260401.mbx

260401.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 1, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 65 Headlines 2WITH DELI: Amigon Sues Over Underpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages 374WATER INC: Rogers Balks at Company's Exculpation Provision 3M COMPANY: Bid to Exlude Zieburtz's Expert Testimony Partly OK'd ABILITY HOMECARE INC: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ABM INDUSTRY: Derramadero Suit Removed to C.D. California ADVANCED INHALATION: Hallenbeck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AJAX PAVING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Gonzalez Says ALASKA AIRLINES: Second Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ALBIREO ENERGY LLC: Campos Suit Removed to S.D. California ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Miller Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ALO LLC: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Dalton Says AMERICAN HONDA: CMC Continued to April 21 Via Zoom AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in HR-V Windshield Defect Suit AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL: Craddock Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ANGEION GROUP: Coughlan Suit Transferred to D. Columbia APPFOLIO INC: Comfort Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Cavalier Suit ARENA TECHNICAL: Wins Dismissal of Data Breach Class Suit ASHLYNN MARKETING: Plaintiffs' Bid to File Docs Under Seal Tossed ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 22 AUTO REPUBLIC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines BABY GOLD: Pelaez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users BASSETT FURNITURE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 12, 2027 BERKELEY, CA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Prado Continued to May 7 BFS GROUP: Campbell Labor Class Action Removed to S.D. Cal. BIOLIFE PLASMA: Guerrero Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline BOSCOV'S INC: Politi Seeks Attys' Fees & Expenses Reimbursement BPREP VANTAGE: $2.49MM Settlement in Fogy Suit Gets Prelim Nod BRITNEY GAITAN: Garvey Wins Bid for Class Certification CENTERWELL CERTIFIED: Meaney-Grube Sues Over Unprotected Info CHAN ZUCKERBERG: Siteman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHELSEA CONDOMINIUM: Attorney's Fee Award in Griffith Suit Reversed CHICAGO, IL: TNP Rules Illegally Blacklist Drivers, Maalim Alleges CLIVE HOLDINGS: Barlow Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMPASS INC: Cribier Seeks Leave to File Proposed FAC CONSUMERS ENERGY: Sova Appeals Ruling to Mich. Court of Appeals CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Gusinsky DGCL Class Suit CREE LIGHTING: Adrian Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Lost Benefits CROCS INC: Faces Rushefsky Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DANAHER CORP: Must Oppose Hawkins Class Cert Bid by April 27 DENTALPLANS.COM: Wins Bid to Decertify TCPA Class Action DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Allows Third Amended Securities Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Dismisses Gambling Addiction Lawsuit DREXEL UNIVERSITY: $2.2MM Settlement in "Deller" Has Prelim OK EQT CORP: Denial of Prelim Injunction Bid in "Hice" Suit Vacated FARMGIRL FLOWERS: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FOOT LOCKER: Victor Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plaintiff's Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Tossed FRESNO, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Brown Suit GARMENTORY INC: Corbett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GENOMIC PREDICTION: Anderson Sues Over False PGT-A Testing Ads GFB RESTAURANTS: Robinson Seeks Conditional Cert of 2 Collectives GILL CORPORATION: $300K Settlement in Ansar Gets Prelim Nod GOLDEN NUGGET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Albanese Jr. Says GOOGLE LLC: Court OKs Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims GRACE KNUTSON: Robillard Wins Class Certification Bid GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GRUBHUB INC: Class & Collective Settlement Gets Initial Nod HAND HOSPITALITY: Discovery Deadline in Son Extended to June 30 HERTZ CORPORATION: Class Cert. Discovery in Sconce Due August 15 HOME DEPOT: Sell's Bid to Compel Discovery Tossed HOPEWELL GROVE: Faces Matson Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages HOSPITALITY CENTER: Underpays Company Employees, Apolo Alleges HUNTINGTON GLEN: Hires Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown as Counsel IAEDP: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Briefing in Zelikovsky Suit INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Milstein, Turner Appointed as Class Counsel IP RESERVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says JACKSON FAMILY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says JBS LIVE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Force Due April 3 JOINT CORP: Kirk Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages JPMORGAN CHASE: Roshwald Sues Over Goliath Ponzi Scheme JW LEE: Lopez Loses Conditional Certification Bid KENT MARTIN: Burch Loses Class Certification Bid KITCHEN RESOURCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Says KROGER CO: Overcharges Third-Party Payors, Central Midwest Alleges LAMB WESTON: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gilbert Due Dec. 8 LEAFGUARD HOLDINGS: Laplante Sues Over Unlawful Spam e-mails LIBERTY MUTUAL: April 29 Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Cancelled LINCOLN BENEFIT: Atkinson Sues Over Unlawful COI Rate Overcharges LINKSQUARES INC: Reconsideration of Class Decertification Sought LITTLE LOTUS: Liu Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status LORETTO REST: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Remains Stayed LOS ANGELES, CA: Must File Class Cert Supplemental Brief by April 8 LUTHERAN FAMILY: Underpays Family Care Providers, Washington Says M.B.R. MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Rollf Suit Says MDL 2724: IRPs Seek to File Reply Brief Under Seal MEDICAL FACULTY: Rawles Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty MEDSTAR HEALTH: Butcher Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages META PLATFORMS: Misled Users on AI Glasses' Privacy, Boylett Says MILLENNIAL CAPITAL: Order Compelling Arbitration in Wyrick Affirmed MIZUNO USA: Bennett Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MONSANTO COMPANY: Davila Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Gabriel Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Suit Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Manos Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Nackos Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Nodland Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MRO CORPORATION: Brooks Files Suit Over Data Breach NATIONAL RURAL: March 6, 2026 Class Cert Order in Mullins Vacated NATIONAL RURAL: Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Order in Mullins NAVIA BENEFIT: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Bowen Alleges NORDSTROM INC: Cheng Files Suit Over Deceptive Price Reductions NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NORTHRUP GRUMMAN: Behar Bid for Leave to File TAC Tossed NOTT COMPANY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Mannel Says NTT DATA: Court Extends Briefing Deadlines in Robinson OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadlines Nixed ONEONCOLOGY LLC: Boyd Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Rodriguez's Bid for Status of Case Granted OSBORNE CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice OSI SYSTEMS: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Chavez Says PENNEY OPCO: Lopez Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. PHH MORTGAGE: Mattia Sues Over Predatory Mortgage Practices PORSCHE CARS: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Briefing Tossed PROCTER & GAMBLE: Extension of Class Cert Filing Deadline Sought PUEBLO INC: Silva Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes RANLIFE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Johnson Extended to April 17 REGAL CINEMAS: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ROBERT BOSCH: Berg Files Suit Over HVAC Price-Fixing Conspiracy SAFEMOON LLC: Seeks Coordination Hearing for Parallel Cases SCOTT SEMPLE: Court Junks Perry's Bid for Consolidation SCOTT SEMPLE: Tomling's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SENTARA HOSPITALS: Parties' Ongoing Mediation Tossed SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Standing Order Entered in QPI Class Action SIX FLAGS: I.L. Case Stayed Pending Completion of Mediation SMG FOOD: June 11 Continuation of Class Cert Hearing Sought SMG FOOD: Reply to Class Cert. Opposition Extended to April 29 SNAP INC: Bride's Bid for Default Judgment Tossed SNAP LOCK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lambing Due Sept. 23 SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Chauncey Derivative Suit Stayed SWAGELOK COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Laura Patterson Suit SYNGENTA CROP: Bell Sues Over Exposure to Defective Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Bise Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Bustamante Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising SYNGENTA CROP: Hall Sues Over Negligent Distribution of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Hollopeter Sues Over Exposure to Herbicide TARGET CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Says TARGET CORP: Kim Sues Over False "Sustainable Seafood" Campaign TARGET CORP: Settlement in Buckmaster Gets Initial Nod TOYOTA MOTOR: LeBoutheller Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. UNITED HEALTH: Firelands Regional Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio UNITED STATES: Altamirano Sues Over Unlawful Immigration Detention UNITED STATES: Ewings Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal UNITED STATES: Final OK of $125MM PACER Class Suit Deal Upheld UNITED STATES: Wins Dismissal of "Bradley" Student Loan Fraud Suit VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Lyons Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: May 5, 2026 Pretrial Conference Vacated VICTORY ON 28TH PROPERTY: William Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHALECO INC: Nelson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Text Messages WILLARD WRECKER: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Bogar Says WM WHOLESALE: Court Certifies Injunction Subclass in Hernandez WYNN RESORTS: Murray Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Nev. ZAKERY BONDS: Court Stays Summary Judgment Bid vs Wolfclan ZULILY LLC: Pre-Certification Discovery Extended to April 17 ********* 2WITH DELI: Amigon Sues Over Underpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Amigon, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. 2With Deli Corp. and Andrew Wengrover, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:26-cv-01864 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the Wage Theft Prevention Act for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief available by law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants between 48 and 60 hours per week. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and Party Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage. The Plaintiff and Party Plaintiffs worked more than forty hours each workweek, yet the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and Party Plaintiffs overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with accurate statements with each payment of wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook. The Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing business as Sarge's Delicatessen & Diner and located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 100077-2036 Phone: 1-212-229-2249 Facsimile: 1-212229-2246 374WATER INC: Rogers Balks at Company's Exculpation Provision ------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE ROGERS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of 374WATER INC., Plaintiff v. 374WATER INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0367 (Del. Ch., March 18, 2026) seeks declaratory relief invalidating an exculpation provision contained in the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that purports to eliminate or limit the personal liability of the Company's directors and officers beyond what is permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law. According to the complaint, the Company's Charter contains an exculpation clause that plainly exceeds statutory limits. Specifically, Article EIGHT, Section A of the Charter, titled "No Personal Liability," provides: "A director or officer of the corporation shall not be personally liable to the corporation or its Stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director or officer, except liability for (i) acts or omissions which involve intentional misconduct, fraud or knowing violations of law; or (ii) the payment of distributions in violation of the General Corporation Law of Delaware." On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff (through counsel) sent the Company a demand letter explaining that the Exculpation Provision violates Section 102(b)(7) of the DGCL and demanding that the Company amend its Charter to remove or conform the provision. On November 21, 2025, the Company responded that the concern raised in the demand letter was "not presently at issue" and that the Company would only "undertake a review of its enforceability" in the "event circumstances arise that implicate the Exculpation Provision." However, under Delaware law, there is no means by which the Company can lawfully maintain an exculpation provision that eliminates the liability of directors and officers breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty, acts or omissions not in good faith, or actions in which they derive an improper personal benefit, says the suit. Accordingly, the Exculpation Provision is facially invalid and should be deemed void, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating the Exculpation Provision. 374Water Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which maintains its principal offices in Morrisville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Jenkins, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-8400 - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Stephen C. Childs, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 600 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 400 Harrison, NY 10528 Telephone: (212) 725-1000 3M COMPANY: Bid to Exlude Zieburtz's Expert Testimony Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR. Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thrash Jr. entered an order: -- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendants 3M Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemour, The Chemours Company, and Daikin America, Inc.'s motion to exclude the expert testimony of William Zieburtz, -- Denies their motion to exclude the expert testimony of Chad Sipe & Spencer Senerman, and -- Grants in part and denies in part their motion to exclude the expert testimony of Bryan Pate. William Zieburtz's testimony is excluded to the extent it opines that Summerville will raise its water rates in the future by the full amount of the permanent granulated active carbon system. Bryan Pate's testimony is excluded as to his net present calculations but not as to his other opinions. The Court finds Sipe and Senerman's analysis on treating PFAS with a GAC system sufficiently thorough for purposes of determining its reliability. The Court finds that Sipe and Senerman's recommendation to build a GAC system would assist the trier of fact. Because the City is moving forward with building a GAC and is claiming the GAC costs as damages in this case, Sipe and Senerman’s recommendation would be critical to a jury in determining whether to award the GAC costs as damages. Pate produced his underlying data in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Pate also reliably analyzed alternative options and provided opinions that assist a trier of fact. However, the Court finds that Pate is not qualified to provide net present value calculations for his GAC cost estimates, though the rest of his opinions stand undisturbed. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 26's disclosure requirements with regard to Pate’s testimony, as Pate sufficiently details the basis for the GAC’s estimated capital costs and operational costs. For the capital construction costs, Pate’s exhibits contain detailed calculations. The case arises out of the contamination of surface waters and drinking water in Chattooga County, Georgia, with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as "PFAS." 3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QfEr9c at no extra charge.[CC] ABILITY HOMECARE INC: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ability Homecare, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Oscar Ramos, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ability Homecare, Inc. d/b/a Sherman Oaks Health and Rehabilitation Center, Sherman Oaks Health and Rehab Center, Case No. 26STCV08912 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ability Homecare, Inc. doing business as Sherman Oaks Health & Rehabilitation Center -- https://shermanoakscare.com/ -- is a premier skilled nursing facility and nursing home.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Rose Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law ABM INDUSTRY: Derramadero Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Armando Derramadero, and similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. dba ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01529661-CU-WT-CJC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02941. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following 15 causes of action: Unpaid Missed Rest Breaks; Unpaid Missed Meal Breaks; Failure to Pay for All Overtime Wages Earned; Failure To Pay Minimum Wage and for All Wages Earned; Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation; Failure to Reimburse Required Business Expenses; Unfair Competition; Failure to Allow Medical Leave (CFRA); Discrimination in Violation of Cal. Gov't Code Sections 12940 et seq.; Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Gov't Code Sections 12940 et seq.; Wrongful Termination - Failure to Accommodate; Wrongful Termination - Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; Failure to Provide Worker's Compensation Coverage; and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sean A. O'Brien, Esq. Taylor B. Brown, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: sao@paynefears.com tbb@paynefears.com ADVANCED INHALATION: Hallenbeck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Inhalation Rituals, et al. The case is styled as Arthur Hallenbeck; Bassem Chahine; Rose ML, Inc., Aroma Shisha, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Advanced Inhalation Rituals; Air Distribution USA, Inc.; Rob Maneson, Brennan Appel, Stuart Brazier, Fahad Cheema, Global Hookah Inc., Conor O'Brien, Romman Inc. dba Hookah Wholesalers, Sami Romman, Michael Eugene Wu, Case No. 26STCV08268 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Antitrust/Trade Regulation (General Jurisdiction)." Advanced Inhalation Rituals -- https://air.global/ -- is a manufacturing company that offers inhalation products to improve physical, emotional, and mental benefits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George C. Hutchinson Esq. HUTCHINSON LAW OFFICE 24961 Del Monte St. Laguna Hills, CA 92653-5618 Phone: 949-689-9184 AJAX PAVING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Gonzalez Says --------------------------------------------------------- JORGE GONZALEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00759 (M.D. Fla., March 20, 2026) is a collective action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the laws of the United States. The Plaintiff brings this cause of action as a collective action to recover from Defendant overtime compensation, retaliatory discharge damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2023, without being adequately compensated. According to the complaint, Defendant Ajax employed Plaintiff Gonzalez as a non-exempt, full-time employee from April 25, 2025, to January 19 2026, or approximately 38 weeks. During the relevant period, Plaintiff worked primarily as a roll operator engaged in paving related work. During the four months in question, Plaintiff worked five days per week, consistently exceeding 40 hours; however, he was not compensated for all of his overtime hours as mandated by law. Despite the extended hours, to wit -- 75 per week -- Plaintiff was only paid for 60 hours each week, irrespective of the actual total number of hours worked. Thus, Plaintiff was not paid for 15 overtime hours during those 4 months within his employment period, as required by law, asserts the complaint. Defendant Ajax controlled Plaintiff's schedule and activities. Defendant knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were actually working. Therefore, Defendant Ajax willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff JORGE GONZALEZ is a Polk County, Florida, resident. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the FLSA. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at Plant #8, located at 1800 Old Bartow Road, Lake Wales, Florida 33859. Defendant AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, LLC is a business engaged in the building and paving of roads. Defendant Ajax specializes in asphalt paving, providing asphalt and concrete services, along with managing and building heavy civil infrastructure projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Second Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01784-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lasnik entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's second motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claim regarding MLOAs lasting between 61-90 days fails as a matter of law, as does his claim for accrual of sick time during MLOAs lasting between 31-60 days. Alaska Airlines provides air transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DvVINA at no extra charge.[CC] ALBIREO ENERGY LLC: Campos Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marco Antonio Sosa Campos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBIREO ENERGY, LLC, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CU004561C was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01738-AJB-JLB. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum and straight time wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq. HONIGMAN LLP 2290 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-465-7372 Facsimile: 313-465-7373 Email: mdisbrow@honigman.com ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Miller Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00431 (W.D. Pa., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation plus an equal amount as liquidated damages. The Plaintiffs are all police officers employed by the Defendant, County of Allegheny in the Allegheny County Police Department. The Plaintiffs are also members of the Allegheny County Police Association, a labor organization and the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit of police officers employed by the County of Allegheny. During the three-year period prior to the filing of this complaint, the full-time police officers in the Department, including the Plaintiffs, have been required on occasion to work in excess of 40 hours per week. The complaint asserts that the County has calculated overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week on the basis of the police officer's annual base salary. The County has calculated the overtime rate by dividing the base salary by 2,080 hours and then multiplying by one and a half to establish the hourly overtime rate. In other words, the County has calculated the "regular rate of pay" in Section 7(a) of the FLSA solely based upon the annual base salary and longevity received by the police officer, and the County has then used that figure as the basis to calculate the time time-and-one-half rate required under Section 7(a). Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the public employer of Association's members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald R. Retsch, Esq. WELBY STOLTENBERG CIMBALL & COOK LLC 2605 Nicholson Road Herbert Campus, Building II, Suite 2202 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (412) 562-0111 Facsimile: (412) 562-0675 Mobile: (412) 915-0960 E-mail: rretsch@wscc-law.com ALO LLC: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Dalton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01975 (D. Minn., March 20, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website -- www.aloyoga.com -- is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important Website content. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant ALO, LLC offers yoga apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, leggings, sweatshirts, hoodies, jackets, shorts, skirts, intimates, shoes, skin care, body care, home essentials, supplements, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: CMC Continued to April 21 Via Zoom -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order continuing case management conference (as modified): (1) The Case Management Conference is continued via zoom from March 31, 2026, to April 21, 2026, at 2 p.m. The zoom information and instructions remain the same as previously provided. (2) The deadline for the Parties to file the Joint Case Management Statement is April 14, 2026. The Defendant is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PpT09s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com The Defendant is represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com mmallow@shb.com AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in HR-V Windshield Defect Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sherry Fry, Brittini Barnes, Brittany Cabral, Tristan Fairbanks, Janet Ojo, Jessica Stewart, Kayla McClain, and Ellen Einhorn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-01782 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss a class action complaint. The Memorandum was filed on March 23, 2026. Background The Plaintiffs are individuals who own, lease, or previously owned or leased 2023 Honda HR-V vehicles. They allege that during the rear windshield assembly process, the sealer used to secure the rear glass comes into contact with the heating elements of the defroster, leading to a hot spot and weakening of the glass over time as the defroster is used, eventually causing the rear windshields to spontaneously shatter. All named Plaintiffs experienced this defect unexpectedly, with no impact from any foreign object, and while their vehicles were covered by Honda's New Vehicle Limited Warranty, which promised to repair or replace any part that is defective in material or workmanship under normal use without charge within 3 years or 36,000 miles in service, whichever occurred first. In January 2024, Honda acknowledged that the sealer used to secure the rear glass may come into contact with the heating elements of the defroster, leading to a hot spot and weakening of the glass, and announced a voluntary product update campaign. In July and September 2024, Honda issued service bulletins instructing dealers on how to inspect and repair the rear glass and mailed letters to registered owners advising them to contact an authorized dealer for a free inspection. Despite these steps, the Plaintiffs contend that Honda has not issued a voluntary recall, has not agreed to replace all defective rear windshields, and has not offered guaranteed compensation for out-of-pocket repair costs. The Plaintiffs filed 18 causes of action, including breach of express and implied warranties under multiple state laws, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection statutes, seeking actual, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief. The class action is at the motion to dismiss stage and no class has been certified. Honda moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that its voluntary product update campaign rendered the Plaintiffs' claims moot. The Court denied this motion. Courts have routinely declined to apply the prudential mootness doctrine where plaintiffs seek not just equitable relief, but legal relief that exceeds what defendants were offering through a recall. Because the Plaintiffs seek both legal and equitable remedies, including compensation for the diminution in value of the Class Vehicles, Honda's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied. Honda argued the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims of seven non-Pennsylvanian named Plaintiffs. The Court denied this motion. Pennsylvania expressly permits its courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over registered foreign corporations, and a foreign corporation consents to this jurisdiction by complying with Pennsylvania's registration requirements. Because Honda registered to do business in Pennsylvania and appointed a registered agent there, it consented to personal jurisdiction, and Honda's motion under Rule 12(b)(2) was denied. Fraud Pleading Standard Honda contended that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and Massachusetts Chapter 93A claims were subject to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). The Court denied both arguments. The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment theory rests on the allegation that it would be inequitable for Honda to retain the full benefit of the purchased vehicles because the Rear Windshield Defect diminished their value, and does not rest on a non-disclosure theory sounding in fraud. As to the Chapter 93A claim, to the extent that a Chapter 93A claim does not involve fraud, it is not subject to a heightened pleading requirement. Because the Plaintiffs adequately pled the alleged defect, Honda's knowledge, and Honda's failure to notify interested parties, both motions under Rule 9(b) were denied. Honda argued that Plaintiffs Ojo, Stewart, McClain, and Einhorn failed to allege that their vehicles were covered under the Warranty at the time the defect occurred because they did not plead the mileage of their vehicles. The Court agreed. Because the Warranty was limited by both time and mileage, whichever occurred first, these Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege facts showing the defect occurred within the coverage period. Their express warranty claims were dismissed without prejudice, and they were granted 21 days to amend. Honda argued that Plaintiff Einhorn's implied warranty claim was subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act. The Court agreed. The Act provides the sole basis of relief under New Jersey law available to consumers injured by a defective product, and New Jersey law does not recognize an alleged breach of implied warranty as a separate and distinct claim. Because Plaintiff Einhorn's claim clearly relates to harm caused by a product, her implied warranty claim was dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM dated 23rd March is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P2IX0O from PacerMonitor.com Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Amir Nassihi, Esq. Adam Tolin, Esq. Stephanie S. McGraw, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Email: mmallow@shb.com anassihi@shb.com atolin@shb.com smcgraw@shb.com Plaintiffs Brittini Barnes, Brittany Cabral, Tristan Fairbanks, Sherry Fry, Janet Ojo, Jessica Stewart, Ellen Einhorn, and Kayla McClain are represented by: Jody B. Burton, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC Email: jburton@lemberglaw.com AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL: Craddock Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Mary R. Craddock, and similarly situated v. AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., dba GM FINANCIAL, Case No. CC-23-2026-C-24 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on March 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00209. