries include: (i) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their Private Information; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost time; (iv) the theft of their Private Information and (v) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) may remain backed up in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Personal Information. The Plaintiff and Class Members alternatively seek an award of nominal damages. Plaintiff Brandon Caine is a citizen of the state of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. Defendant Kaplan North America, LLC is a provider of comprehensive test preparation, professional licensing, and educational services to students, professionals, and institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. Andrew Hausdorff, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com hausdorff@kolawyers.com KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Abittan Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JACOB ABITTAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60792-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information that was entrusted to Kaplan. The complaint relates that in the course of doing business, Kaplan acquires a significant amount of highly sensitive and valuable Private Information from its customers. Plaintiff and Class members relied on Kaplan to keep their Private Information confidential and only to make authorized disclosures of this Private Information, which Kaplan failed to do. On February 21, 2026, Kaplan discovered that a cyberattack occurred on its computer network. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and likely millions of other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to names, Social Security numbers, and/or driver's license numbers. Kaplan failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by Kaplan's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices, asserts the complaint. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, the complaint adds. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Jacob Abittan is a resident of the state of New York. Plaintiff has been a customer of Kaplan since 2022. Plaintiff's Private Information was accessed and exfiltrated by cybercriminals in the Data Breach. Defendant Kaplan North America, LLC is a Florida-based education services company serving individuals, businesses, and educational institutions nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Homer, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 1 SE 3rd Street, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 561-289-9016 E-mail: mhomer@dynamisllp.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com KELLOGG CO: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissals of Reichert and Watt Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS N. REICHERT; STUART R. BUCK; KENNETH A. HENRICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KCELLOGG COMPANY, et al., Defendants, BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO WORKERS AND GRAIN MILLERS PENSION COMMITTEE; KELLANOVA, fka Kellogg Company; WK KELLOGG COMPANY; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF KELLANOVA PENSION PLAN; JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants - Appellees. ROBERT A. WATT; GARY J. FRIESEN; MICHAEL H. MCKENNA; GEOFFREY B. COE; CRAIG A. COVIC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN; RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD OF FEDEX CORPORATION; JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 24-1442, 24-5945 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: a. reverses the district courts' dismissal of the actions on the ground that Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not require pension plans to use particular mortality tables or actuarial assumptions when calculating benefits for married participants; and b. remands the case for further proceedings. The Kellogg Plaintiffs, Thomas N. Reichert, Stuart R. Buck, and Kenneth A. Henrich, are retired Kellogg employees participating in the Kellanova and BCTGM pension plans. Each plan offers married participants three joint and survivor annuities (JSAs) -- 50%, 75%, and 100% of the benefit. Reichert and Buck chose the 50% option, while Henrich opted for 100%. To convert a single-life annuity (SLA) into a JSA, the plans use interest rates and mortality tables to calculate a "conversion factor," which determines monthly payments and survivor benefits. The FedEx Plaintiffs, Robert A. Watt, Gary J. Friesen, Michael H. McKenna, Geoffrey B. Coe, and Craig A. Covic, are former FedEx employees participating in the FedEx Corporation Employees' Pension Plan, a defined benefit plan. The plan offers married participants three joint and survivor annuities (JSAs): 50%, 75%, and 100%. Watt, Friesen, and Coe receive the 100% JSA, while Covic and McKenna receive the 50% option. To convert a single-life annuity (SLA) into a JSA, the plan uses interest rates and mortality tables to calculate a conversion factor, which determines monthly payments and survivor benefits. The Kellogg and FedEx Plaintiffs filed class actions claiming their pension plans use outdated mortality tables, which lower conversion factors and reduce monthly joint annuity payments compared with current data. The Kellogg Plaintiffs challenged the UP 1984 Mortality Table (1960s–1970s data), while the FedEx Plaintiffs challenged the UP 1984 and 1971 GAM Mortality Tables (1960s data). Both groups alleged violations of Section 1055(d) and breaches of fiduciary duty under Section 1104, but the district courts dismissed the cases, ruling the law does not require pension plans to use specific mortality tables or actuarial assumptions. The Plaintiffs timely appeal the district courts' final judgments. The core issue in these appeals is whether they sufficiently pleaded claims that the Defendants' use of outdated mortality tables violated Section 1055(d)'s actuarial equivalence requirement. FedEx also raises two alternative bases for dismissal of the claims against it, neither of which were decided by the district court. As to Section 1055(d)'s actuarial equivalence requirement, the Plaintiffs assert that their employers' use of unreasonably outdated mortality data to calculate their benefits violates ERISA. Specifically, they allege that the use of such data fails to produce JSAs that are actuarially equivalent to the SLAs they would otherwise receive, thereby denying them the QJSAs to which they are entitled under Section 1055. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claim fails as a matter of law because Section 1055(d)(1)(B)'s actuarial equivalence requirement places no restrictions on the actuarial assumptions that a pension plan may use when calculating QJSAs. The viability of the Plaintiffs' claims, therefore, hinges on whether Section 1055(d)(1)(B) prohibits the use of unreasonably outdated actuarial assumptions. The Sixth Circuit opines that an employer complies with Section 1055(d) if it uses actuarial assumptions that are reasonable and professionally acceptable, meaning they reflect the life expectancy of current plan participants. Here, the Plaintiffs allege the defendants relied on outdated mortality data from the 1960s and 1970s, which no longer reflects modern life expectancy and falls outside accepted actuarial standards. As a result, the JSAs offered have lower present value than SLAs, failing the requirement of actuarial equivalence. Accepting these allegations as true, Sixth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs plausibly stated claims for violations of Section 1055 and breach of fiduciary duty, since using decades-old data does not reasonably account for current mortality rates. Because they have plausibly alleged that the defendants used unreasonable actuarial assumptions in calculating their benefits, thereby denying them QJSAs within the meaning of Section 1055(d)(1)(B), their claims survive. FedEx raises two additional grounds for dismissal that the district court had not considered. The Sixth Circuit declines to address these arguments, noting that appellate courts generally do not review issues not decided below unless exceptional circumstances exist. Finding none, it leaves those issues for the district court to address and expresses no opinion on their merits. Based on the forgoing reasons, the Sixth Circuit reverses the district courts' decisions and remands the cases for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 16, 2026 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yp5bxkwj. Rachana Pathak -- rpathak@stris.com -- STRIS & MAHER LLP, Cerritos, California, for Appellants. Joseph J. Torres -- jtorres@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. Jeremy P. Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Rachana Pathak, Peter K. Stris, Douglas D. Geyser, STRIS & MAHER LLP, Cerritos, California, Oren Faircloth, Lisa R. Considine, David J. DiSabato, SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants. Joseph J. Torres, Alexis E. Bates, Emma O'Connor, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. ARGUED: Louis M. Bograd -- lbograd@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Louis M. Bograd, MOTLEY RICE, LLC, Washington, D.C., Douglas P. Needham, Mathew P. Jasinski, M. Zane Johnson, MOTLEY RICE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, Oren Faircloth, Lisa R. Considine, SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, Robert A. Izard, IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP, West Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellants. Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Jared R. Killeen, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Matthew A. Russell, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Terrence O. Reed, Joseph B. Reafsnyder, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Memphis, Tennessee, Michael E. Kenneally, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON AMICUS BRIEF: Nancy J. Ross -- nross@mayerbrown.com -- Michael S. Scodro -- mscodro@mayerbrown.com -- Joshua D. Yount -- jdyount @mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici Curiae. KENNEDY-WILSON HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to a Consortium ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: KW) related to its sale to a consortium led by William McMorrow, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kennedy Wilson, and certain other senior executives of Kennedy-Wilson, together with Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Kennedy-Wilson shareholders will receive $10.90 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kennedy-wilson-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Calavo Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVGW) related to its merger with Mission Produce, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Calavo shareholders are expected to receive 0.9790 shares of Mission Produce common stock and $14.85 in cash for each share of Calavo common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 28, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/calavo-growers-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Coterra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: CTRA) related to its sale to Devon Energy Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Coterra shareholders will receive 0.70 of a share of Devon common stock for each share of Coterra common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/coterra-energy-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Skywater Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKYT) related to its sale to IonQ, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Skywater shareholders are expected to receive $15.00 per share in cash and $20.00 in shares of IonQ common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/skywater-technology-inc/. 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] KIA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Carnival Sliding Door Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Rachel Langerhans, Plaintiff, v. Kia Corporation et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. SAG-24-02994,Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Rachel Langerhans brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc. based on an alleged defect in the automatic sliding doors of the 2022-2023 Kia Carnival. Plaintiff and her husband purchased a new 2022 Kia Carnival in November 2021, drawn in part by the vehicle's sliding doors, which Defendants marketed as featuring a sensor to prevent the doors from closing on a person. Shortly after the purchase, Plaintiff and her husband noticed that the doors were not responding to obstacles, including their small children, while closing. According to the complaint, the doors do not automatically stop when an obstacle is in their path; rather, an obstacle halts a door only if it can exert sufficient physical force to prevent the door from closing. A small child may not be capable of exerting such force. Plaintiff further alleged that the pinch sensor installed in the door fails to properly detect objects and reverse the door's movement, and that the doors close with excessive force capable of causing serious bodily injury. Following a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation, Defendants issued a recall in April 2023, acknowledging that the doors may not automatically reverse in all circumstances. When Plaintiff brought her vehicle in for the recall, technicians found the pinch sensors operating correctly but explained they are designed to detect obstacles moving into their path only from inside the vehicle, not from outside. Plaintiff alleged the recall did not remedy the defect because it merely caused the doors to close more slowly and emit a beeping sound without altering the closing force or the force required to stop or reverse the doors. Plaintiff brought four claims: breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraud, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Shortly after the vehicle was purchased, Plaintiff's husband, Andrew Langerhans, enrolled in Kia Connect, an in-vehicle technology system, by entering his email address and agreeing to its Terms of Service, which contain an arbitration clause covering all claims arising out of or relating to the user's vehicle. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Mr. Langerhans had acted as Plaintiff's agent when enrolling, that Plaintiff was bound as a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Service, and that equitable estoppel applied. The Court ordered limited discovery on whether Plaintiff had entered into an arbitration agreement. The Court rejected each of Defendants' theories in turn. On actual authority, the Court found that Mr. Langerhans did not act on Plaintiff's behalf when he enrolled. He had not intended for Plaintiff to use Kia Connect, never informed her he had enrolled, connected his own phone rather than hers, and knew she was unlikely ever to use the service. The Court acknowledged that Plaintiff may have used the built-in map feature and viewed maintenance alerts, functions referenced in the Kia Connect Terms of Service, but found that her belief that she had never used the service undermined any inference that her husband had enrolled on her behalf. The Court further found that while Mr. Langerhans generally managed technology services for the household and Plaintiff would not have objected to his signing up for a free service, Defendants produced no evidence that she had authorized him to do so without prior discussion, and Kia Connect did not qualify as a service the entire family used. On apparent authority, the Court distinguished the Fourth Circuit's decision in Naimoli v. Pro Football, Inc., 120 F.4th 380 (4th Cir. 2024), in which a ticket purchaser was found to have acted with apparent authority on behalf of companions who used his phone to enter a stadium. Here, the Court found that enrolling in Kia Connect does not suggest to Defendants that the enrollee acted on behalf of anyone else, and that using basic vehicle features such as a map or a maintenance alert does not reasonably signal that another person enrolled in Kia Connect on the driver's behalf. The Court found it unreasonable to assume that enrolling one person in Kia Connect confers authority to bind every person who subsequently drives the vehicle. The third-party beneficiary argument also failed. Under Maryland law, an arbitration agreement does not bind a third-party beneficiary who is not seeking to enforce the contract containing that agreement. None of Plaintiff's claims sought to enforce the Kia Connect Terms of Service. The equitable estoppel argument likewise failed because Defendants identified no evidence that they had changed their position for the worse in reliance on any conduct by Plaintiff. Finally, the Court held that a contract cannot bind non-parties merely by purporting to do so, rejecting Defendants' argument grounded in the Terms of Service's own definitional language. Turning to the motion to dismiss, Defendants first argued that Plaintiff had suffered no cognizable injury because the recall had been completed and the pinch sensors were found to be operating correctly. The Court found this argument unpersuasive. Plaintiff had taken advantage of the recall and continued to allege a design defect that the recall did not cure. Citing Lloyd v. General Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108 (2007), the Court held that Plaintiff need only allege a difference between what she expected and what she received. Her allegation that she would not have purchased the vehicle, or would have paid substantially less for it, adequately stated an injury. The Court also denied dismissal of the implied warranty of merchantability claim. Maryland law requires a buyer to give the seller pre-suit notice of an alleged breach. Plaintiff alleged that she had sent Defendants such a letter before filing suit. Although Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to attach the letter to her complaint, the Court found it could properly consider documents that are integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. The Court reviewed the letter, found it described the same defect and the same failed recall remedy as alleged in the complaint, and denied dismissal. As to the fraud and Maryland Consumer Protection Act claims, Plaintiff disclaimed any misrepresentation theory as to both and limited the MCPA claim to an omissions-based theory. For the fraud claim, she retained both omission and concealment theories. Because omission-based fraud claims cannot be described in terms of time, place, and the contents of a misrepresentation, the Court applied a relaxed pleading standard requiring a baseline level of particularity above conclusory allegations. The Court found Plaintiff's allegations satisfied this standard. She identified several sources through which Defendants knew or should have known of the defect, cited specific online advertisements in which the defect was not disclosed, and alleged she would not have purchased the vehicle had she known of the problem. The Court also found that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that a significant number of unsophisticated consumers would regard a sliding door's failure to detect obstacles and its excessive closing force as material. Defendants' argument that fraud by omission requires a fiduciary relationship was rejected, with the Court citing Green v. H&R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488 (1999), which held that the Maryland Consumer Protection Act prohibits omissions of material fact regardless of any such relationship. The non-disclosure theory of fraud also survived. The Court found a duty to disclose under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which requires manufacturers to notify vehicle owners upon learning that a vehicle contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, and followed the reasoning in Doll v. Ford Motor Co., 814 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Md. 2011), in holding that federal law independently imposed a duty to disclose even where Maryland law might not. The concealment theory of fraud was dismissed. The complaint contained no allegations that Defendants actively undertook conduct or made statements designed to divert attention from the defect, such as preventing Plaintiff from testing the doors or deflecting questions about them. The complaint alleged only that Defendants never disclosed the problem, which amounts to non-disclosure rather than active concealment. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration in its entirety and granted the motion to dismiss only as to Plaintiff's concealment theory of fraud. Plaintiff's remaining claims, including breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act omission claim, and fraud based on non-disclosure, proceed. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 17, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dqospY from PacerMonitor.com KINDRED CONCEPTS: Ruz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kindred Concepts, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Ruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kindred Concepts, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02001-SKO (E.D. Cal., March 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Kindred Concepts, Inc., doing business as Kindred -- https://livekindred.com/ -- operates as a home swapping network company.[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 KOCH FERTILIZER: Conspires to Fix Fertlizer Prices, Matson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MELINDA MATSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; CF NITROGEN, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02146 (D. Kan., March 16, 2026) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers from at least as early as January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. The Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States. To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, beginning at least as early as January 1, 2021, the exact date being unknown to Plaintiff at this time, the Defendants conspired to artificially inflate the price of NPK Fertilizers, asserts the complaint. Among the victims of the conspiracy are indirect and direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers from the Defendants, including individual farmers/growers, agricultural cooperatives and retailers, fertilizer mixers, members of farming associations, farm and planting partnerships/company. To provide a remedy for the injury suffered as a result of Defendants' conspiracy and illegal actions, the Plaintiff bring this case on behalf of indirect purchasers of NPK Fertilizers against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and under common law for unjust enrichment. Koch Fertilizer LLC manufactures fertilizer products. The Company's products include anhydrous ammonia, urea, urea blends, ammonium nitrate solution, phosphate, potash, ammonium polyphosphate, and sulfur-based products. Koch Fertilizer markets its products internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com LENS.COM: Bid to Strike Plaintiff Expert Witness in "Martin" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rickey Martin, Plaintiff, v. Lens.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH, Judge David S. Leibowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (S.D. Fla.) denied Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's untimely disclosed expert witness for class certification. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued Defendant, an online retailer of contact lenses, alleging it deliberately misleads Florida consumers. Plaintiff contends that Defendant imposes a Taxes & Fees charge on Florida customers even though the state exempts prescription contact lenses from sales tax, and that the charge is solely an excessive processing fee unrelated to actual costs. Plaintiff sues under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.21 et seq. The scheduling order required the parties to exchange class certification expert summaries by February 21, 2025. Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to timely disclose expert Stephen Heffner, who opined on how Defendant calculates its Taxes & Fees charge. Defendant moved to strike Heffner's report and preclude Plaintiff from relying on his opinions at class certification. Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch found that Plaintiff's failure to timely disclose Heffner's opinion was substantially justified and harmless, and recommended the motion be denied. Defendant objected on two grounds. On the first objection, Defendant argued the R&R failed to address the prejudice arising from Plaintiff raising new arguments and evidence in a reply brief. The court found that Defendant had waived this objection by failing to seek leave to file a sur-reply, noting the reply had been filed sixty-six days earlier without any responsive motion from Defendant. On the second objection, Defendant contended that Rule 37(c)(1) mandated exclusion and that the late disclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court found that Plaintiff cited Heffner's report only once, in a single footnote to a reply brief, and had not relied on his opinion in support of class certification. After reviewing the report, the court found it had no importance at the class certification stage. Applying the Eleventh Circuit's multi-factor test, the court held that because the testimony was of no importance, the reasons for the late disclosure were of no consequence, and Defendant could not be prejudiced by a footnote citation to evidence the court would not consider. The court adopted and affirmed the Report and Recommendation and denied the motion to strike. Class certification remains pending. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8BGsS1 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Lens.com, Inc. Represented By James W Lee Boies, Schiller , Flexner LLP 305-359-8400 jlee@bsfllp.com Mark M. Bettilyon Thorpe North & Western LLP 801-566-6633 mark.bettilyon@tnw.com Jed H. Hansen Thorpe North & Western LLP 801-566-6633 hansen@tnw.com Laselve Elijah Harrison Boies Schiller Flexner LLP lharrison@bsfllp.com Joseph M. Harmer Thorpe North & Western LLP 801-566-6633 joseph.harmer@tnw.com Plaintiff Rickey Martin Represented By Joshua Adam Migdal Mark, Migdal & Hayden 305-374-0440 josh@markmigdal.com Courtney Cooper Gipson Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. 205-939-0199 cgipson@mtattorneys.com Matthew Herman Meyers & Flowers LLC James Matthew Stephens Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. 205-939-0199 mstephens@mtattorneys.com Robert G. Methvin, Jr. Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. 205-939-0199 rgm@mtattorneys.com LGI HOMES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harbour Suit Due Dec. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HARBOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-05985-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule: The Plaintiff's deadline to move for Oct. 2, 2026 substitution of class representative: The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 1, 2026 certification due: The Defendant's opposition to the Dec. 29, 2026 Plaintiff's motion: The Plaintiff's reply due: Jan. 12, 2027 Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court LGI Homes operates as a home builder. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lf5tP2 at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WARD, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-BEM (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file exhibits under seal in its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff Adam Ward assents to the Motion to Seal. The Defendant will file its Opposition to the motion for class certification on March 9, 2026. In support of that Motion, Defendant will attach the following exhibits, which it seeks leave to file under seal: Exhibit A: Affidavit of Ryan Hemker, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company: The affidavit contains potentially "confidential" information and proprietary information. Exhibit B: Declaration of Darin Ginther, All Web Leads, Inc. The affidavit contains potentially “confidential” information and proprietary information. Exhibit C: Jornaya Report The Jornaya report is designated "confidential", as it may contain proprietary and confidential information. The report also contains Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"). Exhibit D: Deposition of Plaintiff Adam Ward The deposition transcript contains PII and other "confidential" information. The above referenced documents summarize, discuss, and contain information that Liberty has designated "Highly Confidential" and/or "Confidential." The Defendant accordingly moves to file the Proposed Sealed Materials under seal because they summarize, discuss, and contain information that the Defendants have designated "Highly Confidential" and/or "Confidential" under the governing Protective Order that was entered by this Court. If the Court grants the foregoing Motion, Defendant will file redacted versions of its Proposed Sealed Materials on the public docket and submit unredacted versions under seal, and/or comply with any other method of submission that the Court prefers. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant requests that this Court grant this Motion to Seal. The Plaintiff's counsel consents to the relief sought in this Motion to Seal. Liberty is a nationwide insurance company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NvSl4C at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick S. Tracey, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth St., Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 912-0947 E-mail: patrick.tracey@saul.com Jim.Morsch@saul.com LIVIONEX INC: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store -------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVIONEX INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02147 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.getlivfresh.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Livionex Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal LOS ANGELES, CA: Dismissal of McCarty's 4th & 5th Am. Claims Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of BREONNAH FITZPATRICK; CHRISTOPHER OFFICER, as class representatives; TIMOTHY McCARTY, individually and as class representative, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a public entity; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity, Defendants-Appellees. BREONNAH FITZPATRICK; CHRISTOPHER OFFICER; TIMOTHY McCARTY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 24-5998, 24-6698 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in case number 24-5998 and dismissed as moot case number 24-6698. The Plaintiffs-Appellants appealed from the district court's judgment in their putative class action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with the impoundment of their vehicles. The City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and Los Angeles Police Department (collectively, the City) cross-appealed from the same judgment. The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court's dismissal of McCarty's Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which had been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. It held that seizing and impounding McCarty's car for 39 days was reasonable because it lacked valid registration, and leaving or moving it on a public roadway would have been illegal under California law. Therefore, the SAC did not state a Fourth Amendment claim for the initial seizure. It also found no claim regarding the length of impoundment, as the SAC did not allege McCarty could legally move the car. Because his Fifth Amendment Takings claim depended on the Fourth Amendment claim, failing the Fourth Amendment claim meant the Fifth Amendment claim also failed. Finally, the Ninth Circuit noted that the class certification issues were moot because Fitzpatrick and Officer voluntarily settled their individual claims and no longer had a financial stake in the class claims. Hence, the City's cross-appeal is dismissed as moot because it would be resolved if case number 24-5998 were decided in the City's favor. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 16, 2026 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/4e6rdz6j LUFAX HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lufax Holding Ltd (NYSE: LU) between April 7, 2023 and January 26, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Lufax investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Lufax class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lufax lacked adequate internal controls; (2) Certain of Lufax's financial results were materially misstated; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Lufax's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. 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 20, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53703 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260321573154/en/ CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LYNN FITCH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ET AL. v. LYNN FITCH, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Mississippi, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-00417-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time through April 24, 2027, within which to file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants request an extension of time through April 24, 2026, within which to file their Response and supporting memorandum due to their counsel's obligations in several other cases. The Defendants' counsel has conferred with the Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the requested extension of time and are authorized to represent to the Court that the Plaintiffs have no objection to the relief sought in this motion. On March 5, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and supporting memorandum of authorities. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9FLWEi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lisa A. Reppeto, Esq. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION Jackson, MS 39205-0220 Telephone: (601) 359-2780 Facsimile: (601) 359-2003 E-mail: lisa.reppeto@ago.ms.gov M.I. INDUSTRIES: Flick Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Food Products ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE FLICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.I. INDUSTRIES, INC. dba Instinct Pet Foods, a Nebraska corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01470-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 9, 2026) is an action alleging that the Defendant misbranded and falsely advertised its Original Real Recipe dog foods, Raw Meals dog foods, and Raw Boost Mixers dog foods. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Products are misbranded and falsely advertised because they contain synthetic preservatives. The Original Real Recipe dog foods contain tocopherols and citric acid, while the Raw Meals and Raw Boost Mixers dog foods contain tocopherols. Citric acid and tocopherols are both artificial preservatives. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products on the same terms if they knew the truth about the Products' use of artificial preservatives, says the suit. M.I. Industries, Incorporated provides pet foods. The Company offers raw frozen, freeze dried, canned, and dry food made from organic meat and vegetables for dogs and cats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Narrows Claims in "Bishins" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the Case captioned as Scott Bishins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-2430 (E.D. Pa.), Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Amended Complaint alleged that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making untrue statements of material facts or failing to state material facts necessary to make their statements not misleading, with respect to two clinical trials. Marinus is a pharmaceutical company involved in developing ZTALMY (ganaxolone) for the treatment of seizure disorders. Defendant Scott Braunstein served as President and Chief Executive Officer; Defendant Steven Pfanstiel served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Defendant Joseph Hulihan served as Chief Medical Officer. Marinus conducted a Phase 3 trial of ganaxolone in refractory status epilepticus patients, called the RAISE trial. The co-primary endpoints were (1) the proportion of patients who experienced seizure cessation within 30 minutes of treatment initiation without other medications, and (2) the proportion of patients with no progression to IV anesthesia for 36 hours following initiation of the study drug. Unbeknownst to investors, Defendants forced the interim analysis because Marinus lacked sufficient cash to complete both the RAISE trial and the TrustTSC trial. Senior Marinus biometricians had informed Defendants that the probability of meeting the stopping criteria in the interim analysis was low. These biometricians warned Defendants not to conduct the interim analysis, but Defendants ignored their advice because Marinus did not have the funds to continue the RAISE Phase 3 trial beyond the interim analysis. On April 15, 2024, Marinus announced that the RAISE trial had not met early stopping criteria and that the company would implement cost-saving measures. The stock price dropped 82.7%, from $6.22 per share to $1.30 per share on that date. The court found that the Amended Complaint clearly identified statements alleged to be false regarding the interim analysis, including Hulihan's statement that the interim analysis was 94% powered to detect a 40% treatment difference, Braunstein's lower placebo rate statement, the March 5, 2024 press release statements, and Hulihan's statement that the analysis was very robust. The court found that Defendants failed to publicly disclose information provided by senior employees regarding the low probability of success and serious data management issues with the RAISE trial. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied on this ground. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to six statements immunized by the PSLRA's safe harbor provision, finding they were identified as forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language: (1) Braunstein's November 7, 2023 press release statement about completing both trials; (2) Braunstein's success of ZTALMY statement from the November 7, 2023 conference call; (3) the January 4, 2024 press release financial statement; (4) Braunstein's January 4, 2024 statement about two Phase 3 data readouts; (5) Hulihan's March 5, 2024 topline results statement; and (6) Hulihan's RAISE II statements from the November 7, 2023 conference call. The court denied safe harbor protection for the Third Quarter 2023 Form 10-Q financial statement and the March 5, 2024 press release financial statement, finding that the documents submitted by Defendants did not contain forward-looking statement identification or meaningful cautionary language related to those specific statements. The court concluded, based on information provided by two confidential former employees, that the Amended Complaint alleged facts constituting strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness. The Senior Vice President of Biometrics had repeatedly advised Hulihan not to perform the interim analysis. Hulihan told that employee that Marinus would stop the RAISE trial early regardless of the outcome because it did not have the funds to complete the trial, and that Braunstein had approved this decision. The motion to dismiss on this ground was denied. The court found that the Amended Complaint plausibly alleged causation in the form of materialization of the risk. Once the risk of the interim analysis not meeting its co-primary endpoints materialized and Marinus announced it could not continue the trial, the company's stock price declined. The motion to dismiss on this ground was denied. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to six forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA safe harbor, and denied it on all other grounds, including material misrepresentations, scienter, loss causation, and the Section 20(a) controlling person liability claim. A copy of the Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhd68h27 from Pacermonitor.com Defendant SCOTT BRAUSTEIN Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Defendant MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Defendant STEVEN PFANSTIEL Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Defendant JOSEPH HULIHAN Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Plaintiff SCOTT BISHINS Represented By: JACOB A. GOLDBERG The Rosen Law Firm 215-600-2817 jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Merrell ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MERRELL, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-06664-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order granting Marriott's motion for summary judgment. Excluding Easttom's opinion regarding the 2025 website means that Merrell has no evidence to dispute Marriott's showing of accessibility for it. That leaves only the issue of whether the website was accessible in 2022 when Merrell searched it for a one room, one guest booking. He offered no evidence of a defect in Marriott’s landing page, so the question remaining concerns the Find A Hotel subpage in 2022. The videos of Davis and Easttom definitively support Davis's opinions and Chrisman's declaration for the accessibility of the 2022 "Find A Hotel" webpage, which Easttom's unexcluded opinions do not contradict. As a result, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Marriott. The Plaintiff brought this lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") against the defendant, alleging that blind screen reader users like Merrell were unable to properly navigate its website to book hotel stays. Marriott is an American multinational company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8R8fa8 at no extra charge.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Dismissal of Narrigan Class Suit v. Treasurer Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS R. NARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG, in her official capacity as Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant, Appellee, Case No. 25-1395 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Narrigan filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Treasurer and Receiver-General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the state's Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He claimed the Act's interest provisions resulted in an uncompensated taking of his property. He has not yet pursued a claim to recover the property under the state law process in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A, Section 10(a). Massachusetts's Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A, presumes certain unclaimed property is abandoned after a set period. Once the value reaches $100 or more, the holder must notify the owner at their last known address and, if the owner does not respond, report the property to the Treasurer. The Treasurer then takes custody, gives public notice of the property, and may liquidate it after one year, placing proceeds into an Unclaimed Property Fund, with excess funds going to the General Fund. Owners can still claim their property at any time through an administrative process, with the right to judicial review. If successful, they may also recover interest, either at 1% per year or at the property's prior rate up to 5%, depending on whether the property earned interest before being delivered to the state. Narrigan alleged that the Commonwealth held his property based on online records showing his name tied to entries for "miscellaneous intangible property" and "refunds," along with an address. His complaint did not explain his connection to that address or what the property actually was. He claimed the Act's interest scheme fails to provide just compensation because the rates are not tied to the Commonwealth's use of the property. On behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals, he sought a declaration that the state's handling of unclaimed property violates the Fifth Amendment, along with an injunction requiring compliance in future cases. The Treasurer moved to dismiss, arguing the case was not ripe because Narrigan had not yet filed a claim for the property, making any alleged deprivation speculative. The Treasurer also argued that the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity, that Narrigan lacked standing, and that he failed to state a claim. On March 25, 2025, the district court dismissed Narrigan's claims on standing, sovereign immunity, and merits grounds. It found he lacked standing for prospective relief because he could not show a future harm. The court also held that the Commonwealth had not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply because the relief sought was effectively monetary, not prospective. On the Takings Clause claim, the court concluded that taking possession of abandoned property is not a taking, that Narrigan's property was abandoned through his own inaction, and that he could still recover it through the statutory process. The court did not address ripeness. The First Circuit found that, even viewing Narrigan's complaint in the light most favorable to prospective relief, his Takings Clause claim was not ripe. He argued that the Commonwealth's ongoing use of his property deprived him of its time value, but the Court said this theory fails because no taking occurs unless and until he makes a claim for the property and is denied reasonable interest. Since Narrigan had not yet done so, there was no final refusal or completed taking. The Court also noted that whether he is entitled to interest depends on unresolved facts, such as how the property's value would have changed absent the state’s involvement. Similarly, any claim by Narrigan to the time-value of his property depends on when he asserts a claim, since property value can fluctuate over time. Until he makes a claim, any alleged taking of that time-value is speculative. Because the claim relies on contingent future events, it is not ripe, as it involves a chain of speculation or contingencies. Alternatively, if the complaint is read as alleging a completed taking when the property was delivered to the Treasurer, the claim would be ripe. However, Narrigan would lack standing for prospective relief because the alleged injury would be a past event with no ongoing harm or plausible threat of recurrence. Under this view, the taking occurred when the property was transferred without just compensation, and any resulting harm is already complete, so it cannot support injunctive relief. Based on the foregoing, the First Circuit held that Narrigan's arguments are susceptible to two readings, both of which fail. First, it held that Narrigan's apparent challenge to the interest rate he would be provided under the statute is not ripe. Second, it held that Narrigan lacks standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief based on his assertion that his unclaimed property has already been taken. Accordingly, the First Circuit concluded the complaint does not satisfy Article III requirements, and the district court's dismissal is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2026 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3dzmc6zx. Terry Rose Saunders, with whom The Saunders Law Firm, Arthur Susman, The Law Office of Arthur Susman, Edward A. Broderick, and Broderick Law, P.C. were on brief, for appellant. Arjun Kent Jaikumar, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, with whom Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief, for appellee. MATHESON TRI-GAS: Darby Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derwin Darby, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CU26-00455 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 12, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00864-CKD. The Plaintiff premises his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Matheson violated the Labor Code by failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; failing to reimburse necessary business expenditures; failing to pay all wages at separation; failing to furnish accurate itemized statements. Plaintiff alleges these purported violations also violated the California Business and Professional Code Section 17200 ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Hutner, Esq. Nathan Norimoto, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-3668 Phone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Nathan.Norimoto@gtlaw.com MERCY HEALTH: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peck v. Mercy Health, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00834 (E.D. Mo., Filed July 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting the consent motion for extension of time to file response / reply as to motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mercy Health provides essential healthcare, education, and resources to underserved communities in LA & Orange Counties.[CC] MEREO BIOPHARMA: Faces Dodge Class Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- Mereo BioPharma Group plc disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the Company faces the Dodge class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A putative class action complaint was filed on February 4, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Denise Scots-Knight, and its Chief Scientific Officer, John Lewicki (the Defendants). This action, captioned Dodge v. Mereo Biopharma Group PLC (No. 1:26-cv-988), alleges that the Defendants violated federal securities law by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. The Plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained by her and the putative class by reason of the allegations set forth in the complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs and fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. Mereo BioPharma Group plc is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapeutics for rare diseases and specialty indications. META PLATFORMS: Beltran Sues Over AI Glasses' Data-Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN BELTRAN, ALICIA PEREZ, and TERRANCE MOORE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., SAMASOURCE IMPACT SOURCING INC., d/b/a SAMA, and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02283 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unfair and deceptive marketing and unlawful recording and data-collection practices related to the "Meta AI Glasses," a line of smart glasses marketed under the Ray-Ban and Oakley brands. According to the complaint, the Defendants market the Meta AI Glasses as products designed to protect user privacy and give consumers control over their personal data. The Defendants repeatedly represented that the Meta AI Glasses were "designed for privacy," "controlled by you," and "built for your privacy." However, these representations were false and misleading, the complaint contends. In reality, when a user activates the Meta AI Glasses by physically pressing a button or speaking the wake phrase "Hey Meta," the device captures high-resolution video and audio and transmits that data through the user's smartphone to Meta's cloud servers and to Sama, a subcontractor operating data-annotation facilities in Nairobi, Kenya, adds the complaint. The Defendants' practices violated and continue to violate Plaintiff and other consumers' reasonable expectations of privacy and therefore constitute unlawful capture, transmission, and misuse of private communications and recordings, alleges the complaint. The Defendants' conduct is also deceptive and unfair because Defendants marketed the Meta AI Glasses as privacy-protective while concealing material information about the true nature of its data-collection practices. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a global technology company that operates widely used social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, and provides advertising and technology services to millions of businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 687-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206)-299-4184 E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Mauk Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com mjensen@zlk.com META PLATFORMS: Class Cert. & Sealing Deadlines Extended -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order extending class certification and sealing deadlines that: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of class certification and rebuttal expert reports; any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 Motions; and any affirmative Rule 702 motions provisionally under seal by March 18, 2026, along with a 1-page interim sealing motion that states the reason for sealing will be presented in a forthcoming sealing application; the Plaintiffs will also file a 1-page interim administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed on March 18, 2026. 2. The parties' deadline to file sealing applications regarding the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification, any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 Motions, and any affirmative Rule 702 motions is April 22, 2026. 3. Meta shall file replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions provisionally under seal by April 21, 2026, along with a 1-page interim sealing motion that states the reason for sealing will be presented in a forthcoming sealing application; Meta will also file a 1-page administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed on April 21, 2026. 4. The parties' deadline to file sealing applications regarding Meta's replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions is May 27, 2026. 5. Subject to the Court's calendar and convenience, the parties request that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Class certification motion and the parties' Rule 702 motions remain on June 10, 2026. Meta is the American multinational technology company, formerly known as Facebook. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CHVzMv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP KRISTIN SHEFFIELD-WHITEHEAD 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637.2200 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com META PLATFORMS: Kosari Sues Over Unlawful Use of Private Recordings ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARSHAM KOSARI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., SAMASOURCE IMPACT SOURCING INC., d/b/a SAMA, and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02022 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2026) arises out of the inappropriate use of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private recordings on their Meta AI Glasses and specifically, Meta unlawfully sharing the audio and visual recordings to enhance and train its large language models. According to the complaint, Meta markets its AI Glasses as an "all-in-one assistant" that empowers wearers to remain in control of their privacy. However, when a user activates the Glasses, the device captures high-resolution video and audio and transmits that data through the user's smartphone to Meta's cloud servers and Sama's processing center. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a Nationwide Class and a Florida Subclass and seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, disgorgement, and injunctive and declaratory relief for Meta's violations of (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (2) the Florida Security of Communications Act; (3) Invasion of Privacy; and (4) Unjust Enrichment. Headquartered in Menlo Park, CA, Meta Platforms, Inc. designs, manufactures in partnership with EssilorLuxottica S.A., distributes, markets, and sells the Meta AI Glasses. The company owns and operates the AI software, cloud infrastructure, data processing systems, and contractual relationships through which user-captured footage flows from the Glasses to Meta's servers and onward to its subcontractors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com META PLATFORMS: Levian Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meta Platforms, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Levian, Noel Flores, Albert Mejia, Natasha Gauvin, Antonio Enriquez, Samridh Chhetri, Selina Dallas, Nathaniel Marrufo, Aaliyah Ross, Ray Rodriguez, Christopher Taylor, Mohammad Supiro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02236 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan E. Jones, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, Ste. 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: mjones@hausfeldllp.com MGM PROPERTY: Smith Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY A. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. MGM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LAKENYA DOW, SONYA SCOTT DIX, KEVIN MORSE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00531-GSL-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: -- Certifying three subclasses; -- Appointing Jerry A Smith as Class Representative; -- Directing appropriate notice to class members; -- Authorizing discovery on class-wide issues; and -- Granting other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The three subclasses are: Employee Subclass "All individuals who were employed by MGM Property Management or its related entities from Jan. 1, 2024 through the present and who: (a) Were not paid wages owed within the time required by Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1; (b) Were required to perform biohazard cleanup without OSHA-required training, personal protective equipment, or Hepatitis B vaccination in violation of 29 CF.R. f 1910.1030; (c) Were terminated without proper documentation or due process; and/or (d) Were constructively discharged due to unsafe working conditions." Vendor Subclass "All individuals or entities who provided contractor or vendor services to MGM Property Management from Jan. 1, 2024.through the present and who: (a) Were not paid for services rendered; (b) Were issued fraudulent or forged checks purporting to show payment; (c) Were subjected to mail fraud, wire fraud, or Unsafe conditions; and/or (d) Were retaliated against for asserting payment rights." Tenant Subclass "All current and former tenants who rented residential units iµanaged by MGM Property Management at any of the five properties managed by Defendants from Jan. 1, 2024 through the present and who suffered: (a) Uninhabitable conditions in violation of Indiana Code section'32-31-8-5 including: (i) Unsafe or non-functioning doors (front and back) and apartment door Apt 2, (ii) Plumbing failures and flooding, (iii) Heating system failures, (iv) Missing or non-functional fire detectors, (v) Mold growth and water damage, (vi) Holes in walls left unrepaired, (vii) Damaged or non-functional mailboxes causing mail issues, (viii) Laundry facility failures; (b) Unfulfilled work orders for extended periods; (c) Retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 3617 for complaining about conditions; and/or (d) Constructive eviction through maintenance failures or robberies." All requirements for class certification under Rule 23 are satisfied. The proposed classes are numerous, share common questions of law and fact, have typical claims, and will be adequately represented. Common questions predominate and class treatment is superior to individual litigation. MGM is a property management company serving several markets accross the USA. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1xedQo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: 2601 West 61st Place, Apt 2 Merrillville, IN 46410 Telephone: (219) 777-6560 E-mail: Savinglives2xprogram@gmail.com MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Micron Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending February 26, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Idaho stayed the consolidated shareholder derivative suit until the earlier of the issuance of a final decision on all motions to dismiss the securities putative class action matter or a final resolution of the putative class action matter. The company disclosed that on Feb. 20, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by a purported shareholder against certain individual directors and officers of Micron, allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Micron, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (D. Idaho), and that on Feb. 21, 2025, a similar derivative complaint was filed by another purported shareholder in the same court against certain individual directors and officers of Micron. The complaints allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets, and are based on substantially the same allegedly false or misleading statements asserted in the securities putative class action. The complaints seek various unspecified damages allegedly suffered by Micron, restitution, attorneys fees and costs, and other relief. On April 28, 2025, the complaints were consolidated, and on May 14, 2025, the action was stayed until the earlier of the issuance of a final decision on all motions to dismiss the securities putative class action matter or a final resolution of the putative class action matter. Micron Technology Inc. is an industry-leading global provider of memory and storage solutions, designing and manufacturing DRAM, NAND, and NOR flash memory and other semiconductor devices for use in computing, networking, automotive, mobile, industrial, and consumer applications. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending February 26, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the amended complaint but granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. On January 9, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against Micron and certain individual officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 3, 2025, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (D. Idaho), and on May 23, 2025, an amended complaint was filed in D. Idaho. The amended complaint alleges defendants made materially false or misleading statements during a putative class period from March 29, 2023, to Dec. 18, 2024, regarding industry supply and demand dynamics and the demand for Micron's products. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs. On Feb. 3, 2026, the court dismissed the amended complaint but granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Micron Technology Inc. is an industry-leading global provider of memory and storage solutions, designing and manufacturing DRAM, NAND, and NOR flash memory and other semiconductor devices for use in computing, networking, automotive, mobile, industrial, and consumer applications. MISSISSIPPI: Jackson Wins Bid to Certify Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAQUAY JACKSON and DANA RICE, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC ("MBHS"), Case No. 3:22-cv-00697-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Carlton W. Reeves entered an order as follows: a) The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective action of persons "similarly situated" pursuant to Title 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) is granted"; b) The Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice is accepted, subject to the changes ordered herein, and the Court authorizes issuance of the notice to collective members; c) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), the opt-in period shall expire Monday, May 11, 2026; d) The Defendants are ordered to provide, in a secure, electronic spreadsheet format, the first and last names, last known street addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and employee numbers of the Potential Plaintiffs to the Plaintiffs' counsel, according to the terms of the Notice; and e) The Plaintiffs' motion to toll the statute of limitations is granted. The Plaintiffs allege that their former employer, MBHS, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by denying overtime premium payments to employees who worked over 40 hours in a workweek. MBHS is a private community mental health center that provides services as authorized by the Mississippi Department of Mental Health. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FNWyp4 at no extra charge.[CC] MISSOURI: Hersh Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HERSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Missouri Department of Mental Health; Dr. Sharon B. Robbins, individually and in her official capacity; Dr. Timothy Wilson, individually and in his official capacity; John/Jane Joe DMH Evaluators yet to be named in his/her official and individual capacities, Case No. 4:26-cv-00273-MAL (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The proposed class consists of the following: "All individuals detained by the Missouri Department of mental Health as Sexually Violent Predators ("SVPs") who, from 2019 to present, were subjected to annual evaluations that failed to comply with constitutional, statutory, and accepted professional standards." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and upon appointment of counsel, designate counsel as Class Counsel. The Department of Mental Health serves citizens by working to prevent, treat and habilitate individuals with mental disorders. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fE9h6J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. David Hersh, 1016 W. Columbia St. Farmington, Mo. 63640 Telephone: (573) 218-6022 MIZUNO USA: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Mizuno USA, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the sporting goods company failed to protect the sensitive consumer information stored in its systems from a data breach discovered by the company on November 6, 2024. The Mizuno USA class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 13, 2026 and covers all individuals who received a mailed notice from Mizuno stating that their private information was potentially compromised in the data breach discovered in November 2024. Court documents estimate that the settlement class consists of approximately 1,200 individuals. The court-approved website for the Mizuno USA data breach settlement can be found at MizunoSettlement.com. According to the website, Mizuno settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of ordinary losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $475. The settlement agreement states that class members must submit third-party documentation, like receipts or invoices, to receive compensation for losses incurred between August 21, 2024 and March 23, 2026 related to identity theft or fraud. According to the agreement, reimbursable expenses include bank fees, fees for obtaining credit reports, credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, phone charges and miscellaneous expenses such as postage. The agreement adds that as part of the ordinary-loss settlement benefit, class members may also receive compensation for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $15 per hour, subject to the aggregate $475 ordinary-loss payment cap. Claims for lost time must be accompanied by a written attestation by the class members, the agreement states. Moreover, Mizuno settlement class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of extraordinary losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The agreement explains that extraordinary losses include those related to fraud, identity theft, professional fees, bank fees, overdraft fees and any other charges resulting from the misuse of a class member's personal information. The settlement agreement states that class members seeking reimbursement for extraordinary expenses must include third-party documentation that shows their losses were actual and unreimbursed, incurred between August 21, 2024 and March 23, 2026, and are not eligible for reimbursement under any other settlement benefit. Before receiving any ordinary or extraordinary loss payment, the agreement states, class members must demonstrate that they have exhausted all available credit monitoring or fraud reimbursement insurance associated with the credit monitoring protections already provided by Mizuno, so that the company does not make duplicate payments to class members. In lieu of a documented loss claim, settlement class members may file a claim form to receive a one-time $50 cash payment from the deal, with no proof required. Class members may receive their settlement payouts via check or electronic payment, the agreement adds, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all Mizuno settlement class members may also file a claim form to receive two free years of one-bureau credit monitoring and fraud protection insurance, per the agreement. To file a Mizuno data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the notice ID from their copy of the settlement notice and their last name. 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 on the first page of the document. All Mizuno settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 15, 2026. Finally, Mizuno has agreed to enact certain system and business practice changes to mitigate the risk of any future data breaches. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Mizuno USA data breach settlement following a hearing on June 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Mizuno USA class action lawsuit argued that the sporting goods manufacturer and retailer failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards to protect sensitive information stored on its systems, leading to a data breach sometime between August 21, 2024 and October 29, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach includes names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, driver's license information and passport numbers. [GN] MONDAY.COM LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the monday.com class action lawsuit, captioned Potter v. monday.com Ltd., No. 26-cv-01956 (S.D.N.Y.), seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of monday.com Ltd. (NASDAQ: MNDY) common stock and charges monday.com as well as certain of monday.com'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 monday.com class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-monday-com-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-mndy.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. Lead plaintiff motions for the monday.com class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 11, 2026. CASE ALLEGATIONS: monday.com, together with its subsidiaries, develops software applications. The monday.com class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the class period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to monday.com's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth on the back of its continued expansion of its core platform, AI-driven investments, increasing enterprise adoption and multi-product integration; (ii) monday.com was seeing new customer growth decelerating, weaker expansion within existing accounts and longer enterprise sales cycles, making monday.com's $1.8 billion 2027 target increasingly unlikely to be met; and (iii) defendants misled investors by providing the public with materially flawed statements of confidence and growth projections which did not account for these variables. The monday.com class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 9, 2026, monday.com disclosed that "we will no longer be discussing our previously provided 2027 targets, but we'll be centering our discussion on our 2026 outlook, which reflects the continued momentum we see across our AI work platform, new product introductions and upmarket sales motion." On this news, the price of monday.com stock fell nearly 21%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired monday.com common stock during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the monday.com 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 monday.com investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the monday.com shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the monday.com class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Cook Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------- Donna Cook, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-275 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Covington Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Covington, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-250 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 11, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Daly Sues Over Wrongful Advertising of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Daly, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-301 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 13, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Exline Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Exline, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-277 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Giza Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Giza, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-311 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 13, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Berriel Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES BERRIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-223 MON (Del. Sup., March 11, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Roundup Product, containing glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Gensler Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NORMA GENSLER, on behalf of the estate of JOEL GENSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-159 MON (Del. Sup., March 9, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Roundup Product, containing glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Gilbert Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RICK GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-164 MON (Del., Sup., March 9, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Roundup Product, containing glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Kirkman Says ------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA C KIRKMAN, on behalf of the estate of HOWARD KIRKMAN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-253 MON (Del. Sup., March 11, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Roundup Product, containing glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Toxic Glyphosate, Fry Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENE FRY, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-163 MON (Del. Sup., March 9, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Roundup Product, containing glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Justice Roundup Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BERNICE JUSTICE, individually and on behalf of THE ESTATE OF RANDOLPH JUSTICE, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER AG, Defendants, Case No. 25PL07-0294, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Knox County, Ohio to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00293-EAS-KAJ to the proceeding. In this products liability lawsuit, Plaintiff Justice sues Monsanto and Bayer AG for injuries and death allegedly caused by Monsanto's Roundup(R)-branded herbicides, which have glyphosate as their active ingredient. The complaint seeks compensatory damages based on the allegations that Monsanto's Roundup(R)-branded herbicides caused decedent's cancer and death. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] Defendant Monsanto Company is represented by: John Q. Lewis, Esq. Rachel N. Byrnes, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1100 Superior Avenue, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 304-6104 Facsimile: (216) 553-4275 E-mail: john.lewis@nelsonmullins.com rachel.byrnes@nelsonmullins.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ullery Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Ullery on behalf of the estate of Steven Ullery, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-294 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 13, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Brittany Ullery is a natural person and is the Representative of Steven Ullery, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSTER BEVERAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hollien Due April 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD HOLLIEN, JOSH McCORMICK, CHARLES WHITTELSEY, individually, and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of and on behalf of the Monster Energy Company 401(k) Plan, v. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY 401(k) PLAN; and DOES 1-50 as Board Members of Monster Beverage Corporation and/or as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 8:24-cv-01467-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order extending case deadlines: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their anticipated class certification motion is extended to April 9, 2026. 2. The deadline for the Defendants to file their Opposition to the class certification motion is extended to May 7, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Reply re the class certification motion is extended to May 21, 2026. 4. The hearing on the class certification motion is continued to June 9, 2026, at 10:00 am. Monster manufactures energy drinks including Monster Energy, Relentless, Reign and Burn. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j5FD0c at no extra charge.[CC] MYLAN NV: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 15 ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE MYLAN, N.V. SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 2:20-cv-00955-NR CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Mylan N.V. ("Mylan") from February 16, 2016 through May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"), that the securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $60,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Mylan and certain of its senior officers violated the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Settlement Class Period, Mylan and certain of its executives during the relevant time period -- Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch; President, Rajiv Malik; and Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth Parks (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") -- made material misrepresentations and omissions related to the FDA's inspections and issuance of regulatory compliance notices at certain of Mylan's facilities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that the Individual Defendants controlled Mylan when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants expressly deny that Lead Plaintiff has asserted any valid claims as to any of them, and expressly deny any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action include, among others, (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing will be held on June 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, before the Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, by Zoom videoconference, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as the Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. To join the Settlement Hearing, visit https://pawd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1609946048 and use Meeting ID: 160 994 6048. Additional information on how to join the hearing is available at www.Mylan2026SecuritiesSettlement.com. If you plan to attend the hearing, you should check the Settlement website, www.Mylan2026SecuritiesSettlement.com, to confirm that no change to the date and/or time of the hearing has been made. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). You may obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form on the Settlement Website, www.Mylan2026SecuritiesSettlement.com; by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Mylan Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. 91088, Seattle, WA 98111; by calling toll free (866) 910-1314; or by emailing info@Mylan2026SecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than July 10, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than May 15, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 15, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Mylan Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91088 Seattle, WA 98111 (866) 910-1314 info@Mylan2026SecuritiesSettlement.com www.Mylan2026SecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Katherine M. Sinderson Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com Andrew L. Zivitz Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com By Order of the Court NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Flores Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Brian Flores, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Football League, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-871, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is an employment discrimination case in which the Plaintiffs, current and former National Football League (NFL) coaches, sued the NFL and various member teams for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and several New Jersey, New York, and Florida state laws. On June 21, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay further proceedings. On Mar. 1, 2023, Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration except that it is denied as to Brian Flores's claims against the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and the Houston Texans, and his related claims against the NFL. The Defendants' request to stay the case is denied as to Flores's claims that may proceed to litigation and is granted as to all of the claims that must be arbitrated. On Sept. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Mar. 1 Order, which Judge Caproni granted on Feb. 13, 2026. The Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is denied in full. The Court concluded that the NFL's unilateral control over the dispute resolution process was the fatal flaw, and that flaw was not cured by the Dispute Resolution Procedural Guidelines (DRPG). These agreements, the Court held, remained a prospective waiver of a party's right to pursue statutory remedies. The Court therefore lifted the stay, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in full. All claims of Plaintiffs Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton against the NFL and various member teams may now proceed in the Southern District of New York. The appellate case is styled as Flores v. The National Football League, Case No. 26-650, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN FLORES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10003 - and - John Elefterakis, Esq. ELEFTERAKIS, ELEFTERAKIS & PANEK 80 Pine Street, 38th Floor New York, NY 10003 Defendants-Appellants NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al. are represented by: Loretta Lynch, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 - and - William Anthony Burck, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 13th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Eric A. Savage, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 - and - Duvol M. Thompson, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 787 Seventh Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 NAVIDIUM APP: Duskey and Kuhlman Sue Over Deceptive Junk Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- DESTANTI DUSKEY and PETER KUHLMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVIDIUM APP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01351-TAM (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2026) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Navidium App, arising from its unfair and deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' online shopping carts. Navidium allegedly obscured consumers' true shipping costs, gaining an unfair advantage on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek damages and, among other remedies, public injunctive relief that will adequately inform consumers concerning the difference between mandatory and optional shipping costs and fees. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Navidium App is an online application available for purchase by merchants for use in their e-commerce marketplaces across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com NAVIENT CORP: Class Cert. Reply Briefs Due April 24 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jill Ballard v. Navient Corporation et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Caraballo entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to extend the deadline and word count limit of the Plaintiffs' reply brief is granted. 2. The telephone conference scheduled for April 3, 3036 at 9:30 a.m. remains as scheduled. 3. The Plaintiffs' reply briefs in support of the motion for class certification and Daubert motion are due by Apr. 24, 2026. 4. A telephone conference is scheduled for May 13, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. 5. Oral argument on class certification is tentatively scheduled for May 20, 2026. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call and shall have all parties on the line prior to calling chambers at 570-207-5710. Navient Corporation is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QzTCkI at no extra charge.[CC] NEURAXIS INC: Bhambhani Bid to Certify Class Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Neuraxis, 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 19, 2026, that Bhambhani class certification motion is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On Feb. 6, 2019, plaintiff Ritu Bhambhani, M.D., initiated a lawsuit against Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. and others in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs Bhambhani and Sudhir Rao subsequently amended the complaint, with the Third Amended Complaint containing the most recent set of allegations. The Complaint asserted claims under the RICO Act, as well as fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation by concealment, and civil conspiracy, and sought compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, attorney's fees, court costs, and designation of the case as a class action. The Complaint stated that the Company, distributors of the Company's product, and medical billing and coding consultants allegedly made misrepresentations to the plaintiffs that the Company's NeuroStim device and related procedures could be billed to, and reimbursed by, Medicare and other insurance payors as a surgically implantable neurostimulator. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered damages when Medicare administrative contractors declined to pay plaintiffs for their use of the device. Neuraxis, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on neuromodulation therapies, including its NeuroStim device, which is designed to provide minimally invasive treatment options for patients with chronic conditions. NEW JERSEY: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Hernandez Suit --------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ANTONIO ALFARO HERNANDEZ filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled Carlos Antonio Alfaro Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Luis Soto, et al., Respondents, Case No. 3:26-cv-02184-RK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 2, 2026. The Petitioner asserts that he is unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and is entitled to release or, at minimum, a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a). [BN] The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by: Jonathan Cole Lipsitz, Esq. LIPTON LAW PLLC P.O. Box 1021 Weston, CT 06883 Telephone: (203) 292-0784 Email: jlipton1201@gmail.com NEW YORK: Court Tosses Rikers Strip Search Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JOHN SATCHELL, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11119-GHW,Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). According to the Court, Plaintiff John Satchell was arrested on or about October 8, 2019, and charged with murder in the first degree. After his arraignment, he was placed in custody at Rikers Island, where he was subjected to a strip search. Satchell alleged that the search was conducted without inquiry into the nature of the charges, the characteristics of the arrestee, or the circumstances of the arrest, and without the establishment of reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed, dangerous, or possessed weapons. He was ordered to submit to a visual inspection and search of his genitals and anal cavity, which was observed by Department of Corrections officers. No contraband was found. Satchell remained in pretrial detention for the following 58 months. His complaint suggested that he was subjected to other strip searches during that period, but he provided no details regarding the searches or the circumstances in which they arose. Satchell, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on December 21, 2023. He filed the operative third amended complaint on May 16, 2025, asserting claims against the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of himself and a putative class of pretrial detainees at Rikers Island between 2019 and 2024. He alleged that Defendants implemented a plainly unconstitutional policy to strip search inmates wholly absent reasonable suspicion. Satchell sought $15,000,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000,000 in punitive damages for himself and the purported class, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney fees. On September 19, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that any strip-search claim accruing before December 21, 2020 -- three years prior to the date of the initial complaint -- was time-barred. Defendants further argued that the complaint failed to plead nonconclusory facts about the scope, manner, justification, or place of any other search sufficient to state a plausible claim. They also challenged Plaintiff's ability to pursue a class action as a pro se litigant. Satchell filed two responses to the motion but neither submission supplied additional details regarding the alleged strip searches. The Court first addressed the class action allegations. A pro se prisoner cannot prosecute a class action, the Court noted, because a pro se class representative cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members. Accordingly, all claims brought by Satchell on behalf of the putative class were dismissed. Turning to the Section 1983 claims, the Court held that any claim arising from a search conducted prior to December 21, 2020 was time-barred. Section 1983 claims in New York are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, and an unlawful search claim accrues at the time of the search. The only search Satchell described with any particularity occurred on October 8, 2019 -- more than a year outside the limitations period -- and therefore could not be pursued. The Court further found that Satchell had not adequately pleaded a claim based on any search falling within the statute of limitations. His complaint offered no factual detail regarding the scope, manner, date, location, or justification of any other alleged search, and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice to state a claim. The Court added that Satchell's contention that Rikers Island's alleged policy to strip search inmates in the absence of reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment appeared to rest on an outdated understanding of the law. The Court cited the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, 566 U.S. 318, which held that, absent substantial evidence of an exaggerated response to penological concerns, security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from more invasive search procedures absent reasonable suspicion. Under Florence, a blanket policy of conducting visual body cavity searches on new inmates is constitutional, even for misdemeanor arrestees where there is no reason to suspect the presence of contraband. Satchell's categorical assertions regarding the Defendants' policy did not appear to raise a constitutional claim under existing law. On municipal liability, the Court held that the City of New York could not be held liable under Section 1983 because Satchell failed to adequately plead an underlying violation of his constitutional rights. A municipality is not vicariously liable under Section 1983 for its employees' actions, and a plaintiff must plead an official policy or custom that causes a denial of a constitutional right. Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims implied by the complaint. The Court found that the balance of factors -- judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity -- supported declining jurisdiction. The Court granted Satchell leave to amend the complaint once more, citing his pro se status and the fact that this was the Court's first ruling on the statute of limitations issue. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than 14 days from the date of the order, and Satchell was expressly advised that leave to replead is limited to the claims asserted in the operative complaint and does not extend to claims not previously brought in this action. A copy of the Court's opionion and Order dated March 16 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LKgOi5 from PacerMonitor.com NEW YUNG WAH: Xia Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNYU XIA, SIAN GAO, PING AN LI, FNU LOBSANG MONLAM, DESHENG JIANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, et al., v. NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER, LLC, NEW YUNG WAH TRADING, LLC, XIN PING ZHENG, JUAN QING LIN, JIHONG LEE a/k/a JI HONG LEE, HIU MING MA, YU JIE ZHENG a/k/a JESSIE ZHENG, YU ZHEN ZHENG a/k/a YUZHEN NANCY ZHENG a/k/a YU ZHEN NANCY ZHENG, Case No. 1:21-cv-04475-HG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order overruling Defendants' objections and adopting Judge Scanlon's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in full. Accordingly, the Court enter an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties and class counsel shall comply with the instructions and deadlines set out in the R&R, as follows: On or before April 6, 2026, the Plaintiffs ARE ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why their wage-notice and wage-statement claims should not be dismissed for lack of standing. On or before March 20, 2026, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in a Microsoft Excel electronic file containing the information described in paragraph 6 on page 3 of ECF No. 200, as to each class member in the Pay-frequency Class and the Overtime Subclass, along with an affidavit from Defendants that the responsive information provided is the complete reflection of the employment records and knowledge possessed by Defendants as to those items. On or before April 3, 2026, Plaintiffs shall file an updated version of the approved class notice and opt-out form, see ECF Nos. 200-1, 200-2, along with certified Chinese and Spanish translations of the approved class notice, with the revisions listed in paragraph 7 on pages 4–5 of ECF No. 200. On or before April 13, 2026, class counsel shall disseminate the English, Chinese and Spanish versions of these documents to all potential Pay-frequency Class and Overtime Subclass Members, through the contact information that Defendants provided, using each means of written communication available for each class member, The Court therefore reviews this portion of the R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Scanlon's recommendation regarding the Pay-frequency Class over Defendants' objections. Finally, the Court declines to consider the Defendants' request to re-open discovery at this time, as that request "could have been, but [was] not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance." The Plaintiffs, who are or were employed by the Defendants as drivers, helpers, and/or warehouse workers, brought this putative class and collective action against the Defendants. In the SAC, Plaintiffs assert the following claims: -- failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); and -- failure to pay minimum wage and spread-of-hours compensation in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiffs include Jin Fu Huang, Jianping Wu, Quiang Li, Ying Jie Wang, Jian Hua Zheng, Tin Soon Wong, Yi Tim Cheng, Yue G. Chen, Youwen Yuan, Kun Wang, Min Chen, Jiangnie Chen, Chongli Yang, Yun Deng Zhang, Jiaxin Zhou, Naiqi Li, Qingwei Quan, Ya Chen, Genghai Zhang, Guo Qiang Li, Baozhou Lian, Jun Liang, Shigang Tian, Xianming Wang, Zunchang Lin, Shi Han Yan, Xiuchun Wang, Chunyan Dong, Zhe Zhong Zou, Zhen Sheng Li, Linhai Li, Hanyang Lin, Qing Bin Gao, Xin Xing Lin, Xinzhu Lin, Kong Hui Wang, Sen Qi, Xiao Dan Zhu, Zhen Xing Xie, Jin Feng Lian, Songguan Xie, Ah Yeng Phuan And Wen Xing Liu. New Yung transports food and food-related products to customers. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xDPKoF at no extra charge.[CC] NEWELL BRANDS INC: Kuntzsch Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ceta Kuntzsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc. doing business as: Sunbeam Products Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-01476 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02782 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Personal Injury. Newell Brands Inc. -- https://www.newellbrands.com/ -- is an American conglomerate of consumer and commercial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Katia Asche, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas-42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 745-9550 Email: katia.asche@afslaw.com NICE-PAK PRODUCTS: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Nice-Pak Products has agreed to a settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit over a 2023 data breach that may have compromised employees' private information. The Nice-Pak class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 11, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States who were sent a notice informing them that their personal information was accessed without authorization in the May-June 2023 Nice-Pak data breach. Court documents say that approximately 8,659 current and former employees' private information may have been compromised in the breach. The court-approved website for the Nice-Pak settlement can be found at NicePakSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, Nice-Pak settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may be eligible for multiple forms of reimbursement. Per the settlement site, Nice-Pak class members may submit a claim form for reimbursement of up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $22.50 per hour, for a maximum payout of $90. Settlement documents state that class members must include a brief description of their activities and a written attestation that all expenses were reasonably related to the Nice-Pak data breach. Court documents indicate that covered activities include dealing with replacement card issues, reversing fraudulent charges, and monitoring accounts for suspicious activity. Class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of ordinary losses incurred due to the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $450. Court documents state that no proof is required for the first $50 of an ordinary-loss claim; however, third-party documentation, such as receipts or invoices, is required for any expenses above the $50 cut-off. Per the agreement, a non-exhaustive list of reimbursable expenses includes costs for attorneys' and professional fees, credit repair services, freezing and unfreezing credit, credit monitoring between the date of the data breach until seven days after notice was sent, and miscellaneous expenses, such as travel and postage. Class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of extraordinary losses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $4,500 in reimbursement, the settlement website says. The settlement agreement states that class members must provide third-party documentation showing they suffered actual monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft that have not been previously reimbursed and are not covered by another settlement benefit. Finally, all Nice-Pak class members can enroll in three free years of CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, which includes dark web monitoring and password protection services. The agreement says that the settlement administrator will distribute enrollment codes and instructions to class members following final approval of the settlement. To submit a Nice-Pak claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a claim form from the settlement website to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator listed on the first page. All Nice-Pak settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail no later than May 12, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant the Nice-Pak settlement final approval following a hearing on June 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Nice-Pak class action lawsuit alleged that the pre-moistened cleansing wipe manufacturer failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the confidential information stored on its systems, leading to a data breach between May 28, 2023 and June 15, 2023. The filing says that private information compromised in the breach included names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and medical information. [GN] NINKASI HOLDING: Midler Securities Suit Removed to D. Ore. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LAURENCE MIDLER, as Trustee of the Laurence and Shari Midler Trust; DAVID COMDEN, TINA COMDEN; and PAMELA HELLENBRAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NINKASI HOLDING COMPANY, INC., an Oregon corporation, NIKOS RIDGE; JOSHUA LANDAN; WATKINSON LAIRD RUBENSTEIN, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation; and STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C., a California professional corporation, Defendants, Case No. 26CV08063, was removed from the County of Multnomah Circuit Court of the State of Oregon to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00496-JR to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Ninkasi, Nikos Ridge, and Joshua Landan, as well as a non-party Wings&Arrows, Inc., improperly raised substantially more than $3 million in securities that were unregistered and/or were offered and sold through certain misrepresentations and omissions. Ninkasi Holding Company, Inc. is the corporate entity associated with the Eugene, Oregon-based Ninkasi Brewing Company, a craft brewery and restaurant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brad S. Daniels, Esq. Jacob C. Goldberg, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 Facsimile: (503) 220-2480 E-mail: brad.daniels@stoel.com jacob.goldberg@stoel.com NORTH CAROLINA: Court OKs County Property Owners' Illegal Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Coast Online reports that the North Carolina Supreme Court has approved class-action lawsuits challenging government fees assessed in Raleigh and Carteret counties. Both cases produced unanimous decisions Friday, March 20, 2026. Raleigh In Wardson Construction v. City of Raleigh, the decision in a case targeting city water and sewer impact fees charged to developers affects as many as 735 potential plaintiffs. The case carries a potential price tag of $16 million. "Wardson Construction and other home builders allege that Raleigh unlawfully required them to pay these fees as a condition of development, and they seek return of those payments under state law," wrote Justice Anita Earls for the 6-0 majority. Justice Tamara Barringer was recused from the case. "The trial court certified a class consisting of builders who paid the fees, allowing the claims to be resolved in a single proceeding," Earls explained. "Raleigh appeals that decision, arguing that some builders passed the costs of the fees on to home purchasers and therefore cannot pursue relief together as a class." "We affirm the certification order. North Carolina law directs that any fee unlawfully collected by a local government be returned to the person who made the payment," Earls added. "Because the right to seek repayment turns on payment itself -- not on who may ultimately have borne the cost -- the possibility that some builders later incorporated the fees into home prices does not prevent class treatment." "The question of whether the fees were lawful is for another day; today's decision addresses only whether the case may proceed on behalf of all affected home builders as certified in one action," Earls wrote. "We hold that the trial court did not err in its analysis of the legal criteria for class certification and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating the claim." During oral arguments in October, lawyer Robin Tatum represented Raleigh. She argued the case did not meet the criteria for a class action. "We know at least one person is going to get paid twice, and probably a lot more," Tatum said. "That is just not a class action." Tatum emphasized that refunds should go only to those who actually suffered financial harm. "The City of Raleigh has no desire to keep money it is not entitled to," she argued. "However, under the class action statutes and [N.C.G.S § 160-D] 106, that does not mean you give it to whoever shows up and has carried some money to the city. You want to get it to all the people who have been improperly injured." Tatum argued that the class-action dispute involved a public policy question, not one for the judiciary to decide. "There should not be a decision that this basic language made this gigantic change to class-action law, without anybody really knowing that they did it," she said. "I think any change to this should be a legislative one." The key point of contention focused on the statutory language in NC Gen. Stat. 160D-106, which requires local governments to reimburse "the person who made the payment" when the government illegally charges a fee. Tatum argued that the law should prioritize the party who ultimately bore the financial burden, using an analogy: The situation is like a co-worker ordering and delivering Uber Eats for lunch. The colleague pays for the meal, but someone else reimburses them, making the colleague just a vehicle for the payment. Chief Justice Paul Newby pushed back on the analogy, questioning the different impact depending on whether the payment is viewed from the perspective of the restaurants or of the colleague. "Let's say it was pointed out by you or one of your colleagues that the person was actually charged too much; they were charged an illegal amount for what had been given," Newby said. "Could you go to the restaurant and get the refund? Only the person who paid too much could go get the refund, correct?" Representing the developers, lawyer Jim DeMay argued that the statute's plain language and legislative intent support a class action refund to the original payors. "The legislature wants these fees to be refunded," he said. "They don't want the city to keep them, and a class action here furthers that intent." DeMay added that the statute provides a clear mechanism for refunding the fees. "[The statute] ensures that the cities pay back illegal fees by providing a certain, identifiable refund recipient," DeMay argued. "[The city's] own expert says the fee is passed on each time the home is sold. So are you going to look at the second purchaser, third purchaser, fourth purchaser?" "Here we have a known class of specific parties, the parties that are identified by the General Assembly in 160D-106 who paid the fees, have a common interest in having the fees refunded under the statute, and the trial court was manifestly correct in certifying the class in this case," he concluded. Justice Richard Dietz repeatedly focused on the statutory wording, asking Tatum why the ordinary meaning of "person who made the payment" should not govern. He reiterated the makeup of the court, saying there were several textualists, or those who focus on the plain meaning of words when legally interpreting cases. "In [160-D] subsection 106, when it says that the refund of the fee goes to the person who made the payment, why wouldn't we just take the ordinary meaning of that term, even if you passed the cost down the line to someone else?" Dietz said. "The person who actually is the one who shows up and says 'here's the money' is the one who made the payment, and then these other people had it passed along to them." Carteret County In Armistead v. Carteret County, a trial judge in 2024 certified three classes of plaintiffs challenging county fees related to solid waste disposal. Residents who use private waste collection services challenge government fees assessed for county waste disposal sites and landfill availability. Beyond those two fees, a third class involves a claim that Carteret County profited illegally from running its solid waste operation. "Carteret County does not provide trash and recycling services to county residents," Justice Richard Dietz wrote for the unanimous Supreme Court. "Instead, it offers access to small waste collection sites spread across the county. These sites have dumpsters or other waste receptacles. The county also provides access to a landfill." "For years, Carteret County funded these disposal sites by charging fees to county property owners," Dietz added. "Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit alleging that the county's fees are unlawful because the fees cannot be charged to those who never used the disposal sites and cannot be charged to those who hired a private waste collection service to handle their trash and recycling. Plaintiffs also alleged that the revenue collected from these fees exceeded the cost of operating the sites in violation of state law." "The key issue in this case is whether it is possible to ascertain the identity of class members who hired private waste collection services. We hold that it is," Dietz wrote. "There are only a handful of firms offering these services, and the customer lists of those firms offer a feasible, objective means of ascertaining class membership." "The county also contends that, as the facts and law develop in this case, additional ascertainability, predominance, or superiority issues could emerge," the state Supreme Court opinion continued. "That does not bar class certification now. Should circumstances change as the case progresses, the county can move to modify or decertify the class." Carteret County had asked during oral arguments in September that the Supreme Court reverse the trial judge's class certification decision. "What is clear from the case law from this court and from the 4th Circuit is that the class should be identifiable," argued Sonny Haynes, the county's lawyer. In this dispute, Carteret argued that it would be too difficult to determine from the record who should be counted as members of the class. Two potential classes involve residents who paid for private solid waste collection. They seek refunds of county fees for waste disposal sites and landfill availability. "The issue with having so many open questions is that we're talking about a period of time that goes back to 2017," Haynes said. "We would have a right to probe as part of the county's defense on whether there's use for each of those years where a refund is claimed, but also whether those same services were being offered in each year that the property owner claims that they did not benefit from the use of a landfill." "We believe and it would certainly be our contention that these classes are clearly defined," responded Matthew Quinn, the lawyer for four named plaintiffs. "You can determine who's in the class [and] who's not in the class with reference to objective criteria." "Every person with the county we talked to under oath admitted … specifically, you don't owe a fee if you have private waste collection at your home," Quinn said. The third class involves a claim that Carteret County profited illegally from running its solid waste operation. Haynes and Quinn disagreed about whether one successful plaintiff would be able to guarantee a refund for every county resident who paid the disputed fee. Quinn argued that only a certified class would ensure that every affected resident would secure a refund if plaintiffs win. "Most of the class-action opinions from this court talk about certain benefits of a class action being judicial economy and also avoiding inconsistent results," he said. "In enacting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-292(b), the Legislature reasonably concluded that counties should be able to charge fees to cover their costs in providing solid waste management services. However, the Legislature did not intend for counties to use their solid waste management services as a profit center. But that's exactly what Carteret County has done for years and years," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in a July brief. "The County does not collect waste, and it does not have a landfill," the court filing continued. "It just provides 12 sites where residents can drop off their waste. Consequently, residents who don't live in municipalities (which do collect waste) have to pay private companies to collect their waste and transport it to a transfer station owned and operated by a non-county entity for further transport to a landfill in Craven County. Carteret County plays no role at all in this solid waste collection and transport. Likewise, Carteret County plays no role in connection with the municipality-collected waste." "And yet, Carteret County -- in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-292(b) and in one respect its own Ordinance -- charges two separate fees for solid waste services to its property owners who are not using the County's solid waste services but rather are paying either a private contractor or a municipality for those services," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote. "Further, also in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-292(b), the County charges and collects more in these solid waste fees than it costs the County to operate the 12 solid waste disposal sites." "Until after this lawsuit was filed, these charges appeared on residents' property tax bills with threats that failure to pay the bill could result in foreclosure," the court filing continued. "No information was included about property owners not necessarily owing the fees or about how a property owner could challenge whether the fees were in fact owed. In the course of this litigation, no other county has been identified as having similar solid waste fee practices, nor do the County's practices fit those described by the UNC School of Government as lawful practices employed by other counties." "Even since the lawsuit, the limited information Carteret County has provided its residents and the restrictive methods available for challenging the bill mean property owners are still paying for charges even when they don't owe them. It should hardly be surprising that Carteret County has been making a profit off of these fees for years," the plaintiffs alleged in their brief. Issues in the case are "common to all potential class members," the plaintiffs' lawyers argued. "Further, resolution of those issues in a class action is the best way to ensure that the property owners are properly represented as a class and given an efficient means to recover the wrongfully assessed fees." The plaintiffs challenge two annual fees: a $15 landfill fee and a fee of $157-$165 to operate 12 "green box" sites where residents can dispose of waste, according to court filings. Carteret County explained in an April brief why the county challenged the class certification. "Several private waste collections services operate within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, several municipalities within the County offer waste collection services, and the County is aware of these services," according to Carteret's brief. "The Ordinance provides for an exemption from the Green Box Fee for taxpayers who have municipal or private solid waste collection services." "Plaintiffs contend that the County incorrectly charged the Green Box Fee to every owner of developed residential real property in unincorporated areas of the County and 'many' developed residential properties within incorporated areas of the County, and that the County did not provide taxpayers with notice or explanation of the Fees. However, as evidenced by Section 14-57 of the Ordinance, the exemption from the Fees requires the taxpayer to 'produce an official statement from a permitted county solid waste collector, certifying that solid waste collection service was provided and paid for during the period billed,' in which cases 'the county tax administrator shall issue a release, or exemption from the annual disposal fee,'" the county's court filing continued. "Plaintiffs were never denied a release or exemption, rather they never asked for release or exemption by following a simple administrative remedy," Carteret's lawyer explained. [GN] NUMERO GROUP: Battle Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Numero Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03060 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website https://numerogroup.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Plaintiff, ANDRE BATTLE, attempted to complete a purchase on Numerogroup.com. As he enjoys collecting vinyl records and exploring rare music, on September 3, 2025, while searching online for new vinyl records, Battle accessed the website Numerogroup.com, a well-known independent record label recognized for reissuing rare, forgotten, and historically significant recordings from a wide range of genres. After reviewing the Website's customer feedback from like-minded Illinois customers regarding the rich selection of records and stylish branded merchandise, he decided to make a purchase from the website. While trying to find an item of interest and exploring new releases, Plaintiff encountered numerous accessibility issues. Numerogroup.com's access barriers denied the Plaintiff full and equal access to the website. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of Numerogroup.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Numero Group's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Andre Battle is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant The Numero Group L.L.C. provides to the public a website known as Numerogroup.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of vinyl records, music releases, and related merchandise products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: $11.5-Mil. Deal Final OK Hearing on Aug. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Nutramax Laboratories agreed to pay $11.5 million as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims it misrepresented the benefits of its Cosequin supplements. The Cosequin settlement benefits California residents who purchased Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets, Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets, Cosequin Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets, Cosequin with MSM Chewable Tablets, Cosequin Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews, Cosequin with MSM Soft Chews, and/or Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews between May 3, 2016, and May 6, 2022. According to a class action lawsuit, Nutramax Laboratories misrepresents the benefits of its Cosequin dog supplements with claims that the product supports "mobility, cartilage and joint health" and "supports mobility for a healthy lifestyle." In reality, the plaintiffs say, there is no scientific evidence that Cosequin provides these benefits but continues to make these claims to deceive consumers. Nutramax Laboratories is a supplement company that sells products for humans and pets including Cosequin, a joint supplement for dogs. Nutramax Laboratories has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these allegations with an $11.5 million class action settlement. Under the terms of the Cosequin settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of units of Cosequin products they purchased. Class members can receive up to $25 per unit purchased, with a maximum payment of $150. Exact payments may be lower depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. In addition to providing cash benefits, Nutramax Laboratories has agreed to remove certain claims from its Cosequin packaging. The company will no longer claim that Cosequin supports "mobility, cartilage and joint health," "supports mobility for a healthy lifestyle" or "use Cosequin to help your pet climb stairs, rise and jump!" The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 22, 2026. The final approval hearing for the class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 13, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 21, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits California residents who purchased certain Cosequin dog products for personal use between May 3, 2016, and May 6, 2022 Cosequin products included in the settlement: -- Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets -- Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets -- Cosequin Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets -- Cosequin with MSM Chewable Tablets -- Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews -- Cosequin Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews -- Cosequin with MSM Soft Chews Potential Award Up to $150. Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase is required for claims of up to $50. Claimants seeking to receive a payment of more than $50 must submit proof of purchase, such as a receipt, invoice or other documentation. 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 07/21/2026 Case Name Lytle, et al. v. Nutramax Laboratories Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-CV-00835-FMO-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 08/13/2026 Settlement Website CosequinCASettlement.com Claims Administrator Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories Inc. et al. Settlement Administrator PO Box 3167 Portland, OR 97208-3167 (888) 899-7783 Class Counsel Adam A. Edwards MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Matthew D. Schultz LEVIN PAPANTONIO PROCTOR BUCHANAN O'BRIEN BARR & MOUGEY P.A. Defense Counsel John E. Stephenson Jr. ALSTON & BIRD LLP [GN] ODDITY TECH: Peters Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Travis Peters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ODDITY TECH LTD., ORAN HOLTZMAN, and LINDSAY DRUCKER MANN, Case No. 1:26-cv-02046 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Oddity securities between February 26, 2025 and February 24, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Oddity relies heavily on advertising partners to support its sales growth. As such, the Company's revenue and customer acquisition costs are directly impacted by its advertising partners' algorithms, which utilize user behavior, demographic, and interest-related data to facilitate the Company's exposure to online advertising spaces via auctions ("ad auctions") and, accordingly, online consumer traffic. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: due to an algorithm change by Oddity's largest advertising partner, Oddity's advertisements were being diverted to lower quality auctions at abnormally high costs; the foregoing significantly increased Oddity's customer acquisition costs, thereby negatively impacting Oddity's business and financial prospects; accordingly, Defendants overstated the overall strength, stability, and sustainability of Oddity's digital operating model and/or market position; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on February 25, 2026, when Oddity issued a press release "announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2025." On this news, Oddity's Class A ordinary share price fell $14.28 per share, or 49.21%, to close at $14.74 per share on February 25, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Oddity securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Oddity is a consumer technology company that builds digital-first brands for the beauty and wellness industries in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com OLIN CORP: Husch Blackwell Wins Complex ERISA Class Dispute ----------------------------------------------------------- A Husch Blackwell litigation team achieved a significant victory for Olin Corporation, dismissing a highly anticipated, putative class-action ERISA lawsuit involving allegations that the use of "outdated" mortality tables violated ERISA and amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The case was brought before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The key issue in the case was whether there is an inherent requirement for ERISA plan fiduciaries to use the most current mortality tables and interest rates when converting annuity options under a defined benefit pension plan. Plaintiffs alleged that the Plan's use of older mortality tables and interest rates violated the "actuarial equivalent" requirements of ERISA Section 205 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 1055). Plaintiffs argued that the statute contains an implicit substantive requirement to use up-to-date actuarial assumptions. Defendants countered and moved to dismiss, arguing that the plain text and supporting regulations of ERISA do not contain any such requirement and, instead, actuarial equivalence should mean using the factors set forth in the Plan, as they were in the present case. The Court agreed with Olin, dismissing the matter with prejudice, holding that Section 205 of ERISA does not contain specific substantive standards beyond its requirement of "actuarial equivalence," and that the Plan, as currently written, offers forms of annuity that are "actuarially equivalent" as required by the statute. The Court found that because the Plan openly disclosed the actuarial assumptions it uses, it satisfied the definition of actuarial equivalence, and the Court saw no basis on which to hold Olin liable for faithfully following the Plan terms. The Husch Blackwell team was led by partner Melissa Baris and included attorneys David Sobelman, Jake Reinig, Sydney Thomas, and Brandon Hall. This result bucks the trend of recent cases where courts have held that ERISA requires plans to use up-to-date mortality assumptions, including a recent Sixth Circuit case that reversed a lower court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is currently contemplating the appeal of a decision from a district court in Georgia that dismissed claims that the use of outdated mortality tables violated ERISA. [GN] OLIVE TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kowalewski Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- KATHARINA KOWALEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLIVE TREE PEOPLE, INC.; and DOES 1 to 30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV05254 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 17, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Kowalewski was employed by the Defendants as vice president of marketing and communications. Olive Tree People specializes in skincare products that replace the typical water phase with a unique Holistic Beauty Molecule derived from their own mountain olive trees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq. Niki Akhaveissy, Esq. KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, JACOB & MORRISON, P.C. 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 411 Los Angeles, CA 90069-3302 Telephone: (310) 273-3180 Facsimile: (310) 273-6137 Email: dsilverstein@californialaborlawattorney.com nakhaveissy@californialaborlawattorney.com ONTRACK LOGISTICS: Arteaga Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEJANDRO ARTEAGA, individually and for others similarly situated v. ONTRACK LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-02070 (S.D. Tex., March 13, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former delivery drivers, alleges that he regularly worked for Ontrack in excess of 40 hours each week but did not receive overtime of at least one and one-half his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Ontrack improperly paid Plaintiff and the OnTrac drivers a piece rate without overtime. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff Arteaga worked for OnTrack from October 2025 through February 9, 2026 as a driver delivering packages in Austin, Texas. Ontrack Logistics, LLC is a company engaged in providing transportation, package delivery, warehousing, logistics, and supply chain solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal PAIGE LLC: McKinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- ISAIAH MCKINNLEY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAIGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01908 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2026), arises from Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its website in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant's ongoing failure to provide accessible digital services constitutes a denial of full and equal access under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction compelling Defendant to bring its website into compliance with federal accessibility standards. Paige, LLC is a California-based apparel company that owns and operates www.paige.com, a nationwide e-commerce platform offering denim, apparel, footwear, and accessories to consumers across the United States, including New York. [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 PAYSAFE LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Paysafe Limited, ("Paysafe" or the "Company") (NYSE: PSFE) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between March 4, 2025 and November 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Paysafe investors have until April 7, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/paysafe-limited. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Paysafe's ecommerce business had significant exposure to a single high risk client; (2) as a result, the Company's credit loss reserves and/or write-offs were understated; (3) Paysafe had an undisclosed issue with higher risk Merchant Category Codes, making its client services difficult to bank; (4) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue growth and overall revenue mix; and (5) as a result, Paysafe was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for fiscal year 2025. When the truth was revealed, Paysafe's stock price fell $2.80, or 27.6%, to close at $7.36 per share on November 13, 2025. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Howard Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Laron Howard, and those similarly-situated v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:26-cv-01147 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00401-KT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus (General) for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Pennsylvania -- https://www.pa.gov/en -- officially the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is a state located in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeastern, Appalachian, and Great Lakes regions of the United States.[BN] The Petitioner appears pro se. PETCO HEALTH: Maiman Sues Over Mislabeled Grain Free Dog Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- MINA MAIMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01520 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees under state statutes and common law doctrines due to Defendant's acute failure to ensure that the Grain Free Products were distributed, produced, and sold in a manner consistent with advertising. Starting as late as January 1, 2022, and continuing through the present, the Defendant has sold millions of dollars of grain free dog food under the "WholeHearted" brand (the "Grain Free Products"). The WholeHearted brand, and, specifically, the Grain Free Products, are expressly marketed on every package of dog food as containing "Complete Nutrition," "Vitamins & Minerals for Balanced Nutrition," and "Thoughtfully crafted [with] [m]aximum benefits." These representations lead reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff and Class members, to believe that the Grain Free Products provide the necessary health and nutritional benefits for dogs to regularly consume, says the suit. However, these representations are false and misleading because, on the contrary, grain free dog food does not provide complete nutrition. It carries substantial risk of imbalance and cardiovascular disease, making it not beneficial nor nutritionally balanced for dogs to regularly consume, asserts the complaint. As a result, Plaintiff Maiman and Class members were harmed by paying a price premium for the Grain Free Products which they otherwise would not have paid due to the misrepresentations made in the packaging and in advertising -- or would not have purchased the Grain Free Products at all, the suit contends. Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. provides pet health services, including veterinary care, grooming, and training, as well as offers pet nutrition products and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 1050 30th St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (718) 500-0790 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com PG&E CORP: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 25 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE PG&E CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-03509-EJD SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E Securities during the period from April 29, 2015 through November 15, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and that Plaintiffs alleged were damaged thereby, including but not limited to those who purchased in or traceable to the following Note Offerings: (i) April 2018 Offering, 3.95% Notes due 12/1/2047 (CUSIP 694308HY6); (ii) April 2018 Offering, 3.3% Notes due 12/1/2027 (CUSIP 694308HW0); (iii) December 2016 and March 2017 Offerings, 4% Notes due 12/1/2046 (CUSIP 694308HR1); (iv) March 2017 Offering, 3.3% Notes due 3/15/2027 (CUSIP 694308HS9); and (v) March 2016 Offering, 2.95% Notes due 3/1/2026 (CUSIP 694308HP5). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, together with York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, and Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the securities class action (the "Class Action"), as well as the claims of Settlement Class Members who filed Rescission or Damage Claims against PG&E Corp. and/or Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, the "Reorganized Debtors") in In re: PG&E Corp. & Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Case Nos. 19-30088 and 19-30089 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.), in the amount of $100,000,000. A final Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable Edward J. Davila on August 25, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., either in person or remotely, at the District Court's discretion, in Courtroom 4 of the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the District Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Class Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 31, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution to Settlement Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date and time of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain a copy and a long-form Notice and Claim Form, as well as other documents related to the Settlement, by visiting the website, www.PGECorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig. c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173069 Milwaukee, WI 53217 www.PGECorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com info@PGECorporationSecuritiesLitigation.com (866) 302-5617 Inquiries, other than requests for the notices or Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Michael P. Canty, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 6, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the long-form Notice such that it is received no later than July 6, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be submitted to the District Court in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice, such that they are received no later than July 6, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE DISTRICT COURT, REORGANIZED DEBTORS, DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 26, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court Northern District of California PHOTOBUCKET INC: Court Stays Pierce Suit Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAC PIERCE, NIKI HUGHES, SEAN HUGHES, and VALERIE CUMMING, on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. PHOTOBUCKET INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03432-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order: -- The Defendant's amended motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings is granted in part and denied in part. -- The Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted in part. -- The portions of the plaintiffs' claims that seek monetary damages are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Given the significant overlap between the arbitrable claims and nonarbitrable claims and potential for a preclusive effect, the Court finds that a stay of this proceeding pending arbitration is warranted. Mr. Hughes is not a third-party beneficiary to any contract between Ms. Hughes and Photobucket. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Hughes’s claims are not subject to arbitration. The 2024 Terms and arbitration provision constitute an update to the Terms that Ms. Hughes had an obligation to stay apprised of. Ms. Hughes assented to the 2024 Terms because they informed her that failure to opt out within 45 days of the effective date would constitute acceptance, and Ms. Hughes did not opt out. Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Hughes agreed to arbitrate her claims against Photobucket. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a "Photobucket User Class," consisting of: "All persons who uploaded photographs to Photobucket at any time from Jan. 1, 2003 until May 1, 2024." The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a "Photographed Class," consisting of: "All persons who appear in photographs uploaded to Photobucket any time but did not themselves create a Photobucket account." Photobucket is an image hosting website, mobile app, and online community. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gEQbD at no extra charge.[CC] PIH HEALTH INC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PIH Health, Inc. The case is styled as Rodolfo Gonzalez; individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIH Health, Inc., Case No. 26STCV08100 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." PIH Health, Inc. -- https://www.pihhealth.org/ -- is a non-profit, regional healthcare network headquartered in Whittier, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Barlow Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA BARLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE HOLDINGS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01097 (D. Colo., March 18, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") that was impacted in a data breach. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. However, on November 25, 2024, Defendant experienced a network disruption that impacted certain systems. Upon discovery, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed its IT Network between November 11, 2024, and November 25, 2024. The following types of Private Information were compromised: patient name, address, phone number, email address, Social Security number, driver's license/state ID number, date of birth, medical diagnosis/treatment information, prescription information, date of service, patient ID number, provider name, medical record number, Medicare/Medicaid number, health insurance information, health insurance claim number, health insurance policy number, and/or treatment cost information. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Shelton, Washington. Defendant PINNACLE HOLDINGS, LTD. is a Colorado-based provider of healthcare consulting services to various healthcare providers (hereinafter, the "Clients" or "Defendant's Clients").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com POLISHED.COM INC: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Eden Alpha CI LLP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Polished.com Inc. f/k/a 1847 Goedeker Inc., Douglas T. Moore, Albert Fouerti, and Maria Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-6606 (NGG) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice and granted in part and denied in part the motion for judicial notice. Lead Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Polished.com Inc., Douglas Moore, Albert Fouerti, and Maria Johnson, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The Second Amended Complaint alleged: (Count I) violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) against Polished, Fouerti, and Johnson; (Count II) violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) against Polished and Fouerti; and (Count III) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. On March 7, 2024, Polished filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay, and proceedings continued against the Individual Defendants. The court adopted Plaintiff's proposed class period as beginning on March 31, 2022, and ending on July 31, 2023. Accordingly, claims against Moore were dismissed, as he stepped down as CEO on August 31, 2021, half a year before the new class period began, with no allegations that he helped prepare, sign, or certify any financial statements containing a challenged statement during the class period. Former Employee Allegations The Second Amended Complaint utilized anonymous witness accounts to attempt to prove both material falsity and scienter. Courts generally do not credit statements of anonymous witnesses who are insufficiently described or whose descriptions do not suggest they were in a position to know the facts attributed to them. The court declined to credit the accounts of FE2, FE4, and FE11. FE2's account failed to describe access to Fouerti and recited conclusory allegations. FE4's allegations related to a party not in the lawsuit, and the court could not impute knowledge to other defendants based on what may have been raised to a non-party. FE11 left YF Logistics in March 2021, a year before the new class period, and worked at a subsidiary rather than at the parent company. As to FE1, the former Vice President of Logistics, the court found that FE1 was not in a position to know, nor had the expertise to value, the allegedly missing inventory. FE1 conducted two separate hand counts of the YF Logistics warehouse in June 2021, comparing them to ACI's ledger, to conclude that the balance sheet was materially false. The court found no sufficient allegations detailing what percentage of total units the count represented, whether the warehouse was closed during the count, and crucially, how FE1 knew that 1,200 missing units at the subsidiary materially misstated Polished's inventory on the balance sheet for an entire quarter or fiscal year. The challenged statements fell into four categories: (1) financial metrics and opinions regarding Polished's future prospects; (2) restated financial metrics; (3) statements and certifications regarding Polished's internal controls; and (4) statements concerning Polished's fulfillment, logistics, and returns processes. The court found that statements in categories (1), (3), and (4) failed to allege material misrepresentations and omissions. As to category (2), the court found that certain challenged statements in the restated financial metrics, specifically those in the 2021 Form 10-K and the first-quarter 2022 Form 10-Q, were false and misleading when stated. Plaintiff's claims failed to raise a strong inference of scienter. The Second Amended Complaint added allegations that Fouerti and Moore had motive and opportunity to commit fraud. As to Fouerti, allegations about fraudulent inventory practices before the acquisition were not pleaded with sufficient detail. The court found that schemes to defraud other shareholders do not support an argument that such conduct demonstrates motive to defraud a company's own shareholders. Taken holistically, Plaintiff failed to raise a strong inference of scienter as to any Individual Defendant. Scheme Liability and Section 20(a) Count II alleging scheme liability failed because scheme liability cannot be established when a complaint only alleges misstatements and omissions. Plaintiff failed to articulate with precision the contours of an alleged scheme to defraud investors, and scienter, a necessary element of a scheme-liability claim, was likewise missing. As to Count III, because the Second Amended Complaint failed to allege a primary violation of the securities laws, Plaintiff could not allege a violation of Section 20(a). The court therefore granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sSK7a1 from PacerMonitor.com PORTLAND LEATHER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 23 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zipman v. Portland Leather, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01156 (D. Or., Filed July 02, 2025), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Mosman entered an order adopting the case schedule proposed in the parties' Rule 26(f) Report in part and sets the following Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: The deadline to submit a joint protective order and ESI order or to file a contested motion regarding the same is May 15, 2026. The deadline for substantial completion of pre-certification document discovery is September 14, 2026. The deadline to complete pre-certification depositions is October 26, 2026. The deadline to complete all pre-certification discovery is November 2, 2026. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Plaintiff's disclosure of experts in support of class certification is November 23, 2026. The deadline for Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion for class certification and Defendant's disclosure of pre-certification rebuttal experts is February 8, 2027. The deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of her class certification motion is March 8, 2027. The parties must submit an additional scheduling stipulation 21 days after the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's class certification motion. The additional scheduling stipulation shall address the close of fact and expert discovery and a dispositive motion deadline. The nature of suit states Contract -- Diversity-(Citizenship). Portland Leather is a seller of leather bags, shoes, wallets, and footwear.[CC] POST CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in Cortez Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA ELISA CORTEZ, v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02321-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Calabretta entered an order granting in part and denying in part that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's omission theories is granted. Omission theories under Claims 1 and 2 are dismissed without leave to amend; 2. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend; and 3. The Defendant's motion is otherwise denied. In summary, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged both Article III and statutory standing under the UCL on behalf of herself and the putative class members. Because she alleges statutory standing under the UCL, Plaintiff has also adequately alleged standing under the CLRA. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief, Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim is DENIED. As support for her allegations that the citric acid is artificially manufactured, Plaintiff cites to numerous scientific articles, FDA regulations, letters from the FDA, USDA documents, and images of chemical processes used to create citric acid. (Id. ¶¶ 13 34.) This is a sufficient factual basis for Plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims to the extent they are premised on any omission theory. Because any amendment would be futile, they are dismissed without leave to amend. The Plaintiff Karla Elisa Cortez purchased Nature’s Recipe dog food advertised as having no artificial preservatives, among other attributes. She now contends the dog food contained manufactured citric acid, an artificial preservative ingredient used in food and beverage products. The Plaintiff brings a putative consumer protection class action on behalf of herself, others similarly situated, and the general public against Defendant Post Consumer Brands, LLC, alleging violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express warranty. Post Consumer is an American consumer packaged goods food manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ojqCm8 at no extra charge.