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals for fraud and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"), based upon alleged improper fees and excessive interest rates.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason E. Manning, Esq. Jonathan M. Kenney, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Phone: (757) 687-7500 Facsimile: (757) 687-7510 Email: jason.manning@troutman.com jon.kenney@troutman.com ANGEION GROUP: Coughlan Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donald Coughlan, Marissa Porter, Sandeep Trisal, Alan Starzinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANGEION GROUP LLC; EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.; JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION; KROLL SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION LLC; VERITA GLOBAL, LLC; ARCHER SYSTEMS, LLC; VERUS, LLC; CPT GROUP, INC; SIMPLURIS, INC.; HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK; WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK; DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:26-cv-02113 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00926-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Angeion Group International LLC -- https://www.angeiongroup.com/ -- is a technology-enabled legal services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Stone STONE & MAGNANINI LLP 400 Connell Drive, Suite 6200 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Phone: (973) 218-1111 APPFOLIO INC: Comfort Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AppFolio, Inc. The case is styled as Ian Comfort, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AppFolio, Inc., Case No. CGC26634729 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Contract/Warranty." AppFolio, Inc. -- https://www.appfolio.com/ -- is an American company founded in 2006 that offers software-as-a-service applications and services to the real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD 490 43rd St Pmb 122 Oakland, CA 94609-2138 Phone: 202-350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey Gorenkaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Drosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th St. NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005-1784 Phone: 202-350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Cavalier Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE CAVALIER, et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00713-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pitts entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs Dominique Cavalier and other consumers accuse Apple of fraud, negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and other state law claims arising from its sale of Apple Watch Sport Bands. The Plaintiffs allege that Apple Sport Bands contain dangerous levels of Perfluorohexanoic acid, a type of "forever chemical," and that Apple did not warn them of the risk. Apple moves to dismiss Cavalier's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Apple's motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment/omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims, and granted with leave to amend as to plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty of merchantability claims. The Court concludes that the plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that they have Article III standing, that they do not need to specify the state law governing their common law causes of action, that Cavalier pleads potentially timely claims, and that the plaintiffs may seek equitable relief. With respect to Apple's challenge to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, Apple's motion to dismiss is denied as to the plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment/omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and UCL claims, and granted with leave to amend as to the plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty of merchantability claims. Any amended complaint must be filed within 28 days of this Order. If no amended complaint is filed, the claims dismissed herein will be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of people who purchased a new fluoroelastomer Apple Watch Sport Band] at retail in the United States from Apple, Inc. or an authorized reseller of Apple, Inc." as well as subclasses of California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York consumers. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FbE4fe at no extra charge.[CC] ARENA TECHNICAL: Wins Dismissal of Data Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steven Birks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arena Technical Resources, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. GLS 25-164 (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Gina L. Simms of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing. Defendant, a Maryland limited liability company, is an information technology consulting, staffing, and placement organization that provides technical and staffing services for prospects and employers. As part of its duties, Defendant collects from its clients the names and Social Security numbers of their employees and stores them in its system. Plaintiff is a Department of Defense employee residing in North Carolina who provided his employer with his personally identifiable information (PII) as a condition of employment. On August 10, 2024, Defendant suffered a breach of its network systems. Hackers who accessed Defendant's systems obtained the Private Information -- Social Security numbers and names -- of Plaintiff and others. On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff received a notice of the data breach from Defendant informing him that his name and Social Security number had been accessed. The Amended Class Action Complaint alleged that Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff's and others' PII from being stolen and advanced the following claims: negligence/negligence per se (Count I); breach of implied contract (Count II); and unjust enrichment (Count III). The remedies sought included declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he failed to allege actual data misuse or theft of his own PII, and that his alleged future injuries, mitigation efforts, diminution in value of his PII, and emotional distress did not constitute concrete injuries-in-fact. The Court analyzed whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. On actual data misuse, the Court found the Amended Class Action Complaint devoid of any dates, times, or specific actions, containing bald accusations and labels and conclusions that actual identity theft or fraud occurred. Plaintiff's allegation of suspicious spam emails was similarly insufficient, as he failed to plead any events, including the dates or substance of the alleged spam emails. The Court held that the generic allegation of increased spam emails, if an injury at all, fails to plausibly show that Plaintiff's alleged injuries were the result of Defendant's conduct. On targeted theft, the Court disagreed with Plaintiff's contention that the alleged targeting of PII alone was sufficient to confer standing. The Fourth Circuit has held that a mere compromise of personal information, without more, fails to satisfy the injury-in-fact element in the absence of identity theft. Accordingly, the Court found that the potential for fraudulent use of Plaintiff's PII remained too speculative to confer an imminent injury. The Court rejected Plaintiff's mitigation efforts as a basis for standing, finding that mitigation expenses do not qualify as actual injuries where the harm is not imminent. On the diminished value of PII, the Court found that Plaintiff had not established actual misuse, nor alleged that Defendant collected and paid to analyze that information, making the theory insufficient to confer standing. Plaintiff's benefit-of-the-bargain theory was also rejected; the Fourth Circuit has never held that an overpayment or benefit-of-the-bargain theory in a data breach context is sufficient to confer standing. As to emotional distress, the Court found Plaintiff's bald accusations and labels and conclusions insufficient to state a plausible claim. Because Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege emotional injuries amounting to concrete harm, those allegations were held insufficient to support standing. The Court further found that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief -- which sought to require Defendant to strengthen its data security systems, submit to future annual audits, and provide lifetime credit monitoring -- because Plaintiff's allegation of increased risk to his PII did not establish concrete harm for Article III standing purposes. Therefore, Defendant's motion was granted, and the Amended Class Action Complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead facts demonstrating concrete injury-in-fact, the putative class members likewise could not meet their burden of establishing standing. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated March 23,is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHNLqb from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Arena Technical Resources, LLC is represented By: Richard Haggerty Mullen Coughlin LLC 267-930-1594 rhaggerty@mullen.law Matthew J. Youssef Niles Barton And Wilmer LLP mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com Plaintiff Steven Birks is represented By: Gary E. Mason Mason LLP 202-429-2290 gmason@masonllp.com Kenneth Jay Grunfeld Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert 954-525-4100 grunfeld@kolawyers.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Plaintiffs' Bid to File Docs Under Seal Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Curiel entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions to seal: -- The Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal in connection with their motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. -- The Defendant's motion to file documents under seal in connection with its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. -- The Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal in connection with their motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file with the Court, within 20 days of this Order, a chart identifying narrower redactions and sealing requests. The Defendant's requests to seal are poorly explained and facially overbroad. "These sorts of overbroad requests to seal will not be granted." The case concerns the Defendant's alleged failure to warn consumers of the purportedly addictive nature of kratom when marketing and labeling its kratom-based products. The Defendant specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3qBJqQ at no extra charge.[CC] ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATRA) between May 20, 2024 and January 9, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 22, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased Atara 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 Atara class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=57137 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 22, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain manufacturing issues, as well as deficiencies inherent in the ALLELE study, made it unlikely that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would approve the tabelecleucel Biologics License Application ("BLA"); (2) accordingly, tabelecleucel's regulatory prospects were overstated; (3) the aforementioned manufacturing issues also subjected Atara to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny, as well as jeopardized its ongoing clinical trials; (4) all the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on Atara's business and financial condition; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Atara class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=57137 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] AUTO REPUBLIC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vazquez v. Auto Republic LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00198 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 16, 2026), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Auto Republic offers used cars and pickup trucks.[CC] BABY GOLD: Pelaez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baby Gold Inc, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00117 (N.D. Ind., March 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.babygold.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff Pelaez searched online for fine gold jewelry and discovered Defendant's website. She visited the website to explore products and make a purchase. However, while navigating the website using a keyboard and screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the transaction. On the homepage, she encountered an image functioning as a link with an ambiguous title description. Because her screen reader announced it only as "slide image," she could not determine the link's destination. On the product detail page, images of the same product lacked descriptive alternative text, preventing her from obtaining meaningful information about the product's appearance and features. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Baby Gold Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of jewelry pieces including necklaces, bracelets, earrings, and rings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law BASSETT FURNITURE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 12, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN STEPHENS, for herself, as a private attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00115-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties: May 12, 2026 Deadline to file motion to amend pleadings: Sept. 11, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Motion Feb. 12, 2027 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file April 16, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply May 14, 2027 to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court declines Defendant’s request to bifurcate class and merits discovery. Discovery shall begin immediately, with class and merits discovery to be conducted simultaneously. The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. Bassett is a furniture manufacturer and retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m06GDy at no extra charge.[CC] BERKELEY, CA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Prado Continued to May 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YESICA PRADO, et al., v. CITY OF BERKELEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04537-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order as follows: 1. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to May 7, 2026; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file any Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to April 2, 2026; and 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file any reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to April 16, 2026. Berkeley is a city on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay in northern Alameda County, California. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zlXgyZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ruth M. Bond, Esq. Rahi Azizi, Esq. ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO 3 Harbor Drive, Suite 200 Sausalito, CA 94965-1491 Telephone: (628) 234-6200 Facsimile: (628) 234-6899 E-mail: Ruth.Bond@aalrr.com Rahi.Azizi@aalrr.com - and - Farimah Faiz Brown, Esq. Christopher Jensen, Esq. Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. Ashley M. Carter, Esq. Katrina Eiland, Esq. BERKELEY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2180 Milvia Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 981-6998 Facsimile: (510) 981-6960 E-mail: Cjensen@berkeleyca.gov BFS GROUP: Campbell Labor Class Action Removed to S.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as NATHAN CAMPBELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC, a Limited Liability Company; PROBUILD LLC, a Limited Liability Company; BUILDER'S FIRST SOURCE LLC, a Limited Liability Company; BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., a Corporation; PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, a Limited Liability Company; BFS GROUP LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CU008344C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01846-BAS-DDL to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the California Business and Professions Code for unfair business practices as well as under the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, and failure to pay sick pay wages. BFS Group of California LLC is the California alternate name for BFS Group LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew B. Golper, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 E-mail: mgolper@brgslaw.com - and - Alec Dimario, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 E-mail: adimario@brgslaw.com BIOLIFE PLASMA: Guerrero Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA GUERRERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOLIFE PLASMA, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02936-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification by six months from the currently scheduled date of April 17, 2026 to Oct. 17, 2026. The purpose of the Continuance is to allow the Plaintiff sufficient time to conduct and complete class certification discovery detailed; (2) for the Court to rule on the Defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative, strike the Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint; and (3) interview putative class members in advance of the Parties' Local Rule 7-3 Conference on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Plaintiff's deadline for filing the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff needs to conduct discovery on the Defendant Biolife Plasma LLC, which was added in the FAC that was filed on Feb. 9, 2026. BioLife operates centers for collecting high-quality plasma used to create therapies for chronic conditions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=35bt84 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Jeffrey Jimenez, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com Jeff.Jimenez@capstonelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy L. Hix, Esq. Brittney E. Willis, Esq. Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: thix@seyfarth.com bwillis@seyfarth.com bbifoss@seyfarth.com BOSCOV'S INC: Politi Seeks Attys' Fees & Expenses Reimbursement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW POLITI, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. BOSCOV'S, INC., BOSCOV’S DEPARTMENT STORE, LLC; and JIM BOSCOV, Case No. 2:22-cv-01616-MCA-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for Attys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative service awards. Boscov's operates a chain of departmental stores. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnQ3KK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier L. Merino, Esq. Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM, PC 825 Georges Road, 2nd Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 BPREP VANTAGE: $2.49MM Settlement in Fogy Suit Gets Prelim Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIORGIO FOGY on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BPREP VANTAGE POINTE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MULTIFAMILY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 100, Case No. 3:25-cv-00622-TWR-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robinson entered an order: 1. preliminarily approving settlement, 2. approving of class notice, 3. conditionally certifying the settlement classes, and 4. setting final approval hearing The Court preliminarily and conditionally certifies, forsettlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class and Winter 24-25 Subclass: (a) A "Settlement Class" consisting of: "all Tenants who resided at Vantage Pointe at any time between Feb. 10, 2021, and the date of Preliminary Approval (the "Class Period"). (b) A "Winter 24-25 Subclass" consisting of: "all Tenants who resided at Vantage Pointe at any time between Nov. 1, 2024, to Feb. 28, 2025 (the "Winter 24-25 Subclass Period")." For both the Settlement Class and the Winter 24-25 Subclass, the term "Tenant" is defined as "any person who 1) signed a lease for an apartment at Vantage Pointe, and 2) resided in an apartment at Vantage Pointe for which they signed a lease." The Settlement Class includes the Winter 24-25 Subclass. Both the Settlement Class and the Winter 24-25 Subclass exclude the Released Parties and all persons who file a timely and valid Opt-Out Form. The Court finds that each element required for certification of the Settlement Class and Winter 24-25 Subclass pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been met. The Court finds that, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff Giorgio Fogy is an adequate class representative and certifies him as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and Winter 24-25 Subclass. The Court appoints Gregory Suhr of Weeks Nelson and Jim Treglio of Potter Handy LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class and Winter 24-25 Subclass pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing on July 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. The action arises from Plaintiff Giorgio Fogy's tenancy at Vantage Pointe, a 679 unit apartment building located at 1281 Ninth Ave, San Diego, CA 92101. The Plaintiff alleges he and members of the Settlement Class "experienced multiple and frequent water and hot water outages and shutoffs and elevator outages and shutoffs." The Proposed Settlement Agreement "provides that Defendants will pay $2,495,000 (the "Settlement Fund") to the Settlement Class, with no reversion to Defendants." A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=87JcfG at no extra charge.[CC] BRITNEY GAITAN: Garvey Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYAN GARVEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. BRITNEY GAITAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Gordon entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Pursuant to FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Gordon certifies the class as: "All persons throughout the United States or its territories (1) to whom the Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service when the number was called and was not ported, or if ported, had not been ported within 15 days of the call, (3) in connection with which Defendant used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) on May 3, 2023, and/or May 16, 2023." The law firms of The Weitz Firm, LLC, The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC, and Craig K. Perry & Associates are appointed as class counsel. Garvey listed his house for sale online on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) website and posted his phone number with the listing, but his listing expired. Afterward, on May 3, 2023, and again on May 16, 2023, he received phone calls from Gaitan that played a prerecorded message. The Defendant is a realtor who called homeowners with withdrawn and expired house listings to offer her services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DmfNKU at no extra charge.[CC] CENTERWELL CERTIFIED: Meaney-Grube Sues Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------- ANN J. MEANEY-GRUBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTERWELL CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE CORP. and HUMANA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00189-GNS (W.D. Ky., March 17, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information and that was impacted in a data breach. CenterWell Certified Healthcare Corp., operated by Humana, provides a range of healthcare services for seniors, including primary care, pharmacy services and prescriptions, and home health services in over 30 U.S. states. Humana Inc. is an American for-profit healthcare insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky. On March 6, 2026, Defendant CenterWell reported a network intrusion that affected their systems to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. A cybercriminal accessed Defendant CenterWell's network and exfiltrated private information of Defendants' current and former patients, including Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the Defendants lost control over that data when the cybercriminals infiltrated and Defendants' insufficiently protected computer systems in the data breach, resulting in cybercriminals having unfettered access and the exfiltration of Plaintiff and Class Members' private information. The data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, adds the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.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 CHAN ZUCKERBERG: Siteman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Siteman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC, Girish Patangay, an individual, Does 1 Through, Case No. CGC26634840 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Chan Zuckerberg -- https://chanzuckerberg.com/ -- is a non-profit organization that aims to advance human potential and promote equality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-381-9988 Email: ezinovyev@wshblaw.com CHELSEA CONDOMINIUM: Attorney's Fee Award in Griffith Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES GRIFFITH, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CHELSEA CONDOMINIUM ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 115032 (Ohio App.), Judge Emanuella D. Groves of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision granting the Chelsea Condominium Association's motion to enforce settlement agreement and imposition of attorney's fees, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion. Plaintiffs-Appellants Charles Griffith and John Griffith as powers of attorney for Robert Griffith, Amelia Joynes, Charles Niles, Sheila Niles, Mindy Silverstein nee Spero, William Steinbrink, Anne Tavill, and The Ruska Wasserstein Trust (collectively, the "Owners") appeal the decision granting Defendant-Appellee, the Chelsea Condominium Association's motion to enforce settlement agreement and imposition of attorney's fees. In December 2015, the Owners filed a verified class action and derivative complaint against the Defendants, namely the Association, the Chelsea Condominium's Board, TransCon Builders, Inc., Owner's Management Company (OM), Peter Rzepka, and Fred Rzepka. The Owners, a group of current and former owners of units in the Association, requested, as a class, declaratory judgment regarding the Board's composition and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence. The trial court later denied class certification. In December 2015, the Owners filed a verified class action and derivative complaint against the Association, the Chelsea Condominium’s Board, TransCon Builders, Inc., Owner’s Management Company (OM), Peter Rzepka, and Fred Rzepka. As a group of current and former unit owners, they sought declaratory relief regarding the Board’s composition and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence. The trial court later denied class certification. The Owners also brought derivative claims on behalf of the Association, alleging negligent construction against TransCon and gross negligence and breach of contract against OM. During the litigation, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and related entities moved to intervene to seek a declaratory judgment on whether they had a duty to insure the Association, Board, TransCon, OM, Peter, and Fred. The trial court granted Nationwide' motion to intervene. The parties resolved the case through two settlement agreements. The Confidential Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (CMRSA), which was not entered into the record, covered claims between the Owners, Nationwide, and the Defendants. The derivative settlement agreement (DSA) resolved the Owners’ derivative claims on behalf of the Association. In September 2020, the Owners sought approval of the DSA, which added Peter and Fred as derivative defendants and required the Derivative Defendants to pay $300,000 to the Association. In November 2020, the trial court approved the DSA, retained jurisdiction to enforce it, and dismissed the derivative claims with prejudice, without awarding fees or costs beyond what was provided in the agreement. In December 2021, the trial court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice after the parties reported a full settlement, and it did not retain jurisdiction over the CMRSA. Earlier, in February 2021, the Association moved to enforce the DSA, alleging the Owners breached the agreement by retaining $9,855.34 from a $300,000 payment. The Owners sought to file a sealed reply including the CMRSA, but the trial court denied the request while allowing limited disclosure by stipulation. The Owners appealed that ruling, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review. The trial court later reactivated the case in September 2022. The Owners opposed the Association’s motion to enforce the DSA and filed a cross-motion, arguing that most issues were moot because they had already distributed the undisputed funds and that the Association should bear litigation costs. After a hearing, the trial court found the DSA required full payment of $300,000 and that any claim for litigation expenses was waived. The court ordered the remaining funds paid to the Association and did not rule on the request for attorney’s fees, interest, or sanctions. The Owners appealed the May 2, 2023 order, but the Association moved to dismiss it as not final. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court later issued a June 29, 2023 order granting prejudgment interest but denying attorney's fees and sanctions. The Association then filed additional post-judgment motions and appealed the June 29 order, with the Owners filing a cross-appeal. The appellate court ultimately remanded the case to the trial court to address the pending motions, with instructions to dismiss the appeal if the issues were resolved. On remand, the Owners opposed the Association's amended motion, and the trial court held a hearing. In an Oct. 26, 2023 order, the court granted the Association's motion for reconsideration, finding the June 29, 2023 order was not a final appealable order and could be reconsidered. The court amended that order to allow attorney's fees, finding the Owners acted contrary to the DSA and the prior judgment, and set the issue for a later determination. Following the court's instructions, the appellants voluntarily dismissed the appeal. In March 2025, the trial court issued a final order awarding the Association $40,338.95 in attorney’s fees, the remaining $9,855 settlement balance, prejudgment interest on both amounts for specified periods, and statutory post-judgment interest. The Owners appealed the trial court's rulings on the motion to file documents under seal and the May 2, 2023, June 29, 2023, October 26, 2023, and March 19, 2025 orders, raising five assignments of error: (1) the refusal to accept the global settlement agreement under seal, (2) the finding that the Association need not pay its pro rata share of litigation expenses, (3) the determination that the Owners breached the settlement agreement and the award of fees, (4) the calculation of attorney's fees, and (5) the denial of the Owners' cross-motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Judge Groves first addressed the Owners' first, second, and fifth assignments of error, all challenging the trial court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement. The Owners argued that the court should have considered the CMRSA under seal, along with their fee agreement, professional conduct rules, common fund principles, and equitable considerations, and that it also erred in denying their cross-motion to enforce the agreement. The Court rejected these arguments. It found the DSA's terms were unambiguous, so the trial court properly declined to consider the CMRSA or other outside materials. Because the court was required to rely on the agreement's plain language, it upheld the enforcement of the settlement and found no basis to revisit the Owners' claims for litigation expenses. The Owners also did not claim they were improperly induced into the agreement, so the court enforced the contract as written, including the Owners' decision to waive reimbursement of litigation expenses. Judge Groves also rejected the third assignment of error. The court held the June 29, 2023 order was not final, so the trial court could properly reconsider it. It also found the Owners breached the DSA by withholding settlement funds, which led to the motion to enforce and additional fees. The trial court had discretion to award attorney's fees, so the assignment of error was overruled. Finally, Judge Groves agreed in part with the Owners' fourth assignment of error. She found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting a reasonable hourly rate of $225 and rejected the challenge to expert fees, noting there was no supporting authority to exclude them. However, the Court found the record unclear on whether the trial court considered mitigation of damages, particularly whether the Association should have stopped pursuing fees after the Owners offered payment. Because of that uncertainty, Judge Groves reversed the attorney's fee award and remanded the case for further consideration on that issue. Based on the foregoing, the judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the Association mitigated its damages. The parties were ordered to split the costs, and the Court found there were reasonable grounds for the appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2026 Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/i1v5qe4. Kehoe and Associates, LLC, Robert D. Kehoe, and Kevin P. Shannon, for appellants. Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, LLC, Kurt Anderson -- kanderson@cruglaw.com -- and Megan D. Stricker -- mstricker@cruglaw.com -- for appellee. CHICAGO, IL: TNP Rules Illegally Blacklist Drivers, Maalim Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABDALLA MAALIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03049 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2026) is a civil rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the City of Chicago's Transportation Network Providers Rules, which regulate the rideshare industry in the City. Plaintiff Maalim drove for Uber and Lyft in the City of Chicago up until December 24, 2024, when Uber permanently deactivated his account due to a vague and unsubstantiated allegation of unsafe driving. Due to the City of Chicago's Transportation Network Providers Rules, Uber's unilateral deactivation had the effect of blacklisting him -- leaving him unable to perform rideshare work for all similar companies in the City. Based on Uber's deactivation, the City automatically and indefinitely suspended Plaintiff's City-issued chauffeur license -- without providing Plaintiff any avenue to appeal the decision or have a hearing in which it would be determined whether or not public safety required him not to continue driving passengers. The City of Chicago's enforcement of TNP Rules 1.10 and 5.02, which deprive rideshare drivers of a constitutionally protected property interest without any procedural due process, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, says the suit. City of Chicago is a municipal corporation which is authorized by statute to regulate taxis and all others pursuing like occupations in Illinois. The Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection is an executive department of the City of Chicago.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Trevor Byrne, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St, Ste 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tbyrne@llrlaw.com CLIVE HOLDINGS: Barlow Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BARLOW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Clive Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03181 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://clivecoffee.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Barlow's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 5, 2026, the Plaintiff searched Google for online stores offering high-quality coffee and espresso equipment and found clivecoffee.com, a website specializing in espresso machines, grinders, and coffee-brewing accessories. After reviewing customer feedback highlighting the quality and performance of the products, he began exploring the Website and came across the item "Eureka Atom 75 Espresso Grinder." However, as he attempted to navigate the Website and proceed with his purchase, he encountered accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to browse the site and complete the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Barlow 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 the Website, the compliant asserts. Barlow, therefore, seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Daniel Barlow is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Clive Holdings, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of espresso machines, coffee grinders, coffee makers, espresso accessories, coffee filters, storage products, cleaning supplies and maintenance kits, cups, kettles, carafes, and replacement parts for coffee equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law COMPASS INC: Cribier Seeks Leave to File Proposed FAC ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CRIBIER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. COMPASS, INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01833-RBM-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on April 13, 2026 at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for leave to file the Proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint, as the operative pleading in this Action. The Court should permit Plaintiff to amend his First Amended Complaint despite Compass's opposition to this relief. The proposed amendment is timely, well-pleaded, made in good faith, and does not unduly delay proceedings or prejudice any party. Importantly, this claim arose after the Plaintiff's deadline to amend his Complaint, on December 8, 2025, as ordered by the Court. The Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add an additional claim for violation of the prerecorded and artificial voice provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against Compass and an accompanying subclass for persons like Plaintiff who received prerecorded messages from Defendant. The Defendant provides residential real estate brokerage and related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnQ3KK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gemma Seidita, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: gseidita@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and - Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 630 1st Avenue, Suite 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net CONSUMERS ENERGY: Sova Appeals Ruling to Mich. Court of Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Matthew Sova, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW SOVA, et al., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY and ARBORMETRIC SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, in the Circuit Court of Saginaw, Michigan. The appellate case is captioned MATTHEW SOVA vs. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Case No. 379743, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on March 4, 2026. The case is assigned to Judge Julie A. Gafkay. Consumers Energy is an investor owned utility that provides natural gas and electricity to 6.7 million of Michigan's 10 million residents.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MATTHEW SOVA, et al., and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC PO Box 107 530 West Saginaw St Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 - and - Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. Matthew E. Gronda, J.D., P.L.C. 4855 State, Suite 6A Saginaw, MI 48603 Defendants-Appellees CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY and ARBORMETRIC SOLUTIONS LLC are represented by: Anthony C. Sallah, Esq. Emily F. Burger, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 171 Monroe Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2694 Telephone: (616) 742-3976 CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Gusinsky DGCL Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Context Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2026, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed the Gusinsky General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (DGCL) class suit pursuant to the stipulation and proposed consent judgment. On February 4, 2026, the Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a stockholder class action complaint against the Company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, asserting that (i) Article V, Section 2 of the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, provides for a full term of three years for directors in violation of Section 211(b) of the DGCL and (ii) Article VI, Section 1 of the Certificate of Incorporation limits removal of directors only for cause in violation of Section 141(k) of the DGCL. In addition, on February 24, 2026, a stipulation and proposed consent judgment was filed with the Court regarding the Action, and on March 11, 2026, the Court approved the Stipulated Judgment, pursuant to which Article V, Section 2 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Certificate of Incorporation were determined to be invalid and unenforceable. On March 11, 2026, the Company filed a Certificate of Correction with the Delaware Secretary of State reflecting such provisions as invalid, unenforceable and no longer part of the Certificate of Incorporation. Accordingly, the term of office of the current members of the Board of Directors will expire at the Company's 2026 annual meeting of stockholders, with each serving until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal, and 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. Also on March 11, 2026, pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the Action was dismissed with prejudice with respect to the plaintiff; however, the Court retains jurisdiction to address any mootness fee application. Context Therapeutics Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapies for the treatment of solid tumors and other cancers. CREE LIGHTING: Adrian Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Lost Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH ADRIAN and PATRICIA BOROM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREE LIGHTING USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00451 (E.D. Wis., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiffs and each of the Class Members their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, health and life insurance premiums, accrued holiday pay and accrued paid time off for 60 days following their respective terminations, and failed to provide employee benefits including health insurance, for 60 days from and after the dates of their respective terminations. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs worked at, reported to, or received assignments from Defendant's facility located at 9201 Washington Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin (the "Facility") until their terminations. On October 1, 2025, Plaintiffs were informed by Defendant at a town hall meeting that she and about 92% of Defendants' workforce would be placed on furlough. Plaintiffs and the other employees were not given an expected date of recall. Instead, they were told the furlough was expected to last about 2-3 weeks. After the October 1st meeting, Plaintiffs received an email that stated that they would be "furloughed," effective immediately. The Plaintiffs were never recalled back to work and were both terminated without cause. The Plaintiffs were terminated along with an estimated 580 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant beginning on October 2, 2026. Defendant failed to give Plaintiffs and those similarly situated employees 60 days' advance notice of their terminations, as required the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to enforce the WARN Act's statutory remedy of 60 days' back pay and benefits for themselves and those similarly situated. Plaintiff Sarah Adrian was employed by Defendant as a customer account specialist from May 2014 until about October 1, 2025. Plaintiff Patricia Borom was employed by Defendant as a customer account specialist from May 2014 until about October 1, 2025. Defendant Cree Lighting USA, LLC operates a business that provides lighting products and related services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sandra G. Radtke, Esq. RADTKE LAW OFFICE, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., #300 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 330-8120 E-mail: radtkelaw@tds.net - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. René S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com CROCS INC: Faces Rushefsky Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN RUSHEFSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROCS, INC. D/B/A HEY DUDE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02200 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its website, www.heydude.com, in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; and denies Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, and digital content, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff visited the website on December 10, 2025, December 11, 2025, and February 16, 2026, using NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA) with the intent to browse winter footwear, review product details, and complete purchases. During these visits, he attempted to access and purchase the products. During each visit, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from identifying products, selecting sizes, adding items to his cart, or completing a purchase. These barriers were not isolated or subjective; they are confirmed by the SortSite Accessibility Report, SortSite Broken Link Report, SortSite Site Quality Report, and a WAVE scan identifying 35 errors, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to remediate the website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the website is and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Crocs, Inc., d/b/a Hey Dude, operates the website that markets and sells footwear, apparel, and accessories to consumers across the U.S, 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 DANAHER CORP: Must Oppose Hawkins Class Cert Bid by April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAWKINS v. DANAHER CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02055 (D.D.C., Filed July 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Amir H. Ali entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for extension of class certification deadlines: The Plaintiffs shall make their expert supporting class certification available for deposition on a mutually agreeable date no later than April 17, 2026. The Defendants shall file any opposition to class certification and shall serve any expert report(s) opposing class certification by April 27, 2026. The Defendants shall make any such expert(s) opposing class certification available for deposition on a mutually agreeable date no later than May 18, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply supporting class certification and shall serve any rebuttal report(s) in support of class certification by May 27, 2026. The states Statutes -- Securities/Commodities/Exchange. Danaher is a global science and technology company.[CC] DENTALPLANS.COM: Wins Bid to Decertify TCPA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Deborah Bradley, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DentalPlans.com and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Defendants, Civil No. 20-1094-BAH (D. Md.), Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendant DentalPlans.com's motion for reconsideration and decertification and denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply. DentalPlans.com operates a direct-to-consumer marketplace that sells dental savings plans. Plaintiff signed up for a Cigna dental discount plan through DentalPlans.com during a phone call in November 2018. After Plaintiff expressed that she did not want her plan to auto-renew, DentalPlans.com began placing prerecorded calls informing her that her membership was ending. After her plan expired on December 1, 2019, Plaintiff continued to receive prerecorded winback calls, which attempted to encourage her to repurchase the plan. According to DentalPlans.com's records, Plaintiff received ten such calls between December 3, 2019, and February 26, 2020. DentalPlans.com estimated that it placed winback calls to 57,240 former customers during the relevant period. Plaintiff brought a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, alleging that Defendants violated the statute by placing unauthorized telemarketing calls to her and the proposed class of former customers. On June 6, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment. DentalPlans.com subsequently moved for reconsideration and decertification, citing a change in controlling law. DentalPlans.com argued that the court could no longer apply the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations requiring prior express written consent for telemarketing calls following Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. It contended that the TCPA's plain text requires only prior express consent, not the heightened written-consent standard imposed by FCC regulation. The court agreed. Relying on the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC and the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of TX, Inc., the court held that the FCC may not impose an additional writing requirement to the TCPA's prior express consent standard. The delegation of authority under Section 227(b)(2) to prescribe regulations implementing the TCPA does not include authority to reinterpret prior express consent as prior express written consent. Because Congress required only prior express consent, that is all that is required to overcome an alleged TCPA violation. The court then evaluated whether Plaintiff had provided the requisite prior express consent. During her November 2018 sign-up call, Plaintiff orally agreed to receive calls from DentalPlans.com using an automatic dialing system or prerecorded message. The court found this satisfied the TCPA standard. The distinction between telemarketing and informational robocalls was one the FCC drew, not Congress, and Plaintiff had not explained how the plain language of the statute supports such a distinction. The court therefore held that DentalPlans.com did not violate the TCPA as a matter of law. Because the court granted summary judgment to Defendant, it also granted the motion for decertification. The previously certified class of former DentalPlans.com customers is now decertified. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply was denied, as DentalPlans.com's reply addressed arguments Plaintiff had already raised rather than introducing new matters. The parties were directed to file a joint status report by March 26, 2026, addressing how the decision affects Plaintiff's remaining vicarious liability claim against Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated 20th March, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KuRXrT from PacerMonitor.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Allows Third Amended Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, Todd J. Vasos, Jeffery C. Owen, John W. Garratt, and Kelly M. Dilts, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01250 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint in this putative securities fraud class action. Lead Plaintiffs Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and Quoniam Asset Management GmbH, on behalf of those who acquired Dollar General Corporation common stock between May 28, 2020 and August 28, 2024, brought this putative securities fraud class action against Dollar General and four Company executives: Todd Vasos, Jeffrey Owen, Kelly Dilts, and John Garratt. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged, on the basis of observations from twenty-four former employee anonymous witnesses, that at the same time the Company inadequately staffed stores and improperly managed a glut of merchandise it improvidently ordered, its corporate officers painted a misleadingly rosy picture through 113 false or misleading statements in SEC filings and elsewhere. The Second Amended Complaint alleged three interrelated categories of corporate mismanagement -- inventory, staffing, and pricing. First, the Company's broken inventory management process caused a glut of unaccounted-for inventory at distribution centers, ancillary warehouses, and stores. Second, stores were understaffed by inadequately trained employees. Third, excess inventory and understaffing led to discrepancies between prices listed on the shelf and those charged at the register, also expired, and damaged inventory would not fit in overflowing storage rooms, so it spilled onto the sales floors, leading to, among other things, millions of dollars in fines and settlements. The court had previously granted without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter -- a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. The court found that none of the six Helwig factors on which the Plaintiffs relied supported their claims. The proposed Third Consolidated Amended Complaint adds 101 paragraphs and allegations from an additional twelve former employees, bringing the total to thirty-six. The Plaintiffs argued that the proposed complaint adds facts that address every shortcoming in its scienter allegations and therefore that filing it would not be futile. The Defendants responded that the proposed complaint would not allow the court to draw a strong inference of scienter and that allowing the Plaintiffs to file it would be futile. The court noted that the parties disagreed about whether the new facts allow the court to draw a strong inference of scienter on the basis of seven of the Helwig factors. Rather than conduct a full futility analysis, the court found it would be better positioned if afforded the full benefit of a Rule 12(b)(6) briefing on the amended complaint. The court observed that many courts, for reasons of practicality, decline to engage in a futility analysis at the motion to amend phase and opt instead to assess questions of plausibility later when ruling on the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court found no gamesmanship by the Plaintiffs and held that it was not persuaded that it should exercise its discretion to deny the Motion to Amend. The court therefore granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated March 24, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MpMlEG from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Dollar General Corporation, Todd J. Vasos, Jeffery C. Owen, John W. Garratt, and Kelly M. Dilts are represented by: Joshua Sean Bolian, Esq. Milton S. McGee, III, Esq. Steven Allen Riley, Esq. RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC Email: jbolian@rjfirm.com tmcgee@rjfirm.com sriley@rjfirm.com Amy L. Dawson, Esq. Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq. SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT LLP (NY OFFICE) Email: amy.dawson@stblaw.com pkazanoff@stblaw.com Plaintiffs Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and Quoniam Asset Management GmbH are represented by: Salvatore Graziano, Esq. Veronica V. Montenegro, Esq. Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq. Brandon Slotkin, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: salvatore@blbglaw.com veronica.montenegro@blbglaw.com jeremy@blbglaw.com brandon.slotkin@blbglaw.com Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. Brent Hannafan, Esq. Kristi S. McGregor, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com bhannafan@sanfordheisler.com kmcgregor@sanfordheisler.com Plaintiff Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System is represented by: Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com srudman@rgrdlaw.com cwood@rgrdlaw.com Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Dismisses Gambling Addiction Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kenneth Macek, Matthew Harner, Avi Setton, Lionel Alicea, Shane Spencer, and Rangaraj Sadagopan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DraftKings, Inc., Crown PA Gaming Inc. d/b/a DraftKings, and Golden Nugget Online Gaming LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-1995 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted DraftKings' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. Note on class action status: While the complaint was styled as a putative class action on behalf of all others similarly situated, no class was certified, and the court did not address class certification. Plaintiffs challenged DraftKings' marketing strategies and Very Important Person (VIP) loyalty programs, alleging that DraftKings caused or aggravated their gambling addictions by continually sending promotions and targeting vulnerable persons. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, products liability, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and conversion. On negligence, the court found that DraftKings has no duty of care toward Plaintiffs. No Pennsylvania state court or federal court applying Pennsylvania law has found that casinos or online sportsbooks owe a duty of care to compulsive gamblers. The court further observed that Pennsylvania's General Assembly has actively regulated online sportsbooks since 2017 but has not established such a duty, and that courts across the country have uniformly rejected imposing it on casinos. Counts I and III were dismissed. On breach of fiduciary duty, the court found that Plaintiffs failed to plead a fiduciary relationship with their VIP Hosts. Encouraging Plaintiffs to place bets, without exercising control over their betting decisions, was insufficient to establish such a relationship. At most, the facts pleaded arms-length commercial transactions. Count II was dismissed. On intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege extreme and outrageous conduct. Encouraging persons to gamble, even if they are compulsive gamblers, and sending unsolicited promotional text messages do not meet the high bar required under Pennsylvania law. Count IV was dismissed. On products liability, the court found that the DraftKings App and its promotions do not constitute a product under Pennsylvania law, which requires a finished item with tangible form. Separately, Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead that DraftKings' warnings were inadequate, having themselves acknowledged that DraftKings maintains a responsible gaming page. Counts VI through IX were dismissed. Plaintiff Setton's breach of contract claim, premised on his 2020 request to close his account, was dismissed as time-barred under Pennsylvania's four-year statute of limitations. Count XI was dismissed. The court found, however, that Setton stated a conversion claim as to $45,000 in un-wagered funds withheld from his account. Since that amount fell below the $75,000 diversity jurisdiction threshold, the court transferred Setton's conversion and unjust enrichment claims to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. All other claims were dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM AND OPINION https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v7VH4C from PacerMonitor.com Defendants DraftKings, Inc., Crown PA Gaming Inc. d/b/a DraftKings, and Golden Nugget Online Gaming LLC are represented by: Clifford E. Yin, Esq. Richard R. Patch, Esq. Sarah E. Peterson, Esq. Laura R. Seegal, Esq. Nia Joyner, Esq. Christopher J. Wiener, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP Email: cyin@coblentz.com rpatch@coblentzlaw.com speterson@coblentzlaw.com lseegal@coblentzlaw.com ef-naj@cpdb.com cwiener@coblentzlaw.com Michael J. Engle, Esq. Melissa Lynn Perry, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG Email: mengle@stradley.com mperry@stradley.com Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael I. Kanovitz, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. Amelia R.V. Maxfield, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY Email: mike@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com green@loevy.com maxfield@loevy.com DREXEL UNIVERSITY: $2.2MM Settlement in "Deller" Has Prelim OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case captioned as Joshua Deller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Drexel University, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-03746-JDW, granted the motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement and provisionally certified the settlement class. Drexel University is a private research university that offers its students an on-campus, in-person educational experience in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Drexel transitioned from offering an in-person educational experience to providing only remote classes. Drexel cancelled on-campus recreational activities, called off student events, and directed students to refrain from going on campus. As a result, students did not have access to any on-campus education, services, and amenities for the Spring 2020 term. The students, however, paid the tuition and fees associated with Drexel's in-person educational offering. Drexel did not provide students with any sort of refund. Deller filed a class action complaint on September 26, 2023, asserting claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. Drexel moved for summary judgment on March 8, 2024, arguing that it never promised in-person education as it announced the transition to remote education weeks prior to the beginning of the Spring 2020 term. The court denied the motion. After exchanging information exposing the strengths and weaknesses of their claims, the parties participated in a full-day mediation session with Hon. Thomas J. Rueter (Ret.) of JAMS in Philadelphia on June 22, 2025. Nearly five months after the initial mediation session, the parties reached a settlement in principle on November 18, 2025. The proposed settlement seeks to certify a settlement class consisting of all enrolled students at Drexel University during the Spring 2020 term who paid any tuition and/or fees for that term. The parties estimate that there are about 16,576 individuals in the settlement class. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Drexel will pay a settlement amount of $2,200,000 into an escrow account with the settlement administrator. After all applicable fees, expenses, and awards are deducted, the remaining funds will be distributed equally to each settlement class member. In exchange, the settlement class members will release Drexel from liability for any claims related to its transition to or provision of remote education with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court analyzed the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. On numerosity, with approximately 16,576 affected individuals, Deller showed that joinder is not practicable. On commonality, the court found that each class member would have had to demonstrate that Drexel engaged in the conduct alleged; that there is a difference in the value between online distance learning and live in-person instruction; that Drexel breached its contracts by retaining tuition and fees without providing the services they were intended to cover; and the amount and nature of relief to be awarded. On typicality, Deller was not issued a refund for the tuition or fees he paid for Drexel's on-campus educational experience after Drexel switched to offering only remote classes -- an identical harm to all class members. His interests are aligned with the class members' interests because all seek state law remedies for the alleged harm resulting from Drexel's refusal to issue a refund. On adequacy, the court found nothing to call into question Deller's adequacy to represent the class. Class counsel has extensive experience prosecuting class actions, including several similar class action suits related to COVID-19. On predominance, whether Drexel breached an implied contract or was unjustly enriched by failing to provide in-person, on-campus instruction yet retaining the tuition and fees paid are clearly common questions that predominate over individual inquiries. The contractual arrangements between Drexel and its students are substantively the same and the nature of Drexel's alleged breach is the same regardless of the student's academic major, scholarships, or any other ancillary criteria. On superiority, the number of class members, the common interest of class members, and the prevalence of common questions of law and fact make class action a more efficient vehicle for resolving these claims. The court found that the settlement was negotiated at arm's length, noting that the parties agreed to settle after a full-day mediation with Judge Rueter and several months of continued negotiations, ultimately reaching a resolution in accordance with his proposal and recommendation. On adequacy of relief, the court weighed the risks Deller would face at trial, including establishing that a contract existed for in-person education despite Drexel's prior notice that the Spring 2020 term would be conducted remotely. By comparison, similar settlements -- including Staubus v. University of Minnesota, which provided a per-student recovery of $59, and Rocchio v. Rutgers, which provided a per-student recovery of $77.48 -- supported the reasonableness of the proposed settlement. The proposed attorneys' fees of one-third of the settlement amount fell within the range of awards found to be reasonable, subject to closer examination at final approval. The parties proposed to send a short form notice by email or direct mail to every class member, supplemented by a long form notice available on a settlement website. The court found that while the short form notice did not inform class members of their right to appear through an attorney, the long form notice clearly and concisely addressed that right. The court concluded that the notice program satisfies Rule 23 and will provide class members with direct, reasonable notice to give them the opportunity to evaluate their rights. Accordingly, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and provisionally certified the class for the purpose of settlement. A Copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fChgAa from PacerMonitor.com Defendant DREXEL UNIVERSITY Represented By: CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HEALY Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 215-981-4644 christopher.healy@troutman.com MICHAEL E. BAUGHMAN Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 215-981-4000 michael.baughman@troutman.com Plaintiff JOSHUA DELLER Represented By: GARY F. LYNCH NICHOLAS A. COLELLA Lynch Carpenter, LLP gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com MICHAEL A. TOMPKINS Leeds Brown Law, P.C. 516-873-9550 mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com EQT CORP: Denial of Prelim Injunction Bid in "Hice" Suit Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID HICE; JOSEPH MOORE; CHRISTINA BARLOW; individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. EQT CORP., a Pennsylvania Corporation; EQT PRODUCTION CO.; BEUSA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; BEUSA ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES OPERATING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 25-2729 (3d Cir), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the order of the District Court denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The case arises from a natural gas well operated by EQT in Greene County, Pennsylvania, where hydraulic fracturing was used to extract gas by injecting high-pressure fluid into underground rock formations. On June 19, a nearby resident reported a geyser erupting from an abandoned well about 6,500 feet from the Lumber 13H site, raising concerns of a "frac-out," where fracking fluid escapes into surrounding areas. EQT paused operations, but when activity resumed, groundwater again surged from the abandoned well. EQT did not immediately notify the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which learned of the issue the next day, investigated, and ordered operations at Lumber 13H to stop. Following the incident, nearby well-water users reported contamination issues, including discoloration, foul odors, oily residue, health symptoms like skin rashes, and harm to animals and plants, prompting multiple complaints to DEP. In August 2023, EQT held a town hall to address residents' concerns and offered water storage tanks, or "water buffalos," to affected households. Twenty-nine residents, including one of the Plaintiffs, accepted the offer and received weekly water deliveries. On Nov. 29, 2023, EQT reached an agreement with the DEP to resume operations at the well with monitoring. It then notified those residents that water deliveries would stop on July 1, 2024, unless they agreed to release any claims against EQT and sign non-disclosure agreements. On June 20, 2024, about two years after the alleged frac-out and shortly before the planned end of water deliveries, three nearby residents, on behalf of other nearby residents, filed a putative class action in the District Court against EQT and four related entities. The complaint asserted eight claims, including one under the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act and seven under Pennsylvania tort law. Although EQT had stated it would stop providing water by July 1, 2024 unless residents signed releases, the record does not show that it actually discontinued the water deliveries. About two months after filing suit, before seeking class certification, the Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to require EQT and its affiliate to provide clean drinking water to affected residents. They supported the motion with affidavits describing health concerns and, in some cases, inability to afford alternative water sources, and they requested an evidentiary hearing. The District Court, assuming the Plaintiffs might succeed on the merits, denied the motion without a hearing, finding no showing of irreparable harm. The Plaintiffs then filed an interlocutory appeal challenging that decision. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke it must establish that jurisdiction exists. The Third Circuit noted that the Plaintiffs relied on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) for subject-matter jurisdiction. Under CAFA, jurisdiction requires more than $5 million in controversy, a proposed class of at least 100 members, and minimal diversity, meaning at least one plaintiff is from a different state than at least one defendant. The Third Circuit found that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately show minimal diversity under CAFA. While they identified the Plaintiffs as Pennsylvania residents and made general allegations about the defendants' citizenship, they did not properly allege the citizenship of any plaintiff. The court emphasized that residency is not the same as citizenship, which depends on domicile. Because the Complaint lacked specific allegations showing that at least one plaintiff was a citizen of a different state than a defendant, the Plaintiffs did not make a sufficient facial showing of jurisdiction. As a result, the District Court did not err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the Third Circuit vacated the order of the District Court denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2026 Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/px8u4am FARMGIRL FLOWERS: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMGIRL FLOWERS INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01865 (D. Minn., March 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.belkin.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. Farmgirl Flowers Inc. is an e-commerce floral company with direct-to-consumer, burlap-wrapped bouquet model. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FOOT LOCKER: Victor Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- LUIS VICTOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 605897/2026 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 18, 2026) seeks to recover overtime pay, timely pay, scheduling premium pay and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly workers who work or have worked for Foot Locker pursuant to New York Labor Law and the New York City Fair Workweek Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly worker from October 2021 to January 2026. Throughout his employment, the Defendant failed to provide him with proper overtime compensation. Despite spending more than 25% of his shift performing physical tasks, Victor was compensated by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis, notes the complaint. The Defendant also failed to furnish accurate statement of wages and provide written work schedule, the complaint asserts. During Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant regularly changed Plaintiff's schedule at the last minute and failed to pay schedule change premiums, it adds. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. provides apparel. The Company offers footwear, apparel, and accessories through internet, mobile, and catalog channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Hunter G. Benharris, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plaintiff's Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trey Smith-Journigan, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, et al., V. Franklin County, Ohio, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Watson entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification; and -- Dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's class claims. The case will proceed with named Plaintiffs' individual claims only The Clerk shall terminate. The 2012 Report did not cover the proposed class period (beginning April 11, 2016, until such time as the Court would enjoin Defendant), so it likewise did not provide the number of bail-eligible misdemeanor detainees during the relevant period. Nor did the Plaintiff provide an estimate of how many of such bail eligible misdemeanor detainees were, like Plaintiff, immediately able to post bail but denied an opportunity to do so. At bottom, the Plaintiff's evidence was overbroad and speculative. Thus, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice to renewal if identifying proper class members became administratively feasible. Given the nearly eight years of litigation, extensive discovery done in this case, time and resources spent by both parties, and this being Plaintiff's second failed attempt to certify a class, the Court finds that the class claims against Defendant should be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff alleges that he and others similarly situated were placed in the Franklin County Sheriff's Department's custody and had their civil rights violated. In his renewed motion to certify the class, Plaintiff seeks to certify one class: "All detainees who, at the time affinal judgment, have been placed into the custody of the Franklin County Correctional Center and/or Franklin County Workhouse, after being charged with misdemeanors, summary violations, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes, including on arrest warrants, and who were immediately eligible for bail under Ohio law and the bail schedule and regulations mandated by the Franklin County Municipal Court that in fact posted bail within twenty-four hours of being taken into custody by Franklin County." The class period commences on April 11, 2016, and continues until November 18, 2025. Specifically excluded from the Class are the Defendant and any and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees, or assignees. The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a sub-class: "All members of the foregoing class who, on Franklin County's "Miscellaneous Update Document, " indicated that they had the financial means to post bond, or where information about the financial ability to post bond is absent from the form." Franklin County is in Mid-Ohio. The county seat is Columbus, the state capital. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O6svbU at no extra charge.[CC] FRESNO, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Brown Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEWIS DEWANE BROWN, v. CITY OF FRESNO, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00216-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss and motion to strike with leave to amend. (1) The City's Motion to Dismiss the eighth cause of action is granted with 21 days leave to amend, provided that any amendments do not rely on a legal theory foreclosed by Grants Pass. (2) The City's motion to strike is granted in part with respect to paragraph 38(K) of the Complaint with 21 days leave to amend. (3) Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part a. The Plaintiff's fifth, tenth, and twelfth causes of action are dismissed with prejudice. b. The Plaintiff's seventh, fourteenth, and fifteenth causes of action are dismissed with 21 days leave to amend, provided that any amendments do not rely on a legal theory foreclosed by Grants Pass. (4) Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in part as to the Plaintiff's excessive and retaliatory force claims under the first cause of action. (5) Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in part with respect to the second, third, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth causes of action. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to make specific, factual allegations demonstrating that Supervisor Defendants had actual knowledge that police officers under their command were violating the procedural due process rights of unhoused people or that they tacitly approved their subordinates’ unconstitutional conduct. Accordingly, the Court grants Supervisor Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the seventh cause of action with leave to amend. In short, Plaintiff has not provided sufficiently detailed factual allegations showing that the City and its officers have a recent pattern of destroying people's property during cleanup operations without the requisite pre- or post-deprivation hearing. The Plaintiff alleges that the City of Fresno has been engaging in systematic harassment of the City of Fresno’s homeless population by, other things, "making capricious and unnecessary arrests essentially because of the homeless statuses of persons, issuing citations for actions that are inherent in homelessness itself," "engaging in arbitrary and punitive 'cleanup sweep' activities" that "resulted in the belongings of the homeless persons being treated as trash." A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uLwbS3 at no extra charge.[CC] GARMENTORY INC: Corbett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARMENTORY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00208-amb (W.D. Wis., March 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://garmentory.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. Garmentory Inc. retails apparel and clothing accessories on the internet. The Company offers tops, blouses, sweaters, cardigans, pants, denim, skirts, shorts, jumpsuits, dresses, and related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law GENOMIC PREDICTION: Anderson Sues Over False PGT-A Testing Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN ANDERSON, AMANDA MALKIN, and MAUREEN EWING individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENOMIC PREDICTION, INC. and GENOMIC PREDICTION CLINICAL LABORATORY, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02860 (D.N.J., March 19, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover economic losses suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members as a result of the false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading advertising, marketing, and promotion of Defendants' preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy ("PGT-A" or "PGT-A testing"). The complaint relates that the Defendants market, advertise, and promote the sale of their PGT-A testing in New Jersey and throughout the United States. PGT-A testing is marketed and sold by Defendants to people pursuing IVF as the most advanced genetic screening available, increasing pregnancy rates, lowering miscarriage rates, reducing the number of cycles of IVF needed, reducing the number of wasted transfers, increasing the chance of success, increasing the chance of a healthy child, leading to more euploid embryos and more embryos available for transfer, and increasing the chances of a successful pregnancy. Defendants also market and sell their PGT-A testing as 98 to 99% accurate with a lower false positive and false negative rate. Based on these material representations and the material omissions that underlay them as detailed below, Plaintiffs and Class members choose to purchase PGT-A testing from Defendants as an add-on to their IVF treatment. However, the representations by Defendants are false and/or misleading and deceptive based upon the omission of material information, asserts the complaint. Studies show that when looking at clinic pregnancy, miscarriage, or live-birth rates, there is no difference between cycles utilizing PGT-A and cycles not utilizing PGT-A. Studies also show the accuracy rating for PGT-A is significantly lower than advertised or disclosed. The Defendants' false and misleading statements have severe consequences, including causing ascertainable economic losses in the thousands of dollars suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs file this lawsuit to remedy Defendants' unfair and deceptive business practices arising from its marketing and sale of PGT-A testing as a proven, accurate, and reliable method to decrease the chance of miscarriage and increase the chance of giving birth to a healthy baby when science does not support this. In addition to making misrepresentations, Defendants made partial representations while suppressing material facts. Defendants' misleading statements and omissions are false and misleading to any reasonable consumer because PGT-A is unproven, inaccurate, and unreliable, relates the complaint. Plaintiff Adrian Anderson is a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio and received fertility treatment fertility in San Diego, California. Plaintiff Amanda Malkin is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida and received fertility treatment in Boca Raton, Florida. Plaintiff Maureen Ewing is a resident of Doylestown, Pennsylvania and received fertility treatment in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. Defendant Genomic Prediction, Inc. performs PGT-A testing utilizing its LifeView product through Genomic Prediction Clinical Laboratory, Inc. Defendant Genomic Prediction Clinical Laboratory, Inc. is a company incorporated in Delaware with its location at 700 Grand Avenue, Unit 1, Hackettstown, NJ 07840.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: rpaul@bergermontague.com scarson@bergermontague.com rraghavan@bergermontague.com - and - Allison S. Freeman, Esq. CONSTABLE LAW, P.A. 139 6th Avenue S Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Telephone: (727) 797-0100 E-mail: allison@constable-law.com - and - Paula S. Bliss, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE LLC 210 Washington St. No. Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 E-mail: paula@justicelc.com GFB RESTAURANTS: Robinson Seeks Conditional Cert of 2 Collectives ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAYLA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GFB RESTAURANTS, LLC, HEMINGWAYS HOSPITALITY, LLC, LOUISE GOETZ, BRUNILDA XHOKA, FLORENCA XHOKA, and GERTI XHOKA, Case No. 8:25-cv-02556-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying two collectives, and permitting Court-supervised notice to: 1) all similarly situated tipped employees who worked for the Defendants, between Jan. 1, 2025, through May 31, 2025 (the Tipped Employees Collective); and 2) all similarly situated employees who worked for the Defendants between May 6, 2025 and May 31, 2025 but were not paid any wages at all (the Unpaid Wages Collective). The Plaintiff further ask the court to enter an order: (a) requiring Defendants to produce in an electronic or computer-readable format the full name, address(es), work and personal telephone number(s), and email address(es) (including personal email addresses to the extent they are available) for each member of the collectives; (b) authorizing notice (substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A) to the members of the collectives, disseminated by U.S. Mail, email, and text, (returnable via mail, email, or fax); and (c) authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60 day notice period. On Sept. 22, 2025, Named Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The Defendants owned and operated Bogota Kitchen + Bar ("Bogota"), a Latin themed bar in downtown Palm Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZnxPqP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brien V. Squires, Esq. SQUIRES LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 922-2803 Facsimile: (813) 354-3433 E-mail: brien@squires-legal.com GILL CORPORATION: $300K Settlement in Ansar Gets Prelim Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADNAN ANSAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE GILL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-08875-MEMF-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order: 1. Granting supplemental motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action settlement; and 2. Granting the class notice. The key issue in the action is whether TGC, as a matter of policy or regular practice, failed to protect highly sensitive PII. This common question of law and fact is the gravamen of all of the claims. This question makes the class sufficiently cohesive such that a representative action is a fair means of adjudication. Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements are met. The Court has reviewed the proposed Notice of Class Action, it is substantively sound and provides reasonable and practicable notice to class members with English or Spanish proficiency. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), parties have a duty to provide the best notice practicable to all Class Members, including those who do not speak or understand English fluently. The current notice accounts for this obligation and would provide meaningful access to the Class Members. Thus, the class notice is sufficient. TGC agreed to establish a non-reversionary common fund of $300,000 (the "Settlement Fund"). The proposed Settlement Class includes: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information was compromised in the Data Breach discovered by [TGC] in June 2024, including all those individuals who received notice of the breach." The Defendant is a stock corporation that manufactures and sells composite products with a focus on the aerospace and transportation industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e7iB6j at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDEN NUGGET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Albanese Jr. Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP ALBANESE, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN NUGGET ATLANTIC CITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02607 (D.N.J., March 13, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Albanese was employed by the Defendant as a table games dealer. Golden Nugget Atlantic City, LLC operates a hotel and casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com GOOGLE LLC: Court OKs Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Helena World Chronicle, LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Google LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-03677 (APM), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs Helena World Chronicle, LLC, and Emmerich Newspapers, Inc., publishers of digital news, on behalf of all publishers of text-based digital news products whose websites were indexed by Google during the period from November 1, 2019, to the date of class certification. Plaintiffs alleged that Google leveraged its monopoly in the general search services market through a monopoly broth of anticompetitive acts to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the online news market. The Amended Complaint asserted five counts. Count I alleged violations of Sections 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act in the general search services market. Count II alleged violations of the same provisions in the online news market. Count III alleged an unlawful tying arrangement. Count IV alleged violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act based on Google's acquisitions of Android, YouTube, and DeepMind. Count V alleged that the 2016 Information Services Agreement between Google and Apple violated Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The court dismissed Counts I and V in their entirety and dismissed Counts III and IV as they related to the general search services market, finding that Plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing. Plaintiffs advanced two theories — that they were suppliers of content to Google's search index, and that they were direct purchasers of search traffic. The court rejected both. As suppliers, Plaintiffs' injuries were experienced in the online news market, not in the market where competition was allegedly being restrained. As purchasers, Plaintiffs failed to plead any actual commercial agreement to purchase search referrals from Google. The court dismissed Count II because Plaintiffs failed to plausibly establish that Google possessed monopoly power in the online news market. Plaintiffs asserted a 66% market share based on total URL visits to various websites, but the court found the inference utterly fanciful — both overinclusive, because the data captured every visit regardless of news purpose, and underinclusive, because it omitted mobile application traffic. The court further noted that Plaintiffs admitted it was relatively easy to enter the online news market, undermining any inference of monopoly power. Count III was dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to allege a tying arrangement. What Plaintiffs described was a single exchange — Google's provision of search traffic for Plaintiffs' news content — not a buyer being forced to purchase two separate products. Count IV was independently dismissed as time-barred. The acquisitions of Android (2005), YouTube (2006), and DeepMind (2014) occurred 10 to 20 years before this lawsuit was filed. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments based on continuing violations, the hold-and-use theory, and fraudulent concealment, finding each theory legally inapplicable or inadequately pleaded. The court concluded that the acquisitions may very well have been anticompetitive, but Plaintiffs were 10 to 20 years too late to challenge them. A copy of the court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated March 20,2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PIqD4n from PacerMonitor.com Defendant ALPHABET INC. and GOOGLE LLC Represented By: John E. Schmidtlein Kenneth Charles Smurzynski Graham Safty Youlin Yuan Williams & Connolly LLP 202-434-5000 jschmidtlein@wc.com ksmurzynski@wc.com gsafty@wc.com yyuan@wc.com Plaintiff HELENA WORLD CHRONICLE, LLC Represented By: Erich P. Schork Kelly Rinehart Sarah E. DeLoach Karen Halbert Mike Roberts Robert Law Firm Us, PC erichschork@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us -- and -- Scott A. Gilmore Michael David Hausfeld Michael P. Lehmann Hausfeld LLP mhausfeld@hausfeld.com mlehmann@hausfeld.com sgilmore@hausfeld.com Plaintiff EMMERICH NEWSPAPERS, INC. Represented By: Melissa Morgans Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP 202-587-5057 lmorgans@cuneolaw.com Michael David Hausfeld Hausfeld LLP 202-540-7200 mhausfeld@hausfeld.com GRACE KNUTSON: Robillard Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ROBILLARD and SARA DOMRES, v. GRACE KNUTSON and TROY ENGER, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stadtmueller entered an order granting the Plaintiffs Sean Robillard and Sara Domres' motion for class action certification: The following class is certified: "All individuals on extended supervision, parole, or another form of criminal supervision by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections affected by the policy of automatically issuing arrest warrants for individuals subject to GPS monitoring, within the applicable statute of limitations, where the word 'affected' refers to those individuals who were taken into custody as a result of an after-hours 'tamper' or 'strap' alert on a weekend or holiday and who were not subsequently referred for prosecution for tampering with their GPS monitors." The Plaintiff Sean Robillard is appointed as class representative. The Plaintiff Sara Domres is dismissed as a named plaintiff from this action. The Court also appoints the Plaintiffs' attorneys from the Law Office of Adele D. Nicholas and the Law Office of Mark G. Weinberg as class counsel. With this decision in place, the parties shall engage in settlement negotiations. The parties shall file an interim settlement report by May 8, 2026. Any executive summaries for dispositive motions will be due by April 27, 2026, and any dispositive motions will be due by June 10, 2026. In July 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their amended putative class action against Defendants Grace Knutson, the Director of Sex Offender Programs for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("WDOC"), and Troy Enger, administrator of the Division of Community Corrections of the WDOC, under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, asserting violations of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n3jZu9 at no extra charge.[CC] GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANNER SMITH, QIMIN WANG, and SABRINA PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01410-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. GCE requests that the Court enter an order allowing (1) GCE to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on or before April 13, 2026; and (2) Plaintiffs to file a reply on or before May 11, 2026. GCE is currently preparing its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but requires additional time given the complexity of the issues and delays stemming from now-resolved discovery disputes. The requested extension is not made for purposes of delay or any other improper purpose. In addition, the extension will not interfere with the deadline to file dispositive motions, which currently is set as July 24, 2026. The Defendant is a publicly traded (NASDAQ: LOPE) education services company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vmIgQS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Derin B. Dickerson, Esq. Andrew J. Liebler, Esq. Shanique C. Campbell, Esq. Taylor Lin, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: derin.dickerson@alston.com andrew.liebler@alston.com shanique.campbell@alston.com taylor.lin@alston.com GRUBHUB INC: Class & Collective Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAEF LAWSON, v. GRUBHUB, INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class and collective action settlement as follows: 1. This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class: "Any and all individuals who entered into an agreement with Grubhub to use the Grubhub platform as an independent contractor to offer delivery services to customers and who used the Grubhub platform as an independent contractor service provider to accept or complete at least one (1) delivery in California [from Dec. 3, 2014, through the date of this Order]." 2. Raef Lawson and Rejenna Marshall are conditionally appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. and the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 4. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. 5. The Plaintiffs shall revise the notice to indicate the final approval hearing will be by Zoom only and file copies of the notice within 10 days of dissemination of notice. 6. Class Counsel shall file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs by May 7 30, 2026. 7. The deadline for class members to submit a Claim Form, Request for Exclusion, or an objection to the settlement or motion for attorneys fees and costs is June 18, 2026. 8. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final approval hearing on July 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom video. Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s5xdNH at no extra charge.[CC] HAND HOSPITALITY: Discovery Deadline in Son Extended to June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Son et al., v. HAND Hospitality LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04639-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lehrburger entered an order that the discovery deadline is extended until June 30, 2026, and the deadline for moving for class certification is extended until July 31, 2026. The Defendant is a New York-based hospitality group. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EXdYhu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd, Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (201) 897-8787 HERTZ CORPORATION: Class Cert. Discovery in Sconce Due August 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sconce v. Hertz Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01197 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting the parties' request as follows: -- Class certification discovery shall be completed by Aug. 15 2026. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is Sept. 26, 2026, with a mod ified briefing schedule as stated in the parties' stipulation. -- All motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than March 31, 2027. -- the Final Pretrial Conference currently set for April 26, 2027 is reset for Aug. 23, 2027, at 01:30 PM before Judge Drozd by Zoom. -- the Jury Trial currently set for June 29, 2027, is reset for Oct. 26, 2027, at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Hertz operates within the rental and leasing services industry, specifically focusing on car rental services.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Sell's Bid to Compel Discovery Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE SELL, v. HOME DEPOT INC. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01297-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and for a protective order. Sell's vague reference that "the parties met and conferred on this dispute in accordance with the Court’s standing order but were unable to reach a resolution," does not meet the standard, especially considering Home Depot's representation that Sell "did not even meet and confer in good faith on the discovery sought in this motion." Accordingly, the Court denies Sell's request for an order compelling discovery. Considering the timeline presented in Sell's motion, any "informational asymmetry" is largely a consequence of Sell's delay in filing his motion to compel discovery until after the deadline to do so. To the extent that Sell has genuine concerns about "Home Depot's devotion of significant resources to the interrogation of its lowest-wage employees," he has not provided a sufficient record for the Court to grant the requested relief. Therefore, the Court denies Sell's request for a protective order. Home Depot is a home improvement retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XGioV5 at no extra charge.[CC] HOPEWELL GROVE: Faces Matson Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATHY J. MATSON and PAIGE E. DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOPEWELL GROVE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00333-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 18, 2026) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are current and former employees of Defendant who did not receive one and a half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Under the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Acts, the Defendant was required to pay for all hours the Putative Plaintiffs worked and pay them 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. By willfully failing to compensate Named Plaintiffs and Putative Plaintiffs who performed work, i.e., patient care during their meal breaks and while on-call, the Defendant violated the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, says the suit. Plaintiff Matson also brings individual Ohio state Whistleblower claims against Defendant in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under Ohio Revised Code. Plaintiff Matson was employed by the Defendant as a licensed practice nurse Unit Manager from approximately December 2024 until January 22, 2026. Plaintiff Dixon began her employment with Defendant as an LPN beginning in approximately December 2024 and remains employed as of the date of the filing of this complaint. Hopewell Grove Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, LLC is a limited liability healthcare company registered to do business in the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Doren, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com adoren@barkanmeizlish.com HOSPITALITY CENTER: Underpays Company Employees, Apolo Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOFFRE CELA APOLO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. THE HOSPITALITY CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60796 (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2026) is a collective action seeking to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages in violation of United States laws. The Plaintiff brings this cause of action as a collective action to recover from Defendant overtime compensation and liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after February 2024, without being adequately compensated. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Cela Apolo as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately February 1, 2024 to September 30th, 2024, or 34 weeks. Plaintiff was designated to work at Nations Market's facilities located at 2050 McKinley St., Hollywood, Florida. Plaintiff had duties as a warehouse employee working the position of Scanner and Labels. During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked seven days per week from Monday to Sunday; from 3:00 PM to 12:00 AM (9 hours daily), or a total of 63 hours weekly. Plaintiff was deducted 3.5 hours of lunchtime weekly, even though he would not take lunch or his lunch was interrupted. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant, in this case, violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate, says the suit. This action is intended to include every warehouse and any similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years. Plaintiff Joffre Cela Apolo is a resident of Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act. Defendant The Hospitality Center is a staffing agency providing personnel to the hospitality industry. Defendant was the employer of Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com HUNTINGTON GLEN: Hires Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown as Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Glen SWNG TIC I, LLC and Huntington Glen SWNG TIC 2, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to hire Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown, LLC as counsel. The firm's services include: (a) providing the Debtors with advice and preparing all necessary documents regarding debt restructuring, bankruptcy and asset dispositions; (b) taking all necessary actions to protect and preserve the Debtors' estates during the pendency of these chapter 11 cases, including the prosecution of actions by the Debtors, the defense of actions commenced against the Debtors, negotiations concerning litigation in which the Debtors are involved and objecting to claims filed against the estates; (c) preparing on behalf of the Debtors, as debtors-in-possession, all necessary motions, applications, answers, orders, reports and papers in connection with the administration of these chapter 11 cases; (d) counseling the Debtors with regard to its rights and obligations as debtors-in-possession; (e) appearing in Court and to protect the interests of the Debtors before the Court; and (f) performing all other legal services for the Debtors which may be necessary and proper in this proceeding. The firm will be paid at these rates: Shareholders $500 per hour Associates/Of Counsel $375 to $475 per hour Paraprofessionals $175 to $275 per hour The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. The firm received from the Debtor a retainer of $75,000. Mr. Busenkell disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Michael Busenkell, Esq. Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown, LLC 1201 N. Orange Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 425-5812 Email: mbusenkell@gsbblaw.com About Huntington Glen Swng TIC Huntington Glen Swng TIC 1, LLC and Huntington Glen Swng TIC 2, LLC own the Huntington Glen apartment complex, which is comprised of 364 residential housing units. The property is located at 12023 Bissonnet Street, Houston, Texas. The Debtors sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 26-10315) on March 6, 2026. In their petitions, both Debtors reported up to $50,000 in assets and $500,001 to $1 million in liabilities. Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown, LLC is the Debtor's legal counsel. IAEDP: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Briefing in Zelikovsky Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY ZELIKOVSKY, PsyD, DEBRA MILLER Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EATING DISORDER PROFESSIONALS' FOUNDATION, INC, a California Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01474-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order deferring briefing and ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until after it decides IAEDP's pending motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. The Court should grant IAEDP 's well-taken Motion to Dismiss, which would result in the Motion for Class Certification becoming moot. Should the case survive, the Court should permit discovery before any further briefing and ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. It is defendant, International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals’ Foundation, Inc.’s (“iaedp”) position that it is unnecessary for this Court to consider Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification at this time because Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action against iaedp for antitrust violations for a fifth consecutive time. Iaedp’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint, which this Court allowed Plaintiffs as “one final attempt to amend their antitrust tying claim,” is currently pending. That motion should be granted, and dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim with prejudice should result in a denial of the Motion for Class Certification as moot. In the event that the Court denies iaedp’s Motion to Dismiss (and again, it should not do so) the Court should defer briefing and a decision on class certification until after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification itself is self-servingly solely based upon conclusory allegations in the pleadings (which again, do not even state a cause of action), and is not supported by any evidence required for this Court to undertake a “rigorous analysis” of the class certification question. The Plaintiffs' conclusory and boilerplate Motion for Class Certification does not permit a "rigorous analysis." Instead, it only further highlights Plaintiffs' inability to plead the proper contours of an antitrust tying claim of existing, definable, markets for the tying and tied products; market power; and antitrust injury for the fifth consecutive time. The motion raises more questions than answers, and even if Plaintiffs deficient allegations were allowed to go forward, a decision on class certification cannot be made without discovery. The Defendant provides the provision of education and training standards to healthcare providers. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TdnC0C at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James J. Sipchen, Esq. John H. Scheid, Jr., Esq. PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 578-7422 E-mail: jsipchen@pretzel-stouffer.com INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Milstein, Turner Appointed as Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRI SHEEHY, DEAN BEACOM, and TAYLOR ARCHULETA, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Prose entered an order that: (1) The Plaintiffs' motion to appoint counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) is granted; and (2) Brandt P. Milstein and Andrew H. Turner of Milstein Turner PLLC, Matthew Scott Parmet of Parmet Law PC, and Don J. Foty of Foty Law Group are appointed as Interim Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs' Counsel have performed an extensive, independent investigation and analysis of this matter since well before removal to this court, including investigating Defendant’s employment practices, conducting legal research, drafting pleadings, and committing resources toward advancing class certification. Parmet and Foty have comparable extensive experience representing workers in large and complex class actions. Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action in Boulder County District Court, alleging that Defendant maintained uniform, company-wide policies that excluded Holiday Premium Pay from overtime calculations in violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and related state laws. The Defendant removed the case to this court on March 20, 2025, and it was subsequently assigned to the Honorable Regina M. Rodriguez and referred to the undersigned. The Defendant is a United States not-for-profit healthcare system. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8EHkW at no extra charge.[CC] IP RESERVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IP RESERVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02215 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.nbpure.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During the Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Daily Multi-Fiber from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. IP Reserve, LLC operates the website that offers gut health products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JACKSON FAMILY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jackson Family Wines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3088 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.kj.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Booker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Booker's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 10, 2026, while searching online for high-quality wine for a family celebration, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's Website, Kj.com which offers a collection of white, red, rose, sparkling, and dessert wines from various premium brands. Booker also noted many positive customer reviews, where customers praised the company for the quality and enjoyment of its wines and the overall wine tasting experience. Encouraged by these reviews, he decided to visit the website to make a purchase. While exploring the website's offerings, Booker decided to browse the red wine category, impressed by its selection of premium wines. However, while browsing the website, he encountered multiple accessibility issues. The Website contains access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Booker 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 the Website. Booker seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Martrell Desamonta Booker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Jackson Family Wines, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of wine collections and gift sets offering different types of wines, including white, red, rosé, sparkling, and dessert wines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law JBS LIVE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Force Due April 3 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Force v. JBS Live Pork LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03018 (C.D. Ill., ), the Hon. Judge Filed Jan. 22, 2025, entered an order resetting the following deadlines: The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by April 3, 2026. The Defendant's response is due by May 15, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply is due by June 5, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. JBS is a pig meat farm.[CC] JOINT CORP: Kirk Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------- Wayne Kirk, Plaintiff v. The Joint Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00918 (W.D. Wash., March 18, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class of Washington residents similarly situated, for Defendant's alleged violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The Plaintiff received a commercial text message from The Joint in November of 2024. He never gave permission for The Joint to send this message. The purpose of The Joint's text message is to encourage individuals to go to one of its locations and pay for chiropractic services. The Plaintiff asserts that the message at issue is a commercial text message under CEMA. The Joint's text messages are a nuisance and annoyance to Plaintiff Kirk and the Class members. The messages have invaded their privacy, diminished the value of their phones, and negatively impacted their enjoyment of life, says the suit. The Joint Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Alvord, Esq. Reid Hudson, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 450 Alaskan Way S Suite 200 # 1823 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (385) 440-4127 E-mail: thomas@thehqfirm.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Roshwald Sues Over Goliath Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID JOSEF ROSHWALD, JP POLITANO, and JACQUESON ELIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21776-BB (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2026) seeks to hold the Defendants liable for aiding and abetting a fraudulent scheme, and to require them to make amends to the scheme's victims. For the past several years, Christopher Alexander Delgado and his company Goliath Ventures Inc. offered investors the opportunity to receive safe and stable returns from cryptocurrency liquidity pools. The pitch was that investors' funds would be contributed to collections of cryptocurrency that provide asset liquidity to traders on certain exchanges. Investors would not need to do much other than send money to Goliath. Goliath told investors that they would receive guaranteed monthly returns of between 3-8% as well as a guarantee that their principal investment would be preserved. When Delgado was arrested by federal authorities and charged with wire fraud and money laundering in February 2026, however, it quickly became apparent that he had actually been running a Ponzi scheme. Instead of placing investors' money in liquidity pools, Delgado and Goliath used investor money to fund lavish personal and corporate expenses, and to pay purported returns to existing investors. The complaint alleges that JPMorgan and Bank of America had unique insight into Goliath's operations and the true nature of what it was doing with investors' money. After investors' funds were deposited into Goliath's traditional bank accounts at JPMorgan and at Bank of America, Delgado used his accounts at these banks to pay supposed returns to existing investors and to support his lifestyle. But rather than expose Delgado's fraudulent business, JPMorgan and Bank of America chose to profit from it, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs David Josef Roshwald, JP Politano, and Jacqueson Elie are among those investors who lost their investments and savings as a result of Delgado's fraudulent scheme and JPMorgan's and Bank of America's knowing participation in that scheme. Goliath is now in receivership and will unlikely be able to make full restitution to victims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to hold JPMorgan and Bank of America liable for aiding and abetting Delgado's fraud and to require the banks to make amends to the scheme's victims. JPMorgan Chase, N.A. operates as a private bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking, real estate lending, wealth planning, brokerage, and capital financing solutions with investment advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott L. Silver, Esq. Ryan A. Schwamm, Esq. Peter M. Spett, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 1780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com rschwamm@silverlaw.com pspett@silverlaw.com - and - David Stein, Esq. Linda P. Lam, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com lpl@classlawgroup.com - and - Emily Beale, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 136 Madison Avenue, Suite 541 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: eb@classlawgroup.com JW LEE: Lopez Loses Conditional Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. JW LEE INC., d/b/a SCARLETT'S CABARET, Case No. 1:25-cv-20367-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Altman entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification. The arbitration-specific caselaw militates against finding waiver here. The Defendant asserted its defense in its Answer. It filed its Response before engaging in extensive discovery and without filing merits-focused motions. The Named Plaintiff first filed suit in January 2025, bringing claims under the FLSA, the Florida Constitution, and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. She filed the First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") in February 2025. Five days later, on May 20, 2025, the Named Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint, which removed the Florida Minimum Wage Act claim. The Defendant "owns and operates" Scarlett's Cabaret, an "adult entertainment club." A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZU4zVG at no extra charge.