[CC] POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $17.25MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that PowerSchool Holdings LLC, Hobsons, Inc., Heap Inc. (now known as Content Square, Inc.) and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago have agreed to a $17,250,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the education and technology platforms unlawfully tracked confidential student communications and data on the Naviance platform through third-party analytics software. The $17.25 million PowerSchool class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 27, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States who, while a student, logged into the product offered by Hobsons, and later by PowerSchool Holdings, commonly referred to as Naviance, at any point from August 18, 2021 through January 23, 2026. The court-approved website for the PowerSchool Naviance settlement can be found at PowerSchoolNavianceSettlement.com. According to the website, PowerSchool settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the deal. The final amount of this payout, the agreement says, will depend on the total number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration expenses and lead plaintiff service awards. Class members may receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration, the agreement says. To file a Naviance settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and complete all fields with relevant student information. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed near the top of the document. All PowerSchool settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 26, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the PowerSchool class action settlement following a hearing on June 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. In addition to monetary benefits, the class action settlement also offers significant prospective relief regarding the use of analytics and advertising technologies within the Naviance platform, measures that court documents state will be implemented after final judgment has been entered. First, the agreement states that PowerSchool has agreed to create a web governance committee to assess the use of the advertising and analytics tools at issue to evaluate whether the use of third-party technologies is consistent with applicable legal requirements. PowerSchool will also cease using any software, technology and/or code offered by third parties, including Heap, Google, Microsoft, Hotjar and Gainsight, for at least the next two years unless otherwise approved by the committee, court documents add. Furthermore, the agreement relays that PowerSchool will supplement the disclosures in the privacy statement linked on the Student.Naviance.com landing page with information about the analytics and advertising technologies used within the Naviance platform, including those offered by the aforementioned third parties. Heap, Google, Microsoft and Hotjar have also agreed to delete, within 10 days of final judgment, all stored data and communications associated with class members who logged into the Naviance platform at any time between August 18, 2021 and January 23, 2023, and PowerSchool will request that Gainsight does the same, the settlement agreement says. The agreement also explains that PowerSchool must prominently display a banner for a nine-month period on the Naviance landing page and the landing page of Powerschool.com that affirms the company's commitment to privacy and that it places great importance on the proper handling of personal data, with a link to its Global Privacy Statement. Moreover, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (CPS) has agreed to modify the terms of its contracts with third parties that handle confidential student data until four years after the entry of final judgment. During this period, court documents say, CPS will require all third parties entering a contractual agreement with the district to submit written attestation, under penalty of perjury, that, based on a diligent investigation, the third-party contractor reasonably believes that it is in full compliance with each provision of the contract, including those required by the Illinois School Student Records Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, Student Online Personal Protection Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Illinois Eavesdropping Law. Finally, the agreement says that Heap will delete all primary data and communications of settlement class members who used Naviance during the class period and, within 30 days of final judgment, delete all backup data and communications. The PowerSchool class action lawsuit alleged that the education information system company, in connection with data analytics firm Heap, software provider Hobsons, and the Chicago Board of Education, wrongfully intercepted students' private communication using the Naviance college and career-readiness platform by way of third-party analytics and advertising technologies. [GN] PROFIT COOKERS: Mollins Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Profit Cookers, LLC. The case is styled as Kenneth M. Mollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Profit Cookers, LLC, Case No. 607042/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Contract. Profit Cookers -- https://profitcookers.com/ -- is a full-service Virtual Brand Restaurant Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth Marc Mollins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C. 393 Veterans Memorial Hwy #101s Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 608-4100 PROLIANCE SURGEONS: $4.45M Deal Final Fairness Hearing Set June 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Becker's ASC reports that Seattle-based Proliance Surgeons has agreed to a $4.45 million settlement to resolve class action litigation stemming from a February 2023 data breach that affected more than 437,000 patients, the HIPAA Journal reported March 12. Hackers gained access to the surgical group's network in February 2023, exfiltrating files containing patient names, SSNs, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information and medical record numbers. Notification letters were not mailed to affected individuals until November 2023, more than 280 days after the breach was discovered. Under the settlement terms, class members may claim a two-year credit monitoring membership, reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses up to $5,000 and a pro rata cash payment of up to $599. The claims deadline is May 28, with a final fairness hearing scheduled for June 26. Proliance Surgeons denied all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation. At the Becker's 23rd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven ASC + The Future of Spine Conference, taking place June 11-13 in Chicago, spine surgeons, orthopedic leaders and ASC executives will come together to explore minimally invasive techniques, ASC growth strategies and innovations shaping the future of outpatient spine care. Apply for complimentary registration now. [GN] QUALITY BACK: Withholds Retirement Contributions, Sievers Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE SIEVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY BACK OFFICE, LLC, CHESTNUT STREET CAPITAL, LLC, RYAN ROSS, ETHEN ARMSTRONG, ERIK SCHMOLK, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00291-RJD (S.D. Ill., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 including breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions, and failure to remit employee contributions. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful withholding of employee retirement contributions under a purported Simple Individual Retirement Account retirement plan. According to the complaint, the Defendants deducted retirement contributions directly from employee wages every pay period beginning in approximately February 2025, representing that those funds would be deposited into employee retirement accounts and matched by the employer. The Defendants failed to deposit those employee contributions into the retirement accounts in a timely manner, or at all, while continuing to withhold funds from employees' wages. As a result, employees lost the opportunity for investment growth and suffered financial harm from the withheld wages, suit says. Quality Back Office, LLC is an accounting firm doing business in Illinois. Chestnut Street Capital, LLC is a private equity firm based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Baricevic, Esq. CHATHAM & BARICEVIC 107 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 233-2200 Facsimile: (618) 233-1589 Email: cj@chathamlaw.org REGENTS UNIVERSITY: Wexler Bid for Recusal Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHALL WEXLER, v. REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00377-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order denying the Plaintiff's second motion for recusal and motion for leave to amend. Accordingly, Mr. Wexler's motions for relief are denied. If Mr. Wexler does not agree with any of the Court's rulings, his remedy is to appeal, not to file additional motions (including but not limited to motions to recuse, reconsider, or amend). Mr. Wexler shall not make any additional filings in this case unless and until he prevails in an appeal or the Ninth Circuit so directs. Should Mr. Wexler continue to make a filing in this case without one of those circumstances being applicable, his filing is deemed (in advance) stricken and the Court shall take no further action. The case remains closed. The Court has reviewed the grounds for recusal identified by Mr. Wexler. (Some of Mr. Wexler’s arguments largely repeat arguments he made in his prior motion.) Mr. Wexler’s motion is predicated on a number of factual errors. For example, the undersigned does not have any direct financial ties to the University of California as he alleges. Nor does the undersigned's family member receive health care services from the University of California as he alleges. There is no basis to recuse under the standard articulated in Holland. Mr. Wexler's attempt to bring a class action is meritless because there is insufficient commonality to warrant class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=curiCZ at no extra charge.[CC] RELIABLE INSURANCE: Gavidia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliable Insurance Services LLC. The case is styled as Steven Alejandro Hernandez Gavidia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reliable Insurance Services LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01521-DMS-SBC (S.D. Cal., March 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Reliable Insurance Services -- https://www.myreliableinsurance.com/ -- offers insurance choices from reputable companies.[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 RIDE AVENTON: Faces Brennan TCPA Suit in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ride Aventon, Inc. The case is captioned as JOSEPH BRENNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIDE AVENTON, INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-00545-JDE (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ride Aventon, Inc. is a mobility solutions provider, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Telephone: (720) 805-2008 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq. THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 551-5221 Facsimile: (310) 496-2840 Email: aaron@aftergoodesq.com SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Emails and Sales ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the theme park illegally sent consumers emails with misleading and false subject lines to create the illusion of a limited-time sale. The 13-page fraud lawsuit claims that SeaWorld "frequently" sends consumers unsolicited promotional emails about purportedly limited-time discounts and sales that contain misleading and false statements about the duration of the sale, in violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). The filing claims that a March 1, 2026 email sent to the plaintiff by SeaWorld bore the subject line "FINAL DAY to Save on Tickets as Low as $69.99!" despite the fact that tickets were still available at that price for at least 14 days after the sale purportedly ended, creating a false sense of urgency for consumers. The suit adds that this marketing tactic relies on a "fundamental misrepresentation of fact," as SeaWorld "determines in advance how long it will offer a given promotion" and is keenly aware that the description of a limited-time sale is "untruthful." The class action lawsuit alleges that SeaWorld routinely makes false statements about the impending end of a sale in email subject lines because it is a deliberate tactic to "grab" consumers’ attention and "induce immediate action to secure savings." The lawsuit conveys that the emails "distort" information by design to manipulate consumers to purchase more or different items, purchase items sooner than they otherwise would, or skip comparison shopping to claim an ostensibly limited-time deal. "SeaWorld designs the subject lines of its marketing emails to tap into these consumer urges," the lawsuit claims, and has repeatedly advertised fake sales through promotional emails. One such email sent on February 20, 2026, had the subject line "FINAL DAYS: Last Chance to Save on Tickets & Fun Cards!", the case states. Another allegedly misleading email sent on March 8 and March 15 of this year with the subject line "ENDS TONIGHT! SPRING BREAK SALE: Save Up to 60% on Tickets, Fun Cards, and Passes!" is provided as an example in the filing. SeaWorld uses the supposedly limited-time discounts to justify sending consumers more emails than it otherwise would, with "multiple promotional emails" sent to consumers "every day," the complaint says. The plaintiff states that he does not take issue with receiving emails from SeaWorld, but per the filing, he simply wants to receive "truthful information." The SeaWorld CEMA class action lawsuit seeks to cover all Washington residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, received an email from or at the behest of SeaWorld that contained a subject line that states or implies that a particular promotion will be available for a specified period of time when the actual period for the sale is longer, or mischaracterized the nature of the email to disguises its true commercial purpose. [GN] SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Rush Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Rush, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-03157-JAM (W.D. Mo., March 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SelectQuote -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- is a direct-to-consumer distribution platform for selling insurance policies and healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tylor Whitham, Esq. WHITHAM LAW FIRM 12120 State Line Rd., Ste. Box 265 Leawood, KS 66209 Phone: (816) 522-3399 Email: tylor@whithamlawfirm.com SENTINELONE INC: Dismissal of Johansson Class Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- SentinelOne, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the dismissal of Johansson securities class suit. On June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer in the Northern District of California, captioned Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02786. The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the company's Class A common stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including its annual recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A substantially similar suit was filed on June 16, 2023 in the same court against the same defendants asserting the same claims, captioned Nyren v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02982. On Oct. 4, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases under the caption In re SentinelOne, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:23-cv-02786, and appointing a lead plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 2, 2024, the District Court granted defendants motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 1, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 16, 2024. On Oct. 2, 2025, the District Court granted defendants motion, dismissing the action with prejudice and entering judgment in favor of defendants. On Oct. 28, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The company believes the case is without merit and the defendants intend to defend the suit vigorously. In addition, the Company is not currently subject to any related shareholder derivative actions, government investigations, or other consolidated securities proceedings beyond the securities class action described above. SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity company that provides autonomous endpoint protection and related security solutions leveraging artificial intelligence to detect, prevent, and respond to cyber threats for enterprises worldwide. SKYWAY CONCESSION: ArentFox Secures Dismissal of Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ArentFox Schiff successfully represented Skyway Concession Company, LLC, operator of the eponymous toll road, in defeating a putative class action that accused the Skyway of charging excessive tolls over a five-year period. The class action lawsuit accused the Skyway of overcharging users from 10 cents to $1.20 per toll based on vehicle type, resulting in ill-gotten profits of nearly $3 million. Plaintiffs originally alleged breach of contract claims, as well as claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices ACT (ICFA). US District Judge Mary M. Rowland, who previously dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims and allowed plaintiffs to amend their pleading, now dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' remaining claims under the ICFA and for unjust enrichment and concluded that any further amendment would be futile. The AFS team included William Ziegelmueller, Mir Ali, Meera Gorjala, Dede Kokolis, and Bruce Weisenthal. Smart In Your World Your goals define our mission. Whether an immediate need or a long-term objective, ArentFox Schiff helps you reach your full potential. As industry insiders, we partner with you to develop practical business strategies and sophisticated legal solutions to achieve today's targets and anticipate tomorrow's problems. We get you across the finish line. [GN] SLASHOP INC: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLASHOP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02742 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://slashop.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Slashop, Inc. offers pet-friendly home essentials like sofa covers and bamboo bed sheets, designed to be stylish and resistant to pet hair. [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 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law SOLEO HEALTH: Kline Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as NANCY KLINE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLEO HEALTH INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV03917, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02730 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts these causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated as a class action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and provide rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) unfair business practices. Soleo Health Inc. provides specialty pharmacy services. The Company offers medications and infusion therapies for patients with complex conditions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alex Polishuk, Esq. Armida Derzakarian, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-1801 Facsimile: (310) 556-180 E-mail: apolishuk@polsinelli.com aderzakarian@polsinelli.com SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Suit Due April 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AEROPOSTALE; MICHELLE RONAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order correcting opposition deadline to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court extends Defendant’s deadline to file an opposition to the Motion for Class Certification to July 6, 2026. Below are the operative deadlines for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion April 6, 2026 for Class Certification and disclose experts: The Defendant’s deadline to file July 6, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification and disclose rebuttal experts: The Plaintiff's deadline to file reply Aug. 17, 2026 in support of motion for class certification: Class certification hearing: Sept. 3, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. These dates may be altered by order of the Court and only upon showing of good cause. The parties are ordered to collaborate in good faith to facilitate Plaintiff’s FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition. SPARC is a major retail operating company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJgllR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. Mackenzie Mullin, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, Ca 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com mmullin@seyfarth.com SPRINKLR INC: Bid to Dismiss Boshart Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Sprinklr, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the motion to dismiss the Boshart securities class suit is pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 13, 2025, a putative securities class action (the Securities Action) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Boshart v. Sprinklr, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On November 22, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and changed the case title to In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation. On January 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class comprised of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 29, 2023, and June 5, 2024 (the Class Period). The amended complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors during the putative Class Period, including by failing to disclose risks associated with Sprinklr Service, one of its product suites, and that the Company was focusing resources on Sprinklr Service rather than other product suites, and primarily seeks compensatory damages for all affected members of the putative class. On March 17, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on June 2, 2025, and the motion is currently pending before the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and, given the nature of the case, including that the proceedings are in their early stages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the case or estimate the range of potential loss, if any. Sprinklr, Inc. is a customer experience management platform provider that offers software solutions to help enterprises manage customer interactions, marketing, and analytics across digital channels. SPRINKLR INC: Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Sprinklr, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the consolidated stockholder derivative suit pending either (i) the dismissal of the Securities Action, (ii) the filing of defendants' answer in the Securities Action, or (iii) in the event the parties no longer consent to the stay. On March 18, 2025, a stockholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Coffey v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02242 (the "Coffey Action"). On March 26, 2025, a second stockholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Figurella v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02513 (the "Figurella Action"), asserting claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Coffey Action. On April 29, 2025, the Coffey Action was voluntarily dismissed. On April 30, 2025, a third stockholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Newman v. Thomas, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03591 (the "Newman Action"), asserting claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Coffey Action and Figurella Action. On May 2, 2025, the Court consolidated the Figurella Action and Newman Action under the caption In re Sprinklr, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-02513, appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, and ordered the parties to submit a proposal regarding further proceedings by July 1, 2025. On June 20, 2025, the Court entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to stay the derivative action pending either (i) the dismissal of the Securities Action, (ii) the filing of defendants’ answer in the Securities Action, or (iii) in the event the parties no longer consent to the stay. The derivative complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant and purport to bring claims on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of their fiduciary duties, among other claims, in relation to substantially the same factual allegations as those made in the Securities Action. The derivative complaints primarily seek to recover for the Company compensatory damages, restitution and equitable relief in the form of certain corporate governance reforms. Sprinklr, Inc. is a customer experience management platform provider that offers software solutions to help enterprises manage customer interactions, marketing, and analytics across digital channels. STAPLES INC: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Carroll Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC CARROLL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAPLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11336 (D. Mass., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as a condition of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff provided Defendant with his highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII"). Defendant used that PII to facilitate its employment of Plaintiff, including payroll, and required Plaintiff to provide that PII in order to obtain employment and payment for that employment. In collecting and maintaining the PII, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. On March 11, 2026, the Defendant was hacked. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII were compromised: Name; Social Security number; Financial account information; Health Insurance Information; and Driver's license information. The Defendant failed its duties when its inadequate security practices caused the Data Breach. In other words, Defendant's negligence is evidenced by its failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII. And thus, Defendant caused widespread injury and monetary damages. Further, Defendant's failure to notify Plaintiff and the Class about the Data Breach shows that Defendant cannot, or will not, determine the full scope of the Data Breach, as Defendant has been unable to determine precisely what information was stolen and when, asserts the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft, all because Defendant's Data Breach placed Plaintiff's PII right in the hands of criminals. Plaintiff Eric Carroll is a former employee of Staples. Defendant Staples, Inc. is an office supply retailer and an "industry leader in workspace products like furniture, technology, cleaning products, and traditional office supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com STELLANTIS NV: "Long" Securities Fraud Claims Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steven Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stellantis N.V., Carlos Tavares, and Natalie M. Knight, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-6196 (VEC),Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint and denied as moot a concurrent motion to strike. Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, appointed lead plaintiff in December 2024, alleges that Stellantis N.V., a multinational automotive manufacturer, engaged in a channel-stuffing scheme in which it deliberately overloaded its dealer network with excess inventory to inflate short-term financial results. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Carlos Tavares, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Natalie Knight, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, made materially false or misleading public statements in connection with that scheme. Claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. According to the Amended Complaint, Tavares launched an eight-year growth strategy after becoming CEO in January 2021 targeting, among other things, double-digit Adjusted Operating Income margins. Beginning October 31, 2023, the proposed start of the class period, Knight assured investors the Company had significantly tightened its inventory levels, that prices were "carefully calibrated," and that Stellantis maintained a high and healthy profitability level. Tavares, at a February 15, 2024, conference call, attributed robust North American results to the fact that the Company had the best US average transaction price of the industry. Plaintiff's theory of liability, as the Court summarized it, centered on Defendants' statements concerning the health and sustainability of the Company's pricing, inventory, and margins, which were rendered materially misleading through their failure to disclose their channel stuffing scheme. Anonymous former employees alleged that 50 to 60 percent of Stellantis dealers were unprofitable and had placed themselves on finance holds to avoid receiving additional vehicles. One former employee stated that dealers maintained over 100 days' worth of supply at several points in 2023, against an industry standard of 40 to 60 days. Stellantis responded to dealer complaints dismissively. Beginning in mid-2024, the scheme unraveled publicly. On June 13, 2024, Tavares told investors: things were visible in fall 2023 . . . we ended up 2023 with too much inventory. And you were the first ones to spot that, and you were right . . . I am responsible and we were arrogant. In September 2024, the U.S. Stellantis National Dealer Council sent Tavares a letter calling the situation a disaster and noting it had been sounding this alarm for more than two years. On September 30, 2024, the last day of the proposed class period, Stellantis revised its full-year AOI guidance to between 5.5 and 7 percent, triggering a 12.5 percent stock decline. Knight departed as CFO shortly thereafter, and Tavares subsequently resigned. The Court identified three categories of non-actionable statements. First, several statements were irrelevant when read in full context. Second, descriptions of pricing as healthy and carefully calibrated, profits as robust and sustainable, and inventory levels as healthy amounted to puffery, which the Court found too general and subjective to form the basis for a securities fraud claim. Third, certain forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language were protected under the PSLRA Safe Harbor provision, including Knight's September 23, 2024, remark that a 10 percent AOI target was the Company's North Star, which was qualified as not a walk in the park and not a done deal. The Court found it unnecessary to rule definitively on the remaining arguably actionable statements because Plaintiff failed to plead a strong inference of scienter, an independent and fatal deficiency. On motive and opportunity, the Court found no adequate allegations of concrete personal benefit. Neither Defendant was alleged to have sold stock during the class period. Tavares's compensation, while linked to share price, presented only the generalized incentive that courts have consistently held insufficient. The Court further noted that significant share buybacks during the class period were inconsistent with a fraudulent inflation scheme, observing that it would make no economic sense for a company to buy back its stock at a price it knows to be inflated. On circumstantial evidence, the Court found Tavares's June 2024 arrogance admission, read in full context, reflected overconfidence and failure to foresee a market downturn rather than intentional deception, characterizing Plaintiff's reliance on it as alleging fraud by hindsight. The Court found that dealer warnings and internal tracking of inventory metrics showed at most that Defendants pursued a controversial strategy, not conscious misbehavior. The most plausible inference, the Court concluded, was that they simply misread the market, believing erroneously that demand would eventually catch up to supply. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/47chvxhe from PacerMonitor.com SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT: Glingoa Files Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sullivan Entertainment Inc., et al. The case is captioned as MARK GLINGOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02217-AS (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. Sullivan Entertainment Inc. is an entertainment company based in Toronto, Ontario. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU AND DEMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Alexander Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of her Minor Children, DEIDRA DONOHOE, JESSICA KLARIN, JENNIFER ELLIOT, KENNETH SMITH, JORDAN KRISTOFF, WILLIAM RICHARDSON, JR., CHRISTIAN CASTLE, and EMMANUEL HOLGUIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC., d/b/a SUMMIT PATHOLOGY, Case No. 1:24-cv-02939-GPG-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gordon Gallagher entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint and motion to strike class allegations. According to the Court, the well-pleaded factual allegations indicate a significant risk to patients, that injury is foreseeable in the absence of protection due to pervasive cybersecurity risk. Even in reply, Defendant does not assert any particular burden or attendant consequences that would attend such a duty. Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that they did not owe a duty because harm was not foreseeable. This civil action arises from a data breach at Defendant Summit Pathology Laboratories, Inc. Summit is a pathology laboratory that performs laboratory tests for medical providers in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=97lZtD at no extra charge.[CC] SUNPOWER CORP: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE SUNPOWER CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05544-RFL Class Action Judge: Hon. Rita F. Lin SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SunPower common stock, or purchased or traded other SunPower securities, between May 3, 2023 and July 19, 2024, both dates inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Long Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Long Notice"). In the Action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (three former officers of SunPower Corporation ("SunPower")) made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding SunPower's financial health that artificially inflated SunPower's common stock price between May 3, 2023 and July 19, 2024 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants deny these allegations and any wrongdoing. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $11,000,000 (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held in person and via Zoom, on August 25, 2026 at 1:30pm, before the Honorable Rita F. Lin in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, and at the Zoom link , to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation of Settlement dated January 9, 2026 and amended on February 10, 2026 (and in the Long Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement) should be approved. The Court reserves the right to hold the hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. The date and time of the hearing may change without further notice to the Settlement Class. Any order changing the date or time of the hearing will be posted on the Settlement website, www.SunPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Long Notice and Proof of Claim Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at info@SunPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. Copies of the Long Notice and Claim Form will be available for download from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.SunPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than July 26, 2026 or submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 26, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than August 4, 2026 by the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. If you do not properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by such judgments or orders. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement), must be in writing and filed either electronically, in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or by mail with the Clerk of the Court such that they are received no later than August 4, 2026: Clerk's Office United States District Court for the Northern District of California Clerk of the Court Phillip Burton Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Avenue 16th floor San Francisco, CA 94102 A Settlement Class Member who submits a written objection may enter an appearance through an attorney if the Settlement Class Member so desires. The requirement to submit a written objection as a prerequisite to appearing in Court to object to the Settlement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. The Court will require only substantial compliance with the requirements for submitting an objection. The Court can only approve or deny the Settlement and cannot change the terms of the Settlement. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, SunPower, or Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Plaintiffs' Counsel or the Claims Administrator. The case docket may be accessed via PACER or in person at the Clerk's office. Additional information will be available on the Settlement website, www.SunPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. Request for Long Notice and Claim Form: SunPower Securities Settlement ATTN: EXCLUSIONS P.O. Box 58220 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (888) 771-4249 www.SunPowerSecuritiesSettlement.com Contact Plaintiffs' Counsel for all other inquiries: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. 600 Third Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY 10016-1917 (212) 661-1100 jalieberman@pomlaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Dated: March 16, 2026 SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) resulting from allegations that Super Micro Computer, Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Super Micro securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28261 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On March 20, 2026, CNBC published an article entitled "Super Micro co-founder indicted on Nvidia smuggling charges leaves board." The article stated that "Yih-Shyan "Wally" Liaw, a co-founder, has resigned from the server maker's board after he was indicted in the U.S. on allegations of smuggling equipment containing Nvidia artificial intelligence chips into China." On this news, Super Micro stock fell 33% on March 20, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. 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. [GN] TACO BELL IP HOLDER: Yoshida Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taco Bell IP Holder LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Daisuke Yoshida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Taco Bell IP Holder LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01939-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Taco Bell IP Holder, LLC doing business as Taco Bell -- https://www.tacobell.com/ -- is an American multinational chain of fast food restaurants.[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 TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Hearing in Merrell Suit Due April 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order setting the following deadline: Hearing on class certification: April 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Tapestry is a New York-based luxury fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FE7X02 at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORPORATION: Buckmaster Seeks Prelim Nod of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE BUCKMASTER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-05375-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that: (1) conditionally certifies a Settlement Class, (2) preliminarily approves a class-wide settlement of the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant, (3) approves the proposed notices to be sent to Settlement Class Members ("Class"), and (4) schedules a final settlement approval hearing for July 10, 2026. The Plaintiff contends that relief should be granted because the proposed Settlement provides fair, reasonable, and adequate relief for the proposed Settlement Class. This pleading and the accompanying declaration also serve as Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Rule 23(h). The Plaintiff so moves in order to allow notice to and review by the Class, but submits that the Court defer final ruling on such petition until the final fairness hearing. Based on time and payroll and other records produced by Defendant, the proposed Settlement Class consists of approximately 24,000 individuals: "All current and former non-exempt Target employees who performed work in the state of Washington from April 3, 2022 through the date Court grants preliminary approval or May 21, 2026, whichever is earlier." As a result of the negotiations and calculations, the Defendant will make a total Common Settlement Fund payment of $1,250,000.00 to pay damages to the Settlement Class, attorneys' fees and costs, service and full release award to named Plaintiff, and settlement administration fees and costs. Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qqVSJh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Pizl, Esq. Daniel J. Teimouri, Esq. Erica L. Molina, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 Thirty-Ninth Ave SW Ste. 13 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Telephone: (253) 446-7668 E-mail: jim@ententelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily A. Bushaw, Esq. Heather Shook, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: EBushaw@perkinscoie.com HShook@perkinscoie.com TEXAS: Adimora-Nweke Balks at Improper Driver's License Renewal Fee ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST ADIMORA-NWEKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00051-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2026) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to a $125 reinstatement/renewal fee upon renewal of his Texas Driver's License, and remains subject to increase in insurance costs, suspension on his driver's license record, etc.; all unjustly caused without statutory authority, & without any constitutional fair notice & hearing opportunity. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is a state agency responsible for law enforcement, driver licensing, and emergency management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented pro se. TOUCH OF MODERN: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touch of Modern, LLC, et al. The case is styled as John Lyons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Touch of Modern, LLC, Does 1 through 15, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26634762 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Touch of Modern -- https://www.touchofmodern.com/ -- is the most popular men's fashion site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wendy L.R. Miele, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-927-9270 Email: wmiele@taulersmith.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Mixon Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEM MIXON, TERRENCE LOGAN, RONALD SMITH, PAUL FLICK, MELISSA SINDONI, DOMINICK CLEMENTE, WHITNEY SEXTON, CLINTON MAYBERRY, CARL FOSTER, KEITH WOODALL, ROBERT REDMOND, ANDREW HALPNER, ANTHONY DE LOSADA, PATRICK TWYMAN, JAMES VEREEKE, STEPHEN DISCHINO, STEVE SNOWDEN, NATHAN DONCHEZ, and TOM HARMON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01018-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order that Toyota's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Allegations and Toyota's Amended Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Applicable Statutes of Limitation are denied. The Toyota's Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Applicable Statutes of Limitation is denied as moot. The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under RICO and the DTPA. After reviewing the Plaintiffs' complaint and the arguments presented in the briefs, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Dismissal is unwarranted. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be denied on this ground. Even assuming that the Defendants' request is procedurally proper, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the Court disagrees that this is the type of seemingly meritless or insubstantial claim that warrants a Rule 7(a)(7) reply. The Defendants' request is denied. The Plaintiffs allege that the door lock actuator in several Toyota vehicle models unexpectedly ceases to function. The defect results in car doors that cannot be locked or unlocked using a remote key fob or the power door locks on the interior door panels. Allegedly, the Defendants have long been aware of the defect—and deceived consumers to avoid accountability The Plaintiffs currently define the nationwide class as: "All persons or entities in the United States who are current or former owners and/or lessees of a Class Vehicle." Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HfIyB3 at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSAMERICA LIFE: "Rogoff" Class Suit Remanded to Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUSAN ROGOFF, as Personal Representative and Successor-in-Interest of Leonard Rogoff and His Estate, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and DOES, 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24-7732 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Plaintiff-Appellee's motion to remand. Rogoff, the original plaintiff in this action, brought a complaint on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated holders and beneficiaries of life insurance policies with Transamerica alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint sought three distinct remedies: (1) restitution of lost policy benefits, wrongfully collected or inflated premiums, and the diminution in value of the insurance policies; (2) a mandatory injunction compelling Transamerica to treat the insurance policies as if they had never been terminated; and (3) a prohibitory injunction compelling Transamerica not to engage in the allegedly unlawful business practices going forward. During the appeal, Rogoff passed away, and his wife, Susan Rogoff, was substituted as his representative. While the case was not moot, his death changed the factual context of the case. The parties indicated that the complaint would likely be amended, and another class member might be added as a named plaintiff. In addition, Transamerica relied on Ruiz v. Bradford Exchange, Ltd. (2025), decided during the appeal, to argue the district court erred by remanding for lack of equitable jurisdiction without allowing it to waive its adequate-remedy-at-law defense. Although Transamerica did not raise this in the district court, it argued that the change in law and Rogoff's death were extraordinary circumstances justifying the Ninth Circuit excusing the forfeiture. In light of these developments, the Appellate Court declined to address the merits of the district court's order. It held that Transamerica should be given the opportunity to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law issue if equitable jurisdiction remains relevant. The Ninth Circuit therefore vacated the district court's order and remanded the case to proceed in federal court. A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2026 Memorandum is available at https://bit.ly/47vqulB ULTRACORE SYSTEMS: Yoshida Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UltraCore Systems LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Daisuke Yoshida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UltraCore Systems LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01953-SKO (E.D. Cal., March 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. UltraCore Systems -- https://ultracoresystems.com/ -- is a next-generation gaming and hardware brand dedicated to delivering high-performance gear.[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 UNITED NETWORK: Bid for Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY ROWE, v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING ("UNOS"); UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:24-cv-05022-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file certain documents under seal in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Specifically, the Parties seek leave to seal certain patient medical information. The Parties also seek leave to seal UNOS's Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network ("OPTN") contract. There are compelling reasons to seal such documents and the information contained therein. As for medical records, maintaining an individual's right to privacy over their medical information constitutes a compelling reason for keeping them from public view. As for UNOS's OPTN contract, public disclosure thereof would put UNOS at a severe competitive disadvantage in future bidding processes. For these compelling reasons and as explained further below, the Court should grant the Parties' Joint Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. United Network is an organ procurement and transplantation network in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lUx9Uj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Venezia, Esq. George B. A. Laiolo, Esq. Daniel A. Contreras, Esq. Andrew R. Iglesias, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: mvenezia@ellisgeorge.com glaiolo@ellisgeorge.com dcontreras@ellisgeorge.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel M. Blouin, Esq. Thomas G. Weber, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: dblouin@winston.com tgweber@winston.com sobi@winston.com - and - Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Grace W. Kang, Esq. Heejin H. Hwang, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LICENBERG, DROOKS & NASSIM LLP 1875 Century Park E, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 UNITED NETWORK: Rowe Seeks to Certify Kidney Disease Patient Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY ROWE, v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:24-cv-05022-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, seeking certification of the following class (the "USC Class"): "Black USC kidney disease patients who were registered on the national kidney transplant waitlist, from 2000 to the present, that received or would have qualified for a wait time adjustment because a lab test shows that with a race-inclusive calculation, the candidate's eGFR was over 20 mL/min, but with a race-neutral calculation it would have been 20 mL/min or less." Excluded from this class is any person filing an individual, personal injury action. The Plaintiff also seeks an order appointing himself as class representative, and Matthew Venezia of Ellis George LLP as lead counsel. The Motion seeks certification of a class of Black USC kidney disease patients challenging the same discriminatory policy at issue in the related Randall matter, i.e., USC's adjustment of Black patients' kidney function scores on the assumption they have greater muscle mass. United Network is an organ procurement and transplantation network in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cH9Aqo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Venezia, Esq. George B. A. Laiolo, Esq. Daniel A. Contreras, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: mvenezia@ellisgeorge.com glaiolo@ellisgeorge.com dcontreras@ellisgeorge.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Certification Order in Dickinson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification and motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Jack Dickinson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02170, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants to defend their First Amendment rights to speak, gather news, or protest peacefully and nonviolently at and around the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility located at 4310 S. Macadam Avenue, near the corner of Southwest Moody Avenue and Southwest Bancroft Street in Portland, Oregon. On Feb. 17, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On Feb. 28, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Mar. 9, 2026, Judge Michael H. Simon entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion to certify class. The Court appoints Jack Dickinson, Laurie Eckman, Richard Eckman, Mason Lake, and Hugo Rios as Class Representatives and further appoints their counsel as Class Counsel to represent a class consisting of: "All people who, since the beginning of Operation Skip Jack, have, desire to, or will nonviolently protest against or report on U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) activities at the Portland ICE Building." The appellate case is styled as Dickinson, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-1609, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief is due on April 14, 2026; and -- Appellee's Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief is due on May 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JACK DICKINSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kimberly Sue Hutchison, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 - and - Matthew Brooks Borden, Esq. Hadley Rood, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN, LLP 747 Front Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Kelly Simon, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON, INC. 506 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97204 - and - Eri Andriola, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON, INC. P.O. Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 Telephone: (202) 662-5801 - and - Jessica Ashlee Albies, Esq. ALBIES & STARK, LLC 1500 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97201 - and - Jane Leanne Moisan, Esq. PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE 1500 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97201 Defendants-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al. are represented by: Brad Prescott Rosenberg, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 - and - John Bailey, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Assistant Attorney General Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 - and - Brenna Helene Scully, Esq. Douglas C. Dreier, Esq. Michael Shih, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20530 - and - August E. Flentje, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation General Litigation and Appeals Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 US MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA Mag, reports that A Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-approved lender is being sued over a data breach that allegedly left borrowers' Social Security numbers unencrypted. The class action, filed March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, names US Mortgage Corporation as the defendant. The company, founded in 1994 and headquartered in Melville, New York, specializes in VA, FHA, USDA, and conventional loans, is licensed in 49 states and Washington, D.C., and has provided over $18 billion in loans to more than 57,000 homeowners. According to the filing, cybercriminals accessed a portion of the company's network from May 13 to May 14, 2025, and made off with names, birthdates, contact information, Social Security numbers, financial account details including mortgage account information, and limited medical information. The company detected suspicious activity on May 14, 2025, and engaged third-party cybersecurity experts. An investigation confirmed the unauthorized access in July 2025, and a data review was completed by October 2025. The timeline is where the case takes a sharper turn. The breach was not publicly disclosed until approximately March 2026 — over nine months after detection. The lawsuit alleges this violated New York law, which requires notification within 30 days of discovery. The filing puts the delay at more than 260 days beyond that statutory deadline. The allegations extend well beyond the notification gap. The lawsuit claims the company stored sensitive data without encryption, failed to implement multifactor authentication, lacked adequate network monitoring, and did not sufficiently train employees on cybersecurity threats. It also alleges the company fell short of its obligations under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's Safeguards Rule, which requires financial institutions to maintain a comprehensive security program to protect customer information. The company's own privacy policy, cited in the filing, assured customers that sensitive data such as Social Security numbers was protected by encryption and that security systems were regularly audited. The lawsuit contends those assurances did not hold up. The case was brought by Richard Bernich, a former employee and a resident of Wantagh, New York, on behalf of all individuals whose information may have been compromised. The filing references thousands of affected individuals and places the amount in controversy above $5 million. A jury trial has been demanded. It is worth noting that the case is in its earliest stage. No class has been certified, no court ruling has been issued, and the allegations have not been proven or adjudicated. Still, the broader context makes this case hard to ignore. The filing cites data showing that financial services was the single most targeted sector for data breaches in 2024, with over 23 percent of all compromises nationwide hitting the industry. For mortgage professionals, the takeaway is straightforward: the sensitive data sitting in every loan file is exactly what cybercriminals are hunting, and the legal and regulatory consequences of leaving it unprotected are growing steeper by the year. [GN] VAIL RESORTS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- DiCello Levitt, Berger Montague PC, and Salahi PC have filed a federal antitrust class action on behalf of skiers and snowboarders nationwide against Vail Resorts, Inc. and Alterra Mountain Company, alleging that the two dominant ski resort operators have each unlawfully inflated prices and suppressed competition through anticompetitive bundling practices tied to their multi‑mountain season passes. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the lawsuit is the first action brought against Vail Resorts and Alterra over these claims, alleging an industry‑wide scheme that has driven up the cost of skiing and snowboarding across North America. According to the complaint, Vail Resorts and Alterra -- together controlling access to nearly every major destination ski resort in North America -- have steered skiers and snowboarders into expensive season-pass bundles through Epic Pass and Ikon Pass products by setting single-day lift-ticket prices at artificially high levels. The suit alleges these practices violate federal and state antitrust laws by restraining competition, foreclosing independent ski areas, and forcing consumers to pay supracompetitive prices. "For years, skiers have been told that soaring lift‑ticket prices, reduced choice, and overcrowding are simply the new reality. Our complaint alleges that these outcomes are not the result of healthy competition, but of exclusionary conduct by two companies that dominate access to the most desirable destinations," said Partner Greg Asciolla, Chair of DiCello Levitt's Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice. The complaint further alleges that virtually all marquee destination ski resorts are now owned by, or contractually tied to, either Vail Resorts or Alterra -- leaving consumers with few meaningful alternatives and pressuring independent regional ski areas to either join one of the two ecosystems or risk being shut out of skier demand altogether. Plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased lift tickets or season passes, as well as injunctive relief designed to restore competition in the ski resort market. The case is Goloja et al. v. Vail Resorts, Inc. et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. A copy of the complaint is available at https://dicellolevitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Vail-Resorts-and-Alterra-Ski-Passes-Antitrust-Class-Action.pdf The DiCello Levitt team on the matter includes Greg Asciolla, Jonathan Crevier, and Carrie Syme. 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. Media Contact Caitlin Whitehurst, Director of Communications, cwhitehurst@dicellolevitt.com [GN] VALOR TECHNICAL: Class Cert. Hearing in Thornton Set for June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL THORNTON, v. VALOR TECHNICAL CLEANING LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00385-WHR-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Rice entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: Cut-off date for filing of motions directed to Mar. 23, 2026 pleadings (including motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12): Cut-off deadline for discovery: Mar. 23, 2026 Cut-off date for all other pretrial June 3, 2026 motions, i.e., motions in limine, motions for a view, etc.: Joint Final Pre-Certification Order by June 15, 2026 parties to be filed no later than: Class Certification hearing: June 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Valor provides professional crime scene and biohazard cleanup services nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=braJU2 at no extra charge.[CC] VALVE CORP: Flauto and Meyer Sue Over Gambling Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER FLAUTO and JACKSON MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00788 (W.D. Wash., March 9, 2026) seeks recovery of all money lost at gambling under Washington's gambling laws, damages for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and restitution for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs lost money by purchasing keys to open loot boxes and receiving virtual items worth less than the price of the keys. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seek an order (1) requiring Valve to cease the operation of its illegal gambling. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, further seek an order (1) requiring Valve to cease the operation of its illegal gambling games; and/or (2) awarding the recovery of all lost monies, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs to the extent allowable. Headquartered in Bellevue, WA, Valve develops and publishes video games, including Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Moses Jehng, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com moses.jehng@hbsslaw.com - and - Ben Harrington, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com VEGAS.COM LLC: Nixon False Ads Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MATTHEW NIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEGAS.COM, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 26-CV-166294, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02213-TSH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a proposed class consisting of: All individuals in California who purchased hotel accommodations, show tickets, tours, or similar services (but not air + hotel packages) through Vegas.com from January 22, 2022 through May 20, 2025 and were charged mandatory fees that were not clearly and conspicuously disclosed in the original advertised price, including but not limited to resort fees, service fees, processing fees, or delivery charges. The Plaintiff asserts Defendants' purported violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law. Vegas.com, LLC provides travel services. The Company offers hotels, tours, clubs, and other related services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Warren Metlitzky, Esq. CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-7100 Facsimile: (415) 343-7101 E-mail: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com - and - Timothy B. Hardwicke, Esq. Kathryn L. Couey, Esq. Glenna E. Siegel, Esq. GOODSMITH GREGG & UNRUH LLP 150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 322-1980 Facsimile: (312) 322-0056 E-mail: thardwicke@ggulaw.com kcouey@ggulaw.com gsiegel@ggulaw.com VGW HOLDINGS: Cox Gambling Suit Removed to D. Conn. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEPHANIE COX, Plaintiff, v. VGW HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED, VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., VGW GP LIMITED, VGW HOLDINGS, US, INC., and VGW US, INC., Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV24-6193707-S, was removed from the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00363 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' online casino-themed social games on the Chumba Casino, Luckyland Slots, and Global Poker websites are unlawful gambling under Connecticut law. VGW Holdings Pty. Limited is an interactive entertainment company that offers online social games. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John M. Doroghazi, Esq. Benjamin H. Diessel, Esq. WIGGIN AND DANA LLP 265 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508 Telephone: (203) 498-4400 E-mail: jdoroghazi@wiggin.com bdiessel@wiggin.com WELLS FARGO: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to April 16 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chhabria entered a continuing March 26, 2026, hearing on class certification and March 27, 2026, case management conference: 1. The Class Certification Hearing is continued to April 16, 2026 at 3:30PM; 2. The Further Case Management Conference is continued to April 24, 2026, at 10:00AM by Zoom only; and 3. A Joint Case Management Statement is due 7 days before the further case management conference. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yZr2yE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net kgibboney@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net aheller@bm.net jsamuel@bergermontague.com - and - Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Michael J Angelides, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com mangelides@simmonsfirm.com - and - Robert J. Jackson, Jr., Esq. BUZIN LAW, P.C. 3003 Purchase Street Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (212) 879-8100 E-mail: robert.j.jackson@nyu.edu The Defendant is represented by: David G. Hille, Esq. Gregory M. Starner, Esq. Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: dhille@whitecase.com gstarner@whitecase.com bmerryman@whitecase.com WEST VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Denies N. Henry's Mandamus Petition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: NICOLE HENRY, Petitioner, Case No. 26-1193 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Henry's petition for a writ of mandamus. Henry petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to vacate its July 14, 2025, order in Case No. 5:22‑cv‑00405, which denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement and to conduct a Rule 23(e) analysis of the settlement's fairness. The Fourth Circuit explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the petitioner has a clear right to relief and no other adequate means to obtain it. Because the district court had already denied class certification, it was not required under Rule 23(e) to evaluate the settlement, and mandamus cannot substitute for an appeal. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied relief and dispensed with oral argument, finding the written record sufficient. A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's March 17, 2026 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z2xz929 Stephen Paul New, STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES, Beckley, West Virginia, for Petitioner. WESTERN EXPRESS: Removes Brown Suit from Cal. Super. to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JERMAINE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.; WESTERN EXPRESS TRANSPORT OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVSB2535959) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 11, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01122 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Kenly Kiya Kato and referred to Magistrate David T Bristow. Western Express, Inc. provides transportation solutions. The Company offers truckload van, dedicated fleet, flatbed transportation, expedited truck and rail, and logistics services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard D. Marca, Esq. Elia M. Vazquez, Esq. VARNER & BRANDT LLP 3750 University Ave., Ste. 610 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 274-7777 Facsimile: (951) 274-7770 Email: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com Elia.Vazquez@varnerbrandt.com WESTERN UNION: Illegally Tracks Website Users' Info, Rodriguez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., d/b/a WWW.WESTERNUNION.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26CU012032C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Trap and Trace Law and intrusion upon seclusion. According to the complaint, the Defendant intercepts visitors' communications as they access its website, www.westernunion.com, without prior consent. The Defendant secretly installed tracking technology on its website which serve to track and disclose its visitors' personal information to third parties, suit says. In doing so, the Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal information of individuals seeking financial services and breached its customers' trust, violating state and federal law. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. is a financial services provider based in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Wins Bid to End "Helms" Commission Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Jane Helms, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Westgate Resorts, Inc.; Westgate Resorts, Ltd.; Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC; and Central Florida Investments, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-04154-JD (D.S.C., Florence Division), Judge Joseph Dawson III of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. The court also denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. This action arises from Plaintiff's former employment as a timeshare sales representative and her allegations that Defendants failed to pay commissions and related compensation purportedly owed under the parties' employment agreement. Defendants employed Plaintiff at their Myrtle Beach, South Carolina property from approximately March 2022 until April 2024. Her compensation was governed by a written Employment Agreement and Commission Schedule, under which sales representatives were paid through commissions subject to specified conditions. Under the Commission Schedule, commissions were not deemed earned unless the purchaser made a required down payment and six consecutive, timely monthly payments. The Commission Schedule also established a reserve account, funded by a percentage of commissions, which served as security for potential chargebacks and from which funds would be released only upon satisfaction of the contractual conditions. Plaintiff alleged that after termination of her employment, Defendants failed to release funds held in her reserve account and otherwise withheld commissions she contended were earned or partially earned through her sales efforts. Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on July 7, 2025, asserting five causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) negligence; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) quantum meruit. Upon careful examination, the court found that the Second Amended Complaint suffered from the same fundamental defects identified in its prior order. As to Count I, breach of contract, Plaintiff again failed to identify specific contractual provisions allegedly breached and failed to plead plausible facts demonstrating satisfaction of the Agreement's express conditions precedent. The court noted that Count I alleged in conclusory terms that Defendants refused to pay lawfully owed commissions, a formulation that did not permit a plausible inference of breach. As to Count II, conversion, the court found that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a possessory interest in specific, identifiable funds or an immediate right to possession. The court further held that the conversion claim was impermissibly duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim, as Florida law does not permit a plaintiff to recast a breach-of-contract claim as a tort claim where the alleged wrongful conduct arises solely from the parties' contractual relationship. Regarding Count III, negligence, the court concluded that Florida's independent tort doctrine barred the claim. Plaintiff identified no duty arising from statute, common law, or any source independent of the contract. Therefore, the negligence claim was not distinct from the breach-of-contract claim and could not proceed. As to Counts IV and V, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, the court held that both claims were barred as a matter of law because an express contract governing Plaintiff's compensation was not in dispute. A plaintiff may not circumvent an express contractual relationship by recasting the same claim under an equitable theory. The court dismissed Plaintiff's proposed Nationwide Class and South Carolina Class. Both classes were defined to include individuals who had their commissions or performance-based compensation unlawfully withheld by Defendants. The court held that whether compensation was unlawfully withheld is a merits determination, rendering both classes impermissible fail-safe classes under Rule 23. Independently, because Plaintiff failed to state a viable individual claim, she cannot serve as an adequate class representative. Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend, finding that further amendment would be futile. This was Plaintiff's third attempt to state a claim. The proposed Third Amended Complaint still failed to allege satisfaction of the Agreement's express conditions precedent with reference to any specific transaction, purchaser, or payment history. Defendants' motion to dismiss was therefore granted, and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision dated 19th march is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DR6JNt from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Central Florida Investments Inc., Westgate Myrtle Beach LLC, Westgate Resorts Inc., and Westgate Resorts Ltd Represented By: John Smith Wilkerson, III Turner Padget Graham And Laney 843-576-2800 jwilkerson@turnerpadget.com -- and -- Richard W Epstein Jason W Prince Myrna L Maysonet Greenspoon Marder LLP richard.epstein@gmlaw.com jason.prince@gmlaw.com myrna.maysonet@gmlaw.com Plaintiff Jane Helms Represented By: Paul J Doolittle Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC 843-834-4712 paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Refrigerators' Suit Fairness Hearing Set July 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP announces that on March 3, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class action settlement in a lawsuit titled Costa v. Whirlpool Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-MN (D. Del.). The lawsuit involves an alleged wire harness defect in certain side-by-side refrigerators manufactured by Whirlpool Corporation between 2018 and 2021 under the Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, and Jenn-Air brand names. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Class Refrigerators contain defective wire harnesses running to the in-door ice maker, ice dispenser, water dispenser, and control panel that can break under normal use rendering one or more of the in-door features inoperable. Under the proposed Settlement, Class members who own a Class Refrigerator and experience a broken wire harness within two to seven years of purchase can claim (1) cash reimbursement for previously incurred out-of-pocket costs to repair or replace a Class Refrigerator, (2) repair or payment options for Class Refrigerators that previously experienced a failure and have not yet been repaired or replaced, and (3) repair or payment options for Class Refrigerators that experience a future wire harness failure within seven years of the purchase or manufacture date. The deadline to submit claims for past failures is November 2, 2026. The Settlement Website, www.RefrigeratorSettlement.com, provides additional information about the lawsuit and settlement, including: -- How to file a claim; -- The ability to file a claim online and submit supporting documentation; -- A full copy of the Settlement Agreement; and -- A copy of the detailed Long Form Notice and FAQs explaining the Settlement, the benefits available to class members, and class members' rights and ability to exclude themselves or object to the Settlement. The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing on July 9, 2026 at 10:00 A.M. ET, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, located at the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801-3555, to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement. Any change to the date, time, or location of the fairness hearing will be posted on the Settlement Website at www.RefrigeratorSettlement.com. Do not contact the Court with any questions regarding this settlement or the claims process. About Angeion Group Angeion Group is a leading provider of class action and mass tort settlement administration, legal noticing, bankruptcy administration, and single-event personal injury administration services. Known for its innovation, precision, and client service, Angeion supports complex litigation through technology-driven, transparent solutions. Angeion also provides strategic guidance and comprehensive distribution capabilities, helping clients seamlessly manage all administrative functions. Angeion Group info@angeiongroup.com [GN] WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Removes Cintron Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of MIGUEL CINTRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV00942) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 12, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02658 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and referred to Magistrate Sheri Pym. Williams Scotsman, Inc. operates as a modular construction company. The Company provides mobile and modular building solutions for construction, education, commercial, healthcare, and government markets. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. Ori Lavi, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com carolyn.hall@ogletree.com ori.lavi@ogletree.com WVMF FUNDING: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Renois by May 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANNE RENOIS AS ADMINISTRATOR, FIDUCIARY AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF AND FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLIS DEANGELO, MYRTEEN LEE and TAUNA THOMPSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WVMF FUNDING, LLC and COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order regarding briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and briefing on the Defendants' summary judgment motion after close of expert discovery. 1. The Defendants' response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed and served on or before May 1, 2026. 2. The Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed and served on or before June 1, 2026. 3. The Plaintiffs' reply brief word limit shall be increased from 3,500 words as set forth in Local Civil Rule 7.1(a) to 5,500 words. The Defendant is a Delaware-based company, often linked to reverse mortgage servicing and lending, which has been involved in several legal cases regarding foreclosure and loan servicing practices. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Y0so0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Roger Heller, Esq. Avery S. Halfon, Esq. Jessica A. Moldovan, Esq. LEIFF CABRASER HEINMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com ahalfon@lchb.com jmoldovan@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph M. DeFazio, Esq. John C. Lynch, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6341 E-mail: joseph.defazio@troutman.com john.lynch@troutman.com WYNN RESORTS: Emerson Sues Over Unprotected Private Information --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00662 (D. Nev., March 10, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information of himself and other current and past customers and employees. On February 20, 2026, it was reported by ShinyHunters that they had 800,000 records containing PII and employee data from Wynn Resorts, Limited. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to implement an information security program resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence/wantonness, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and for violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Wynn Resorts, Limited is a corporation that develops and operates hotels and casinos. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. MATTHEW L. SHARP. LTD. 432 Ridge St. Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 324-1500 E-mail: matt@mattsharplaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann St. Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com YATTA OUTSOURCED: Barnes Sues Over Illegal Loan Interest Rates -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YATTA OUTSOURCED PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, INC.; AARON WALLIS BISHOP; VELOCITY VENTURES GROUP, LLC D/B/A INFINITY ENTERPRISE LENDING SYSTEMS, INC.; DENNIS RAMIREZ; SANDRA KNIGHT; HE-LO RAMIREZ; LIANNE BERTOLUCCI; JENNY ADKINS; JESSIE KAI; SUSIE CORTEZ; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00859-JAM-DMC (E.D. Cal., March 12, 2026) alleges violation of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a scheme to make online, short-term loans that carry interest rates exceeding 500 percent—loans that are illegal in many states—and to do so with impunity. High interest loans target vulnerable borrowers and, left unregulated, economically devastate borrowers and their communities. Once saddled with such a predatory loan, consumers will often take out additional loans to make ends meet and to pay off other loans, creating a cycle of mounting debt, says the suit. Yatta Outsourced Processing Solutions Inc. provides marketing and develop customized solutions to meet outsourced operations needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: moconnorgrant@bergermontague.com YUMA REGIONAL: Case Management Order Entered in Clarke Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dillan Clarke, Elayne Martinez, Brian Kircher, Juanita Sarabia, Megan Kircher, Donald Banti and Marcia Banti, Ryan Mangum and Tiffany Mangum, Anthony Spano, Carol Ashby, Margaret O’Grady, Mayra Esquivel and her minor son, E. N., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Case No. 2:22-cv-01061-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Brnovich a case management order as follows: -- The deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is Nov. 7, 2025. -- The Plaintiff(s) shall file a class certification motion and provide full and complete class certification expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than March 27, 2026. The Defendant(s) shall respond to the class certification motion and full and complete class certfication expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than May 15, 2026. -- Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 90 days after an Order is entered on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y5JX12 at no extra charge.[CC] ZTEX CONSTRUCTION: Settlement Final OK Hearing Set for Sept. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL RAMIREZ, JR. and ALEXIS TERAN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ZTEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00146-DB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Briones entered an order as follows: 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII 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: (1) the judges presiding over this Action and their staff, and members of their direct families; (2) Defendant; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. 2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs Miguel Ramirez Jr. and Alexis Teran will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. Additionally, the Court finds Brittany Resch of Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Leigh Montgomery of EKSM, LLP will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). 3. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Sept. 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. ZTEX is a heavy civil contractor specializing in earthwork, asphalt paving, and overall project management. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PQeaSi at no extra charge.[CC] ZYNEX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 21 ----------------------------------------------------------- National shareholder rights law firm Hagens Berman is notifying investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Zynex, Inc. (ZYXI/ ZYXIQ) and its former top executives. The litigation follows the company's delisting and subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing triggered by revelations of a massive overbilling scheme. The firm urges Zynex investors who suffered significant losses to: https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/zyxi The lawsuit, Beidel v. Sandgaard, et al., No. 1:26-cv-00714, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The action seeks to recover losses for all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Zynex securities during the Class Period: February 25, 2021, through December 15, 2025, inclusive. Zynex investors are encouraged to visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/zynex "The Beidel complaint alleges a fundamental deception of the market regarding the source of Zynex's revenue." said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation of the claims in the pending suit. "The allegations suggest that Zynex's purported growth was not the result of legitimate demand, but was instead driven by a predatory 'oversupplying' scheme that targeted patients and defrauded payors." Summary of Allegations: The "Oversupplying" Scheme The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose. -- Systemic Overbilling: Zynex allegedly engaged in a scheme to ship patients excessive medical supplies—in some cases up to 128 electrode pairs per month—regardless of medical necessity, specifically to inflate billings to government and private payors. The lawsuit alleges that Zynex lacked effective internal controls to prevent the widespread manipulation of supply orders and billing data. -- Tricare Suspension: In early 2025, Zynex's largest payor, Tricare, suspended all payments to the company. The complaint alleges management concealed the severity of this suspension until the company was forced to agree to forfeit over $85 million to resolve the fraud allegations. -- Criminal Indictments: On January 21, 2026, former CEO Thomas Sandgaard and former COO Anna Lucsok were indicted for health care and securities fraud, leading to their immediate removal from the company. -- Total Value Destruction: Following the exposure of these practices and the massive forfeiture, Zynex filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was delisted from the Nasdaq, resulting in a near-total loss for common equity holders. Critical Deadline: April 21, 2026 If you purchased Zynex common stock during the Class Period (February 25, 2021 -- December 15, 2025), you have until April 21, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff. SUBMIT YOUR ZYNEX LOSSES NOW Contact: Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ZYXI@hbsslaw.com If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the Zynex case and the firm's investigation, read more at https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/zynex-inc-zyxi-securities-class-action Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Zynex should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ZYXI@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman (844) 916-0895 [GN] ********* 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 ***