[CC] KENT MARTIN: Burch Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIJAH BURCH, et al. v. KENT MARTIN, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01068-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara Darrow entered an order as follows: 1) The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file reply is granted. The Clerk is directed to docket the reply brief attached to the Plaintiffs' motion. 2) The Defendants' request in their response for leave to file a sur-reply is granted. The Clerk is directed to docket the sur-reply attached to the Defendants' response. 3) The Plaintiffs' motion to enforce Local Rules is denied. 4) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. Defendants' decision to respond to Plaintiffs' motion despite their lack of opposition does not support a finding that they acted improperly as nothing in the federal or local rules requires a party to abstain from filing a response when they do not object to an opposing party's motion, even if silence would achieve the same end. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the Coles County Sheriff (Defendant Martin), County of Coles, and approximately 15 individual correctional officers alleging that the jail's practice of housing detainees in "medical observation cells" violated their constitutional rights. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ctM6IG at no extra charge.[CC] KITCHEN RESOURCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kitchen Resource Direct LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03055 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.cabinets.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the website on March 2, 2026 with the intention to purchase replacement cabinet doors for her kitchen. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Kitchen Resource Direct'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. Kitchen Resource Direct LLC operates the website that offers a range of cabinetry for kitchens, bathrooms, and closet storage systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com KROGER CO: Overcharges Third-Party Payors, Central Midwest Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CENTRAL MIDWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00340-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its deceptive pricing scheme to overcharge third-party payors (TPPs). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant The Kroger Co. engaged in a fraudulent, unfair, and deceptive pricing scheme to overcharge TPPs, like Central Midwest, on purchases of prescription medications sold to its beneficiaries and others throughout the United States. Specifically, Kroger inflated the prices at which it sold prescription drugs by falsely reporting its "usual and customary" ("U&C") prices at amounts that were higher than what it sold those same medications through Kroger's Health Savings Club, formally known as the Rx Savings Club (collectively "RxSC"). About 90% of all United States citizens are now enrolled in private or public health insurance plans that cover at least a portion of the costs of medical and prescription drug benefits. A feature of most of these health insurance plans is the shared cost of prescription drugs. Typically, when a consumer fills a prescription for a medically necessary prescription drug under his or her health insurance plan, the TPP pays a portion of the cost, and the consumer pays the remaining portion of the cost directly to the pharmacy in the form of a copayment or coinsurance or deductible payment. A pharmacy cannot charge to a consumer or report to a TPP a higher price for prescription drugs than the pharmacy's U&C price. The U&C price is referred to by Kroger and known throughout the pharmacy industry as the lowest price that the pharmacy charges the cash-paying public. Indeed, Kroger's practices violate federal and state regulations, including the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, which defines the "usual and customary price" as "the price that an out-of-network pharmacy or a physician's office charges a customer who does not have any form of prescription drug coverage for a covered Part D drug. According to the complaint, Kroger deceived Plaintiff and Class members by reporting U&C prices above the RxSC prices (which are, by definition, prices offered to cash-paying customers) and then charging Plaintiff and Class members inflated amounts. Kroger's actions caused Plaintiff to pay tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars more than it otherwise would have had Kroger properly included its RxSC prices in determining the U&C prices and in calculating the amounts Plaintiff was required to pay. Because the U&C price is the price that is offered to those without insurance, TPPs like Plaintiff should not pay more than the U&C price. However, Kroger failed to include its RxSC prices when reporting its U&C prices, thereby causing Plaintiff and other TPPs to pay more than Kroger's RxSC prices for brand and generic prescription drugs--resulting in direct financial harm to Plaintiff and other similarly situated TPPs. Central Midwest brings this action on behalf of itself and a class of TPPs who paid or reimbursed more for prescription drugs from Defendant than they would have absent Defendant's misconduct. Plaintiff Central Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund provides benefits for its Participants and Beneficiaries ("Beneficiaries" or "Insureds") of the Central Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters Union ("Union"), which is a collective of skilled tradespeople of over 37,000 professionals across 33 local unions located in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and parts of Tennessee. Defendant The Kroger Co. owns and operates over 2,300 pharmacies at supermarkets with various brand names, including but not limited to, Kroger, Ralphs, and Smith's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq. 12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12 Cleveland Heights, OH 44106 Telephone: (216) 229-6088 Facsimile: (216) 229-6092 E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Michelle E. Conston, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: 212-223-4478 Facsimile: 212-223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com mconston@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S. Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: 860-531-2632 Facsimile: 860-537-4432 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Jacqueline A. Kelly, Esq. Lyndsey K. Bates, Esq. ASHERKELLY, PLLC 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: 248-746-2748 E-mail: jkelly@asherkellylaw.com lbates@asherkellylaw.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd., Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: 917-656-0569 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com LAMB WESTON: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gilbert Due Dec. 8 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK GILBERT, COLE NYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAMB WESTON INC., an Idaho Corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-05040-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Mary Dimke entered second jury trial scheduling order as follows: The class certification hearing set for Aug. 17, 2026, is stricken and reset for Feb. 17, 2027, at 1:00 p.m. in Richland Courtroom 189. The jury trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. in Richland Courtroom 189 on a date to be set. Motion for Class Certification -- Deadline: Dec. 8, 2026 -- Response: Jan. 19, 2027 -- Reply: Feb. 8, 2027 The Defendant is a producer of frozen potato products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HxyFjo at no extra charge.[CC] LEAFGUARD HOLDINGS: Laplante Sues Over Unlawful Spam e-mails ------------------------------------------------------------ BRADY LAPLANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEAFGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-3078 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for sending misleading spam e-mail to promote gutter services. The complaint relates that LeafGuard deliberately outsources its membership solicitation to third-party affiliate marketers to reap the benefits of large-scale unlawful spamming. LeafGuard financially incentivizes these affiliates -- paying them on a per-lead or per-conversion basis [ to flood inboxes with deceptive "discounts" on LeafGuard products, knowing that aggressive, non-consensual email campaigns generate sign-ups. These affiliates are not rogue actors; they are integral to LeafGuard's customer-acquisition strategy and are compensated precisely because spam works, notes the complaint. By structuring its marketing this way, LeafGuard attempts to enjoy the profits of illegal email campaigns while plausibly denying responsibility for the very misconduct it knowingly authorizes, directs, and benefits from -- conduct squarely prohibited by California Business & Professions Code, it adda. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is the owner of the e-mail address bradyl9@aol.com. LeafGuard spams him and other class members relentlessly. In February of 2026, he received a spam e-mail from the nonsensical address freepeople@service.liveathomenow.com bearing the subject line "Claim 75% Off Your Install Today." The spam was sent from, a "spoofed" e-mail address to conceal the identity of the true sender and evade spam filters. The subject line -- "Claim 75% Off Your Install Today" -- is misleading because it falsely conveys the existence of a limited-time, substantial discount when, in reality, the purported "75% off" is part of the company's standard, ongoing marketing rather than a genuine, temporary price reduction. Although a plaintiff need not plead or prove actual damages to bring a claim under the statute, Plaintiff has in fact suffered concrete, particularized harm as a result of Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff spent valuable time and attention investigating the misleading offer; searching the WHOIS database to learn who the e-mail came from; incurred opportunity costs and lost productivity; and suffered depletion of device and network resources, including storage space, bandwidth usage on a metered data plan, and battery life, says the suit. Plaintiff Brady Laplante is a citizen of the State of California who received a misleading spam e-mail promoting LeafGuard's gutter services. Defendant LeafGuard Holdings Inc. is a corporation headquartered in New Jersey and incorporated in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: April 29 Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Cancelled ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Covington v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Case No. 3:25-cv-01099 (M.D. La., Filed Dec. 9, 2025), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick entered a limited scheduling order: The Evidentiary Hearing regarding class certification set for April 29, 2026, is canceled. In accordance with FRCP 16(b), the following discovery deadlines are established. Amended Pleadings due by April 3, 2026. F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) disclosures due by April 20, 2026. Discovery due by Dec. 3, 2026. Disclosure of identities and resums of experts. Experts relevant to class certification are governed by this order. Plaintiff`s Expert Witness List due by Dec. 12, 2026. The Defendant`s Expert Witness List due by Dec. 11, 2026. The Plaintiff`s Expert Reports due by Dec. 11, 2027. The Defendant`s Expert Reports due by Feb. 11, 2027. Discovery from class certification experts due by May 12, 2027. Filing a motion for class certification shall be filed by Feb. 19, 2027. The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance. Liberty offers a wide range of insurance products and services.[CC] LINCOLN BENEFIT: Atkinson Sues Over Unlawful COI Rate Overcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIEL ATKINSON, in his capacity as trustee of the Kathleen M Atkinson Irrevocable Trust, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-03097 (D. Neb., March 19, 2026) is a class action seeking to represent a class of LBL policyholders who have been subjected to unlawful cost of insurance ("COI") rate overcharges. The policies at issue in this case are flexible premium adjustable life insurance policies--also known as "universal life"--issued, insured, or assumed by LBL or its predecessor(s) in interest that were subjected to an "adverse change" in COI rates announced in or after 2024 (collectively, the "Policies"). A main benefit of universal life policies generally, and the Policies specifically, is that, unlike other kinds of whole life insurance that require fixed monthly premium payments, the premium payments required for universal life policies are flexible and need only be sufficient to cover the cost of insurance charges and certain other specified expenses, which are typically levied each month. The Policies issued to Plaintiff and other class members provide that "[t]he cost of insurance rate is based on the insured's sex, issue age, policy year, payment class and face amount. The rates will be determined by us, but they will never be more than the guaranteed rates[.]" Sex, age, duration, payment class (also known as "underwriting class"), and face amount are all well-known mortality factors. The Policies are binding and enforceable contracts. The Plaintiff and other class members have paid premiums to LBL and have otherwise performed all their obligations under the Policies. The complaint alleges that the COI rate increase has materially breached the Policies in several respects, including because the stated reasons for the increase breach the plain terms of the Policies; the stated reasons for the increase are factually incorrect; and LBL failed to base COI rates on the enumerated mortality factors. In the event that any breach alleged herein is not explicitly covered by the terms of the contract, LBL has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by the conduct, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff has performed all obligations under the policies, except to the extent that the obligations have been excused by LBL's conduct. As a direct and proximate cause of LBL's material breaches of the policies, Plaintiff and class members have been--and will continue to be--damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. These damages include not only COI overcharges resulting from the COI rate increase itself, but also from LBL's failure to decrease COI rates in response to improved mortality expectations, says the suit. Plaintiff Niel Atkinson is a resident and citizen of the state of Minnesota. Mr. Atkinson is the trustee of the Kathleen M Atkinson Irrevocable Trust, which is the owner of Policy No. 01N1177442, which was subject to LBL's unlawful COI increase. Defendant Lincoln Benefit Life Company ("LBL") is a life insurance company organized and domiciled under the laws of the State of Nebraska, with its principal place of business in Lincoln, Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenten P. Bausch, Esq. Andre R. Barry, Esq. Stavros P. Piperis, Esq. CLINE WILLIAMS WRIGHT JOHNSON & OLDFATHER, L.L.P. Sterling Ridge | 12910 Pierce St., Suite 200 Omaha, NE 68144 Telephone: (402) 397-1700 Facsimile: (402) 397-1806 E-mail: tbausch@clinewilliams.com abarry@clinewilliams.com spiperis@clinewilliams.com - and - Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zachary Savage, Esq. Jacob Levin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com jlevin@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn Bridgman, Esq. Halley Josephs, Esq. Michael Adamson, Esq. Kim Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com madamson@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com LINKSQUARES INC: Reconsideration of Class Decertification Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN CAICEDO, and DANIELLE RICH on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, v. LINKSQUARES INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12642-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for reconsideration of class decertification. The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should reconsider its March 10 Order decertifying the Rule 23 Cass and reinstate its initial February 10 class certification Order. LinkSquares provides artificial intelligence solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TC0Vwe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mikael Rojas, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Emma R. Janger, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1200B Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: mrojas@outtengolden.com mstewart@outtengolden.com ejanger@outtengolden.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com LITTLE LOTUS: Liu Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEN LIN LIU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LITTLE LOTUS LLC d/b/a Little Lotus; ALLIANCE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a Red Lotus; LAWRENCE Y. WANG a/k/a Larry Wang; and BILIAN CHEN a/k/a Bi Lian Chen a/k/a Nia Chen, Case No. 3:25-cv-00990-SRU (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), (2) Directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of: "ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from June 21, 2022 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; and (3) Authorizing that notice be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records. Little Lotus is an Asian fusion trendy restaurant at City Point New Haven Connecticut. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7F9SNg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd. No. 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 LORETTO REST: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz v. Loretto Rest Realty Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-00613 (N.D.N.Y., Filed: May 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order directing the parties to continue to confer and attempt to resolve the class discovery issues as discussed at the March 16, 2026, hearing. The parties are directed to file Status Reports by March 30, 2026. The Hearing is continued to April 2, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., via Teams teleconference. The deadline for filing class certification motion continues to be stayed. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Must File Class Cert Supplemental Brief by April 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krizia Berg et al v. County of Los Angeles et alKRIZIA BERG, et al., v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gee entered an order approving the Parties' Stipulation to Continue Supplemental Briefing Dates following the December 12, 2025, Renewed Class Certification Motion hearing: Class Certification: Defendants' April 8, 2026 Supplemental Brief: Class Certification: Plaintiffs' April 30, 2026 Optional Reply Brief: A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CSQEQY at no extra charge.[CC] LUTHERAN FAMILY: Underpays Family Care Providers, Washington Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JO-ANN WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUTHERAN FAMILY SERVICES OF VIRGINIA, INC. D/B/A ENCIRCLE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00734 (E.D. Va., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendant misclassified Named Plaintiff and Class Members as non-employee contractors. The Defendant willfully violated their overtime compensation rights by failing to pay them time-and-one-half overtime premium wages for all compensable overtime Defendant suffered or permitted exceeding 40 hours per week. The Defendant also failed to pay VOWA-required wages at hourly rates at least equal to the Virginia Minimum Wage for all compensable hours Defendant suffered or permitted per week, notes the complaint. Furthermore, Named Plaintiff and members of the breach of contract Class were denied fair, reasonable, and equitably owed monetary consideration arising from Defendant's unjust enrichment and taking of family care provider cost "kick-backs," says the suit. During the period of approximately 2019, until about February 1, 2026, the Defendant employed Named Plaintiff as a family care provider to perform or provide in-home companionship services duties for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities who are contracted with or through Defendant. Lutheran Family Services of Virginia, Inc. provides behavioral health care, family support, and children's services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com M.B.R. MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Rollf Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK ROLLF, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff V. M.B.R. MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00382 (E.D. Mo., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores. The Plaintiff and Class Members are Defendant's current and former delivery drivers. M.B.R. Management Corporation operates several pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com MDL 2724: IRPs Seek to File Reply Brief Under Seal -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' (IRPs) reply brief in further support of their motion for class certification, for appointment of Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs' steering committee, and for Substitution of class representative and accompanying exhibits. IRPs have conferred with counsel for Defendants who affirmed that this motion is unopposed. The proposed redactions and exhibits to seal consist of documents such as the expert reports of Michael A. Williams, Ph.D.; the Defendants' responses and objections to the Plaintiffs' requests for admissions and requests for production; and excerpts of deposition testimony from Michael A. Williams Ph.D.; Dr. John H. Johnson IV, Subramaniam Ramanarayanan; Eric M. Gaier, Ph.D.; and William Russell. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IDt4H1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Hudson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 222 Livingston Street, Unit 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com MEDICAL FACULTY: Rawles Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN RAWLES and ALLISON SWIFT, individually and on behalf of the Medical Faculty Associates 403(B) Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL FACULTY ASSOCIATES, INC. and John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00929 (D.D.C., March 17, 2026) seeks to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. As fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this complaint, the Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns, asserts the complaint. The Defendants also violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining higher-cost fund share classes which were identical to available lower cost share classes in all but costs (e.g. retaining American Century One Choice 2060 instead of the lower-cost American Century One Choice 2060 R6) as investment options for the Plan, thereby substantially diminishing Plan participants' retirement savings compared to what they would have accumulated had Defendants fulfilled their fiduciary obligations, says the suit. Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization offers medical and surgical hospital services such as audiology, cardiology, dermatology, internal medicine, pathology, radiology, weight loss treatment, and pain management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Abigail M. Cody, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: acody@milberg.com MEDSTAR HEALTH: Butcher Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ WANITA BUTCHER, TUWANNA BRANHAM-RICHARDSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, Inc.Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01194-CJC (D. Md., March 23, 2026 is a class action seeking to recover unpaid compensation and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, all applicable Maryland State wage and hour laws, and/or similar laws in other states where Defendant operates, on behalf of Plaintiffs and similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant, and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA. The complaint relates that at the beginning of their workdays, Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class clocked in as required and performed the principal activities of their jobs, but Defendant generally did not pay them for all of their time worked. Likewise, Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class regularly worked, stopped working, and clocked out at the end of their workdays, but Defendant generally did not pay them for all of their time worked. Instead, Defendant paid them based on post-edited, rounded, modified, and inaccurate and/or incomplete records which do not include all compensable work required by, performed for, and to the benefit of Defendant. Defendant willfully manipulated both the beginning and end of shift time records of Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class to reflect less time worked when Defendant submitted these employees' records to payroll, resulting in less time paid than time worked. Upon hiring or otherwise during their employment, Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class are told that they will be penalized if they clock in one minute late or clock out one minute early, whether or not they clocked-in early or work late. Defendant utilizes an attendance and/or disciplinary policy to ensure that Defendant's rounding system is substantially rigged in Defendant's favor. As a result, Plaintiffs Butcher and Branham-Richardson, and other members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class have not been able to benefit from Defendant's rounding system; instead, the rounding system has resulted in, over a period of time, the failure to pay Plaintiffs and other members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class for all hours worked, in violation of the FLSA, the provisions of Maryland Labor Law cited herein, and/or similar laws in effect in other states, says the suit. Plaintiffs Butcher and Branham-Richardson and other members of the FLSA Collective have been damaged by Defendant's willful refusal to pay at least the federal overtime wage for all overtime hours worked. As a result of Defendant's willful FLSA violations, Plaintiffs Butcher and Branham-Richardson and other members of the FLSA Collective are similarly situated in that each is entitled to damages, including, but not limited to, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Wanita Butcher and Tuwanna Branham-Richardson were employed by Defendant as Registered Nurses. They were hired to work for, and thereafter continued to work for, Defendant as hourly, nonexempt employees, and routinely worked at least 40 hours per week. Defendant MedStar Health, Inc. is an $8.3 billion not-for-profit, regional healthcare system based in Columbia, Maryland and holds itself out as one of the largest employers in the region with more than 35,000 associates.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Office: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esquire, Esq. Amy C. Winters, Esquire, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com awinters@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com META PLATFORMS: Misled Users on AI Glasses' Privacy, Boylett Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY BOYLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02409 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for privacy violations arising out of the unlawful use of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private audio and visual recordings on their Meta AI-enabled smart glasses. The complaint relates that the Meta AI Glasses are designed to capture audiovisual information from the user's surroundings and integrate that information into Meta's software ecosystem. The glasses incorporate outward-facing cameras capable of capturing photographs and video, a multi-microphone array for voice and ambient audio capture, open-ear speakers, and software integration with the Meta View (formerly Facebook View) application that enables users to import, edit, and share captured images, video, and audio. Defendants promoted user privacy as a core feature of the Glasses, and did so across multiple advertising channels, including representations on Meta's website. Although Defendants publicly emphasized privacy protections and user control, Defendants did not adequately disclose the full scope of how information captured by the Meta AI Glasses could be transmitted, analyzed, and reviewed through Meta's artificial-intelligence systems. As a result, Defendants' public statements and privacy representations created the misleading impression that users maintained meaningful control over how data captured by the Meta AI Glasses would be used, while failing to disclose the full extent to which such data could be transmitted to Meta's servers, reviewed by human personnel, and incorporated into Meta's AI development processes. The Defendants' representations regarding user privacy and data security were false and misleading, and Defendants failed to disclose to customers the truth about how their personal data would be collected, transmitted to, and reviewed by third parties, says the suit. Plaintiff Jeffrey Boylett is a citizen of Lake County, Indiana. Plaintiff Boylett began using the Ray Ban Meta AI Glasses in March 2023. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. designs, manufactures (in partnership with EssilorLuxottica S.A.), distributes, markets, and sells the Meta AI Glasses. Meta 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. Defendant Luxottica of America, Inc., in partnership with Meta, advertises, markets, and sells the Meta AI Glasses throughout the United States. Luxottica also participates in branding, product promotion, and consumer disclosures regarding the privacy and functionality of the Meta AI Glasses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 1390 Market Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Kathryn (Lee) Boyd, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (646) 502-9515 E-mail: lboyd@hechtpartners.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. David L. Hecht, Esq. Brittany L. Sackrin, Esq. Justin Alvarez-Herman, Esq. Tiffany Wong, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: dhecht@hechtpartners.com lfeldman@hechtpartners.com bsackrin@hechtpartners.com jalvarezherman@hechtpartners.com twong@hechtpartners.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042-2754 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com MILLENNIAL CAPITAL: Order Compelling Arbitration in Wyrick Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATHRYN WYRICK, Appellant, v. MILLENNIAL CAPITAL COMPANY, LLC and GREP SOUTHEAST, LLC, Appellees, Case No. 6D2025-0288 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Sixth District affirmed the trial court's order compelling arbitration. Wyrick lived in an apartment owned by Millennial and managed by GREP Southeast, LLC (Greystar). After she moved out at the end of her lease, she was charged a fee for not giving 60 days' notice before leaving. She then filed a lawsuit, aiming to bring a class action, claiming that Millennial and Greystar violated Florida law by trying to collect that fee. The Appellees argued that the case should go to arbitration, relying on two arbitration agreements that they were not signatories to. Wyrick was a party to both agreements. The trial court agreed and ordered arbitration, finding that valid arbitration agreements existed and that the agreements required an arbitrator, not the court, to decide questions about arbitrability. On appeal, Wyrick argued that the trial court made three mistakes: 1) it did not first decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allowed the dispute to be sent to arbitration; 2) it wrongly found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed; and 3) it improperly left it to the arbitrator to decide whether the Appellees, as non-signatories, could enforce the arbitration provisions. There's no dispute that the arbitration agreements include delegation clauses. The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellees, as non-signatories, can enforce those agreements and rely on the delegation provisions. The District Court of Appeal explained that when an arbitration agreement incorporates rules like those from Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, and those rules clearly give the arbitrator authority to decide issues of arbitrability, it shows a clear intent to let the arbitrator handle those questions. Here, Rule 11(b) explicitly gives the arbitrator power to decide disputes about the validity, scope, and formation of the arbitration agreement. Because of that, the court found that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability decisions to the arbitrator. The District Court of Appeal noted that while some courts have held that judges should decide whether a non-signatory can enforce an arbitration agreement, those cases didn't involve an agreement like the one here. In this case, the agreement clearly gives the arbitrator authority to decide who the proper parties to the arbitration are. Because of that language, the District Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly left the issue to the arbitrator, including whether the non-signatory appellees could enforce the agreement. It therefore affirmed the decision. A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2026 Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/fne1zyb. Joseph M. Sternberg -- joseph@landersandsternberg.com -- and M. Parker Landers, of Landers & Sternberg, PLLC, Orlando, and Robert W. Murphy -- rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com -- of Law Office of Robert W. Murphy, Charlottesville, Virginia, and Shelby Leighton, of Public Justice, Washington, D.C., Pro Hac Vice, and Hannah Kieschnick, of Public Justice, Oakland, California, Pro Hac Vice, for Appellant. Roberto M. Vargas -- rvargas@jonesfoster.com -- Scott G. Hawkins -- shawkins@jonesfoster.com -- and Stephen C. Richman -- srichman@jonesfoster.com -- of Jones Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee, Millennial Capital Company, LLC. Kristen M. Fiore -- kristen.fiore@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, and Howard Jay Harrington -- jay.harrington@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP, Jacksonville, and Jeffrey B. Pertnoy -- jeffrey.pertnoy@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP, Miami, for Appellee, GREP Southeast, LLC. MIZUNO USA: Bennett Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mizuno USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3174 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://usa.mizuno.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bennett’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Bennett browsed and intended to make an online purchase of softball equipment and men's sport clothing on the Website. Despite his efforts, however, Bennett was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The Website contains access barriers that denied him full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Bennett 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 the Website. Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Bennett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Mizuno USA, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase running shoes, training and cross-training shoes, baseball and softball gear, volleyball gear, golf equipment, performance apparel, and sports accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MONSANTO COMPANY: Davila Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Maddison Davila, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-303 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: Gabriel Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Gabriel, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-271 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: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- WALTER FIEBIGER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-290 MON (Del. Sup., March 13, 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: Manos Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Manos, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-255 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: Nackos Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Nackos, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-308 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: Nodland Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Nodland, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-302 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 MRO CORPORATION: Brooks Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- JILL BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRO CORPORATION and DEACONESS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01838-MRP (E.D. Pa., March 20, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI")that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Defendants had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. It has been reported that MRO's cloud-based file-sharing platform was accessed by an unauthorized actor on January 13, 2026, and that an unspecified number of files were exfiltrated from the platform. As a result of the Data Breach, an unauthorized third-party was able to access and copy files containing the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, dates of service, health insurance identification numbers, and medical records related to treatment received at DHS's facilities. As a result of Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Jill Brooks s a citizen and resident of Newburgh, Indiana. She was born in a DHS hospital and still is a patient of a DHS hospital to this day. Defendant MRO Corporation is a clinical data exchange service company, based in Pennsylvania, that manages and releases clinical data for hospitals and health systems, including to Defendant DHS. Defendant Deaconess Health System, Inc. is the premiere provider of health care services to a population of more than 1.5 million in southwestern Indiana, western Kentucky and southeastern Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - 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 - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com NATIONAL RURAL: March 6, 2026 Class Cert Order in Mullins Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MULLINS, and THOMAS SUNDERLIN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 401(k) Pension Plan, v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00994-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order as follows: -- granting the Defendants' Motion and Plaintiffs' Response; -- granting the Defendants' Emergency Motion to Vacate the Class Certification Order; and -- vacating Court's March 6, 2026 Order granting class certification. The Defendants ask this Court to vacate its March 6, 2026 Order granting class certification in light of the Fourth Circuit's decision in Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial, Inc., No. 24-1880, 2026 WL 667917, -- F.4th -- (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2026), and this Court's Order requesting supplemental briefing on the continued viability of class certification. National Rural is the trade association for electric cooperatives. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=afuROT at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL RURAL: Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Order in Mullins ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MULLINS and THOMAS SUNDERLIN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 401(k) Pension Plan, v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (NRECA) and the INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00994-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to vacate the class certification order: The interests of judicial efficiency favor allowing the Court to re-evaluate class certification in light of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Trauernicht pursuant to the supplemental briefing the Court has already ordered the parties to submit. That re-evaluation may obviate the need for Defendants to file a Rule 23(f) petition altogether. But without vacatur of the Class Certification Order, Defendants will be required to pursue an appeal immediately—and that appeal, if accepted, would divest this Court of jurisdiction to take further action with respect to class certification. On March 6, 2026, the Court entered the Class Certification Order, certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(1). On March 10, 2026, the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s order granting class certification in another ERISA class action, agreeing with arguments that Defendants had argued in this case and this Court had rejected. NRECA is the national trade association that represents America's nearly 900 local electric cooperatives. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEnWWV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christina L. Hennecken, Esq. Kelsey B. Pelagalli, Esq. James O. Fleckner, Esq. David Rosenberg, Esq. Andrew DiMaiti, Esq. Nehama Hanoch, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 E-mail: chennecken@goodwinlaw.com kpelagalli@goodwinlaw.com jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com drosenberg@goodwinlaw.com ddimaiti@goodwinlaw.com nhanoch@goodwinlaw.com NAVIA BENEFIT: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Bowen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMIE BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00944 (W.D. Wash., March 19, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving services from Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their private information to Defendant. 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 January 23, 2026, Defendant discovered suspicious activity related to its IT Network. Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed and potentially acquired certain information between December 22, 2025, and January 15, 2026. The following types of Private Information were potentially compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, date of birth, Social Security number, phone number, email address, and health plan information for impacted individuals. 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to affected individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, of the Breach and the types of information unlawfully accessed. The Plaintiff 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 asserts claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and violations of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Jamie Bowen is a citizen and resident of Boise, Idaho. Defendant Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. is a Washington-based third-party administrator of employee benefits. Defendant provides administration for programs such as Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSA), Dependent Care Assistance Programs (DCAP), commuter benefits, and other employee benefit services. Defendant is headquartered in Renton, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 E-mail: alemmon@brysonpllc.com sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com NORDSTROM INC: Cheng Files Suit Over Deceptive Price Reductions --------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNA CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02431 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the "existence of" and the "amounts of price reductions" for its products which were not previously offered for sale and/or sold at the higher "Comparable Value" reference prices for any reasonably substantial period of time. The complaint relates that Nordstrom Rack has built a marketing machine around a fiction that its prices represent enormous savings off some higher "Comparable Value." In reality, these so-called Comparable Values are not prices at which identical items or items of like grade and quality were ever offered for sale or sold in the regular course of business in the preceding 90 days. They are inflated benchmarks conjured to create the illusion of a bargain that does not exist, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Joanna Cheng purchased an AME Kids' Flutter Sleeve Nightgown from Nordstrom Rack's website at NordstromRack.com, in reliance on Defendant's deceptive reference pricing, paid a price Plaintiff would not otherwise have paid, and was thereby damaged, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of California consumers who were similarly misled, seeking restitution, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff Joanna Cheng is an individual residing in San Mateo County, California. Defendant Nordstrom, Inc. owns and operates Nordstrom Rack, a chain of stores and an online retail platform located at NordstromRack.com. It is registered to do business in California and operates numerous Nordstrom Rack retail locations within this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 343-0300 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com - and - Kevin J. Cole, Esq. William Blair Castle, Esq. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B., by and through his Next Friend LINDA WINDLEY, D.P. by and through his Next Friend STACEY BLEVINS, B.W. by and through his Next Friend JEANNA WALTERS, and J.J. by and through his legal guardian DENISE VICK, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, and DISABILITY RIGHTS NORTH CAROLINA, v. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AND HUMAN SERVICES and DEVDUTTA SANGVAI, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:24-cv-00335-WO-JGM (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The proposed class is defined as follows: "All individuals with serious mental health and other cognitive disabilities charged with crimes who are or will be detained in North Carolina jails to await capacity evaluations or restoration services that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services ("NCDHHS") is statutorily required to provide." The Plaintiffs also request that this Court appoint the undersigned as class counsel and the Proposed Class Representatives as class representatives The Plaintiffs seek an order certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because each of the requirements are met for class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), and the proposed class counsel meet all of the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (g). The Defendant is A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iT7gw4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele Delgado, Esq. Kristi L. Graunke, Esq. Ivy A. Johnson, Esq. ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Telephone: (919) 256-5891 E-mail: mdelgado@acluofnc.org kgraunke@acluofnc.org ijohnson@acluofnc.org - and - Susan H. Pollitt, Esq. Lisa Grafstein, Esq. Luke Woollard, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NC 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 118 Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone: (919) 856-2195 Facsimile: (919) 856-2244 E-mail: susan.pollitt@disabilityrightsnc.org lisa.grafstein@disabilityrightsnc.org luke.woollard@disabilityrightsnc.org - and - John A. Freedman, Esq. Michael L. Walden, Esq. Colleen Couture, Esq. Anora Wang, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5316 E-mail: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com mike.walden@arnoldporter.com colleen.couture@arnoldporter.com anora.wang@arnoldporter.com NORTHRUP GRUMMAN: Behar Bid for Leave to File TAC Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jed Behar et al. v. Northrup Grumman Corporation et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03946-HDV-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to add an additional Northrop Grumman entity -- Northrup Grumman Guidance and Electronics Company -- as a defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiffs were less than diligent in seeking an amendment to the Scheduling Order and moving for leave to add Guidance as an additional defendant on the eve of trial. The Plaintiffs have had access to the underlying information identifying Guidance as the successor in interest to Litton Systems, Inc. since at least September 2022. The case, originally filed on May 10, 2021, concerns an alleged toxic groundwater plume that sits below over 3,000 homes in Canoga Park, California. The Plaintiffs, the class of homeowners above the plume, maintain that Defendants Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrup Grumman Systems Corporation are responsible for the release of the contaminants into the groundwater. The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, trespass, and private nuisance. Trial is set for March 24, 2026. Northrop is an American aerospace and defense company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4VaZuF at no extra charge.[CC] NOTT COMPANY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Mannel Says -------------------------------------------------------- FAWN MANNEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOTT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-439 (E.D. Wis., March 18, 2026) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) failing to compensate said employees for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and work performed off-the-clock with Defendant's knowledge; and (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of production planner working primarily in the State of Wisconsin in approximately the year 2022. Nott Company provides industrial equipments. The Company offers fluid power systems, industrial products, and rubber fabrications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com NTT DATA: Court Extends Briefing Deadlines in Robinson ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIA ROBINSON and ALEXIS KELLER LAMONDE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NTT DATA SERVICES, LLC and TRANSACTION APPLICATIONS GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01076-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension of briefing deadlines on the Plaintiffs' motion for Court-authorized notice. The Defendants shall file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for Court-authorized notice on or before April 20, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for Court-authorized notice on or before May 4, 2026. NTT Data provides IT services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d8xQp1 at no extra charge.[CC] OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadlines Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY RAINS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00638-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Parties' stipulated request to continue class certification deadlines. In short, because the parties fail to demonstrate that good cause exists to grant the requested extension given their inability to demonstrate they have diligently litigated the case, the Court is unable to find that an extension of case management dates is warranted. Accordingly, the parties' joint stipulated request to further amend the class certification scheduling order is denied. The mid-discovery status conference set for March 20, 2026, is vacated. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action with the filing of a complaint on April 25, 2025, in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-25-101509. The Defendant removed the case to this Court on May 28, 2025. The Defendant collects, tests and supplies human blood plasma for manufacture into life-saving therapies. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hER5Gs at no extra charge.[CC] ONEONCOLOGY LLC: Boyd Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- KHAWANDA BOYD, Individually and on behalf of the OneOncology, LLC OneRewards Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. ONEONCOLOGY, LLC; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00326 (M.D. Tenn., March 19, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, and in particular Defendants' inclusion of the American Century One Choice target date fund series, Plaintiff was subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses. As fiduciaries to the Plan, the Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Defendants, however, violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to obtain the relief provided under ERISA for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA. Plaintiff Khawanda Boyd was Plaintiff's former employee and a participant in the Plan. Defendants OneOncology, LLC is the named fiduciary and sponsor of the Plan; a party in interest; and a Plan fiduciary under ERISA, to the extent that it appointed members of the Committee and co-fiduciaries and otherwise exercised discretion over the administration and management of the Plan and/or control of Plan assets. John and Jane Does 1-30 are the fictitiously named Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Rodriguez's Bid for Status of Case Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Osborn Correctional Institution, Case No. 3:24-cv-01921 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order granting Rodriguez's Motion for Status of Case. Rodriguez is advised that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If the class certification motion is granted, Rodriguez may qualify as a member of the class. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --Prison Condition. Osborn Correctional is a medium-security state prison that includes a high-security mental health unit for men of the Connecticut Department of Correction located in Somers, Connecticut.[CC] OSBORNE CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyd v. Osborne Correctional, Case No. 3:24-cv-00910 (D. Conn., Filed May 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without prejudice Boyd's motion to appoint counsel. The court is aware that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If a motion for class certification is not filed or is denied, Boyd may file a second motion to appoint counsel at that time. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] OSI SYSTEMS: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Chavez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSI SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03080 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its employees, including names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Specifically, an unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's systems on December 23, 2025. However, Defendant did not discover the Data Breach until December 25, 2025. Thus, for at least two days, cybercriminals had unfettered access to Defendant's network and the files stored therein. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems, thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII, the complaint states. Moreover, the Defendant waited more than two months before informing Class Members of the Breach even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members, therefore, seek injunctive or other equitable relief to ensure Defendant hereinafter adequately safeguards PII by implementing reasonable security procedures and practices. Plaintiff Jesse Chavez is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. Defendant OSI Systems, Inc. is a developer, manufacturer, and supplier of specialized electronic systems and components for homeland security, healthcare, defense, and aerospace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com PENNEY OPCO: Lopez Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNEY OPCO LLC; JCPENNEY and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV04531, 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 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03116 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action for: (1) "Failure to Pay Minimum Wages"; (2) "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; (3) "Failure to Provide Meal Periods"; (4) "Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods"; (5) "Failure to Produce Records"; (6) "Failure to Indemnify"; (7) "Wage Statement Violations"; (8) "Waiting Time Penalties"; and (9) "Unfair Business Practices". Penney OpCo LLC is the operating company for JCPenney and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. JCPenney is a major American department store chain founded in 1902. DOES 1 to 100 are the fictitiously named Defendants.[BN] Defendant Penney OpCo LLC is represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, 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 PHH MORTGAGE: Mattia Sues Over Predatory Mortgage Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- LISA MATTIA, as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LILLIAN O'KEEFE, and individually, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES and d/b/a LIBERTY REVERSE MORTGAGE, and ONITY GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01584 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendants' fraudulent and predatory mortgage practices in connection with their origination and servicing of reverse mortgages in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the New York General Business Law, the New York Real Property Law, and other state consumer protection and debt collection laws. According to the complaint, PHH has a long and problematic history of employing aggressive, deceptive, and illegal tactics to maximize profits at the expense of the most vulnerable borrowers, including the elderly and disabled. At a time when Lillian O'Keefe was suffering with several health issues, Ms. O'Keefe, an otherwise financially-stable homeowner, was induced by Defendants' deceptive marketing to take out a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) on the home she owned for over 20 years. However, the Defendants omitted and/or misrepresented details concerning interest, fees, repayment and depletion of equity to Ms. O'Keefe, notes the complaint. Ms. O'Keefe died on June 18, 2024. Upon discovering her aunt's reverse mortgage, Plaintiff Mattia, Ms. O'Keefe's niece and court-appointed executor, promptly notified Defendants that Ms. O'Keefe had passed away and that the loan would be repaid in full upon the sale of Ms. O'Keefe's house, which was already underway. Thereafter, the Defendants engaged in a course of unconscionable, misleading, and deceptive conduct, rendering the loss of Plaintiff's loved one exponentially more difficult and costly. First, despite Plaintiff's many requests, including through her attorney, the Defendants never gave Plaintiff any of the mortgage documents or payment history she requested. Second, while on notice that the property was being prepared and marketed for third-party sale and then sold, the Defendants told Plaintiff they had initiated foreclosure proceedings, which was completely false and in violation of federal and state laws. Third, under the guise of "securing the property," the Defendants hired an unsupervised, unvetted third party vendor, who forced open the locked entry door to the house, illegally entered, and destroyed personal, sentimental items. Finally, the Defendants delayed, obstructed, and ignored Plaintiff's multiple requests for a revised payoff statement, often leaving her on hold for inordinate amounts of time, pawning her off to outside counsel, and then bypassing her attorney to provide a response that failed to address any of the questions she raised. The Plaintiff was forced to postpone the closing date and then pay a disputed balance to avoid further expense to the Estate, alleges the suit. PHH Mortgage Corporation is one of the largest servicers of residential loans in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Pastore, III, Esq. Leanne M. Shofi, Esq. PASTORE LLC 4 High Ridge Park Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 658-8454 Facsimile: (203) 717-5550 E-mail: jpastore@pastore.net lshofi@pastore.net - and - Brandon Lacoff, Esq. Michele S. Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 629-4900 E-mail: blacoff@grwlegal.com mcarino@grwlegal.com PORSCHE CARS: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Briefing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blake Stanley v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05916-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to amend the class certification briefing schedule. The dates in the case's Scheduling Order remain as listed. The Defendant does not adequately explain how it has been diligent or why it cannot meet the current schedule for class certification briefing. For that reason, the Court cannot grant the Defendant's motion. This is a lemon law case arising out of the Plaintiff's purchase of a 2016 Porsche Macan S. On Nov. 7, 2025, the parties submitted their Joint Rule 26(f) Report. On Feb. 18, 2026, the Defendant filed the instant motion. The Defendant asks the Court to modify the Scheduling Order to include the following class certification briefing schedule: Event Proposed Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiff to file class May 20, 2026 certification motion and disclosure of supporting experts: Deadline for the Defendant to file July 22, 2026 opposition to class certification motion, disclosure of opposition experts, and Rule 702 motions related to the Plaintiff's class certification experts: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Sept. 23, 2026 reply in support of class certification motion, oppositions to the Defendant's Rule 702 motions, and the Plaintiff's Rule 702 motions: Deadline for the Defendant to file Oct. 28, 2026 replies in support of Rule 702 motions and to file oppositions to the Plaintiff's Rule 702 motions: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Nov. 25, 2026 replies in support of Rule 702 motions: Porsche Cars is the exclusive U.S. importer of Porsche vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gGgD1T at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Extension of Class Cert Filing Deadline Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BARTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to amend the Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings, to extend the Class Certification filing deadline by 14 days, and to set a briefing schedule for the Defendant's Opposition and Plaintiff's reply to the motion for class certification. Specifically, the Parties jointly request that the Court: (i) extend the Class Certification filing deadline by 14 days, from April 29, 2026, to May 13, 2026; (ii) set the deadline for the Defendant to file its Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification for June 12, 2026; and (iii) set the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her Reply to Class Certification for July 3, 2026. On March 4, 2026, Defendant designated two corporate representatives, Maite Iraolagoitia and Chelsey Harshman, who will be made available in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ms. Harshman is only available on April 20 or April 21. Based on the Plaintiff's request that the witnesses be made available on consecutive dates, Defendant offered them for deposition on April 20 and April 21. Because these dates fall approximately one week before the deadline for Plaintiff to file her Motion for Class Certification, in order to allow adequate time for Plaintiff to obtain the deposition transcripts and incorporate any pertinent testimony in her Motion, the Parties agreed to a two-week extension of the Class Certification deadline, until May 13, 2026. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BQVuCS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste. 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com - and - Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. Andrew Soukup, Esq. David N. Sneed, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 E-mail: mrodgers@cov.com asoukup@cov.com dsneed@cov.com PUEBLO INC: Silva Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZENAIDA PADUA SILVA on behalf of her son J. L. C. P.; WILFREDO TORRES MASS; URIEL SEPÚLVEDA; WALBERTO HERNANDEZ REYES; HÉCTOR F. MELÉNDEZ BERMÚDEZ; JULITZA MARTÍNEZ individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PUEBLO INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01064-MAJ-MBA (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class action with the Architectural Barriers Class and Web Accessibility Class: (1) an Architectural Barriers Class comprising individuals with mobility disabilities; and (2) a Web Accessibility Class comprising individuals with visual disabilities. 2. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. Appointng Velez Law Group LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Because the claims involve uniform policies affecting class members in the same manner, and a single injunction would benefit the entire class, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. Pueblo is engaged in the retail sale of a range of canned foods and dry goods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8K36w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jose Carlos Velez Colon, Esq. VELEZ LAW GROUP LLC 1449 S Michigan Ave, STE 13234 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (787) 422-1881 E-mail: vlg@velezlawgroup.com RANLIFE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Johnson Extended to April 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. RANLIFE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00441-AMA-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Bennett entered an order that the deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to April 17, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kMPaBg at no extra charge.[CC] REGAL CINEMAS: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ARIEL DIAZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., a Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV38428, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03107 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges 10 total causes of action, nine of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Regal Cinemas, Inc. is a major American movie theater chain headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alyssa C. Malinoski, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-315 E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com alyssa.malinoski@ogletree.com ROBERT BOSCH: Berg Files Suit Over HVAC Price-Fixing Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSSA BERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC, TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, THERMALNETICS, LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., HEAT TRANSFER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC, AAON, INC., a Nevada Corporation, AAON, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-10949-SKD-APP (E.D. Mich., March 20, 2026) is a class action seeking (i) to recover treble damages and the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against Defendants for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and members of the Classes by virtue of Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act, and (ii) to enjoin further violations. The complaint relates that Defendants are the leading manufacturers of HVAC Equipment in the United States: Trane, Carrier, Daikin, Bosch, Lennox, Rheem, and AAON. These seven Defendants control over 90% of the market for HVAC Equipment in the United States. The Plaintiff and members of the Classes are individuals and entities who purchased HVAC Equipment as the end-purchaser in the distribution chain. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of various state classes consisting of all persons and entities who purchased HVAC Equipment indirectly from a Defendant for end use in the United States during the Class Period. Plaintiff Ms. Berg alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of HVAC Equipment in the United States. Defendants' anticompetitive actions widened the spread between the price that they pay to manufacture HVAC Equipment and the price at which they sold HVAC Equipment. Ms. Berg suffered injury as a result of Defendants' conduct, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Alyssa Berg is a resident of Minnesota. Ms. Berg purchased HVAC Equipment produced by one or more of the Defendants in Minnesota through an HVAC installer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Breanna Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: breannav@hbsslaw.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Olivia T. Levinson, Esq. Madison J. Gaffney, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com otlevinson@locklaw.com mjgaffney@locklaw.com - and - Kyle Pozan, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 North Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 470-4333 E-mail: kjpozan@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowu@locklaw.com - and - Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 456-7701 E-mail: sjteti@locklaw.com SAFEMOON LLC: Seeks Coordination Hearing for Parallel Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK COMBS ET AL., v. SAFEMOON LLC ET AL, Case No. 2:22-cv-00642-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for hearing regarding coordination of parallel cases. Accordingly, Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement currently pending in this case should be denied on the merits. But in the event the Court is considering granting preliminary approval, Karony asks that it first set a hearing to discuss potential coordination of this case with three other cases currently proceeding in parallel. These four cases are based on the same or similar facts, they involve the same or similar legal theories, and they involve the same attempts at recovery for the same alleged victims. To the extent these alleged victims are entitled to recovery, there should be one recovery process -- not four. As such, if the Court is considering preliminarily ap proving settlement, it should first grant this Motion and hold a coordination hearing. The Court is currently faced with a proposal to pay Lead Plaintiffs, their attorneys, and an as-of-yet unidentified class with claims of an unidenti fied amount $12 million (or more). This would mean Karony and Safemoon have $12 million less to pay actual victims in other proceedings. The Defendant was a cryptocurrency and blockchain company based in Pleasant Grove, Utah. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JQZHFu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Trevor J. Lee, Esq. HOGGAN LEE HUTCHINSON 257 E 200 S, Suite 1050 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 E-mail: trevor@hlh.law - and - Alan Bradshaw, Esq. Chad Derum, Esq. MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR 201 S. Main St., Suite 750 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 E-mail: abradshaw@mc2b.com cderum@mc2b.com SCOTT SEMPLE: Court Junks Perry's Bid for Consolidation ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perry v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01211 (D. Conn., Filed July 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying Perry's Motion for Consolidation. Perry is advised that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If the class certification motion is granted, Perry may qualify as a member of the class. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Tomling's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tomling v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01011 (D. Conn., Filed April 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order that Tomling's Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice. The court is aware that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If a motion for class certification is not filed or is denied, Tomling may file a second motion to appoint counsel at that time. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] SENTARA HOSPITALS: Parties' Ongoing Mediation Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE WARD, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. SENTARA HOSPITALS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00203-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Hanes entered an order denying the parties' ongoing mediation efforts and the length of time that has passed since Plaintiff filed her Motion. The parties have made a joint request to continue to stay all proceedings and deadlines in this case until May 17, 2026, including a request to stay any ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification that was filed on July 8, 2025. The parties also acknowledge that Defendant's agreement to equitably toll of the statute of limitations for the putative collective members’ FLSA claims from the date that Plaintiff filed her Motion would stay in effect during the stay. The Court previously stayed all proceedings and deadlines until March 10, 2026. The parties have recently informed the Court that they are continuing settlement negotiations, and they have rescheduled a second mediation in this matter for May 12, 2026. Sentara is an integrated healthcare system. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eDaguh at no extra charge.[CC] SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Standing Order Entered in QPI Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Q Productions, Inc., et al, v. Shein Distribution Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02588-JFW-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to the Local Rules. Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions: Motions shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. This Court hears motions on Mondays commencing at 1:30 p.m. Shein is a global online fashion and lifestyle retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XKI70q at no extra charge.[CC] SIX FLAGS: I.L. Case Stayed Pending Completion of Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.L. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. et al., C.T., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order on stipulated request to stay the action: 1. This action is stayed pending the parties' completion of Mediation. 2. The parties are directed to file a joint status report by May 26, 2026, informing the Court of the status of the mediation and setting forth their respective positions regarding further litigation of this action. 3. The deadline by which the parties shall file any objections to the pending findings and recommendations issued on Feb. 13, 2026, is reset to June 2, 2026. The Court does not find that the relatively short stay anticipated will cause any hardship. The parties stipulated to the request to stay and the case will not be delayed significantly given the parties' representation that they intend to complete mediation on April 20, 2026. The "orderly course of justice" favors granting the requested stay given the purpose of the stay -- to permit the parties time to pursue mediation -- aims to simplify the issues and conserve resources. Therefore, because the CMAX factors weigh toward granting of the stay, the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is appropriate in this case. Six Flags operates amusement parks, water parks, and resort properties. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2JIWI3 at no extra charge.[CC] SMG FOOD: June 11 Continuation of Class Cert Hearing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. The Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition is now March 30, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to the Defendant's opposition is now April 29, 2026. 3. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until June 11, 2026, and held remotely, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. on February 2, 2026, attorney Kroll’s elderly mother, who has physical and mental impairments, underwent surgery for a serious health condition. Her treating physician strongly recommended that she receives care in home and monitored by an immediate family member given her impairments. Since then, Atty. Kroll had been managing and overseeing her care until last week when his sibling was able to temporarily relieve him. SMG provides contracted food service, catering, and management for venues, nonprofits, and businesses. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4ZutB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com SMG FOOD: Reply to Class Cert. Opposition Extended to April 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered an order granting joint stipulation and order to extend class certification opposition and reply deadlines: The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's opposition is now April 29, 2026. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until June 11, 2026, and held remotely, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. On Feb. 13, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification based on the new briefing schedule. SMG provides contracted food service, catering, and management for venues, nonprofits, and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROBXrp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com SNAP INC: Bride's Bid for Default Judgment Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristin Bride, et al., v. Snap Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06680-FWS-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment. -- The motion is denied insofar as it seeks class certification, and denied without prejudice insofar as it seeks default judgment. -- If Plaintiffs wish to continue to seek default judgment against Yolo, they shall file a renewed motion for default judgment on or before April 16, 2026. Failure to file a renewed motion for default judgment or seek other appropriate relief on or before that date will result in dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims against Yolo for lack of prosecution and the court entering final judgment in favor of Henrion on the Plaintiffs' claims against him. In sum, while it is very likely numerosity is satisfied, the Plaintiffs fail to present any evidence that there are sufficiently numerous class members fitting the age profile and date range of their proposed class or to reckon with the implications of binding so many millions of people in a class on default judgment. Carson Bride is one teenager who was bullied on YOLO. "From Jan. 23, 2020, to June 22, 2020," during Carson's sophomore year in high school, "Carson received at least 105 messages via the YOLO app," with 62 of those "messages including content that was meant to humiliate Carson, often involving sexually explicit and disturbing content." The Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the following class: "All people who used YOLO from May 2019 to May 2021 when they were 13 to 17 years old, and all people who will use YOLO in the future (should YOLO renew its operations) through the date of judgment in this action." A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1fw1Jp at no extra charge.[CC] SNAP LOCK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lambing Due Sept. 23 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF LAMBING, v. SNAP LOCK INDUSTRIES INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09575-MWC-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order vacating the Scheduling Conference scheduled for March 27, 2026. Trial: Sept. 20, 2027 Final pretrial conference, hearing on Sept. 10, 2027 motions in limine: Last date to hear motion to amend May 8, 2026 pleadings or add parties: Last date to file class certification Sept. 23, 2026 motion: Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Mar. 26, 2027 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Apr. 30, 2027 SnapLock is a manufacturer of interlocking modular flooring. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bDJ4Ky at no extra charge.[CC] SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Chauncey Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2026, that parties in the Chauncey derivative suit filed a stipulation on October 7, 2025, staying this derivative action through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. On September 9, 2025, Jerald Chauncey, Jr. ("Chauncey") filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the same defendants as those named in the other derivative actions. The Chauncey complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in the other derivative actions, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) waste of corporate assets. The parties filed a stipulation on October 7, 2025 agreeing to stay the Chauncey matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. Due to the early stage of the proceeding, it cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any, or the likelihood of a potential adverse outcome. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against them. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. is a global leader in smart energy technology, providing inverter solutions, power optimizers, and related products that manage and optimize solar power generation and other energy systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale customers. SWAGELOK COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Laura Patterson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA L. PATTERSON, v. SWAGELOK COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00566-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered a second amended case management plan and scheduling order: Deadline for any motion for leave to July 1, 2026 amend the complaint: Fact discovery cut-Off (including class Sept. 29, 2026 discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to Move for Sept. 29, 2026 class certification: Swagelok develops and manufactures fluid system components. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B8LQRj at no extra charge.[CC] SYNGENTA CROP: Bell Sues Over Exposure to Defective Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Ute Bell, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-423 PQT PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 23, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Bise Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Cheyenna Bise, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-426 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 23, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Bustamante Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Bustamante, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-427 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 23, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Hall Sues Over Negligent Distribution of Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- Myra Hall, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-436 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 23, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Hollopeter Sues Over Exposure to Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------- Christina Hollopeter, on behalf of the Estate of TED HOLLOPETER, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-441 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 23, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Christina Hollopeter brings this action on behalf of Ted Hollopeter, the Decedent, who developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 TARGET CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff took short-term military leave from Target since 2006 but did not receive compensation and paid leave from Target during such short-term military leave. Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores. The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated online business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 875 North Michigan Avenue, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 300-6820 Email: dbrandt@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Maxim Gorbunov, Esq. Michael A. Boelter, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com mgorbunov@clarksonlawfirm.com mboelter@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com TARGET CORP: Kim Sues Over False "Sustainable Seafood" Campaign --------------------------------------------------------------- SUE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02910 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading labeling of its tuna products in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and other state consumer protection statutes. According to the complaint, Target is able to charge a premium for its Tuna Products as a result of its sustainable seafood marketing campaign -- a message it communicates to consumers most prominently through a "Sustainably Caught" front-of-label representation on every Tuna Product package. Target's front-of-label sustainability representations are reinforced through additional back-of-label statements that the Tuna Products are "sustainable seafood" and are "wild caught using sustainable practices to help protect ocean resources for future generations to enjoy." Despite its Sustainability Promise, Target sources its Tuna Products from fisheries that indiscriminately harm marine life and ocean ecosystems, alleges the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts that the Tuna Products sourced from these fisheries are not "sustainably caught." Despite its Sustainability Promise, Target does not promote the health and preservation of marine ecosystems -- a basic pillar of sustainability. Instead, while profiting off of the false and misleading Sustainability Promise, Target conceals the use of harmful fishing practices used for its Seafood Products, adds the complaint. Had Plaintiff and Class members been aware that Target's Tuna Products are not sustainably caught, the Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Tuna Products or would have paid less for the Tuna Products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class members were injured by Target's deceptive business practices, states the complaint. Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores. The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated online business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: mpearson@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Christopher Jennings, Esq. Tyler Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY, PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 Facsimile: (501) 344-6161 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com TARGET CORP: Settlement in Buckmaster Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional settlement class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court certifies this matter as a class action for settlement purposes, with the Settlement Class defined as follows: "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." The Court appoints Plaintiff Jasmine Buckmaster as Class Representative of the Settlement Class and James B. Pizl and the law firm of Entente law PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. On July 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., the Court will conduct a final fairness hearing. The Court approves notifying the Settlement Class of Plaintiff's request for $412,500 in attorneys' fees plus actual litigation costs of approximately $10,000, to be paid from the Common Settlement Fund, subject to final approval at the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court approves notifying the Settlement Class of the proposed incentive Service and Full Release Award of $20,000 to the Class Representative, in recognition of her role in this case and service to the Class and her grant of a general release to Defendant, to be paid from the Common Settlement Fund, subject to final approval at the Final Fairness Hearing. Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=964mx6 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 TOYOTA MOTOR: LeBoutheller Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James LeBoutheller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01389, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 4, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01209-JMA-AYS to the proceeding. The suit is brought over Plaintiff's motor vehicle product liability claims against the Defendants. The case is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. is a privately-held company that operates in the vehicle manufacturers industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Paul Smith, Esq. Bruce William Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: austin@stecklerlaw.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jordan W. Leu, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 2601 Olive Street, 23rd Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 764-4419 E-mail: jleu@kslaw.com UNITED HEALTH: Firelands Regional Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as FIRELANDS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2026-CV-0075, was removed from the Erie County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00699 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a nationwide class of providers, did not timely receive billions of dollars in earned reimbursements from the Defendants. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a corporation formed under the laws of Delaware and its principal place of business is in Minnesota.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joel E. Sechler, Esq. Amber L. Merl, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS LLP 280 North High Street, Suite 1300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-4100 Facsimile: (614) 365-9145 E-mail: sechler@carpenterlipps.com merl@carpenterlipps.com UNITED STATES: Altamirano Sues Over Unlawful Immigration Detention ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against acting Assistant Field Office Director for the Newark Field Office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Alexander Cabezas, et al. The case is captioned ALTAMIRANO v. CABEZAS et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01168-MCA (D.N.J., February 5, 2026). The case is brought over Defendants' alleged unlawful immigration detention of Plaintiff. The United States government operates the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline Rule, Esq. KOSTELANETZ LLP 7 World Trade Center, 34th Floor 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-8100 E-mail: crule@kostelanetz.com UNITED STATES: Ewings Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EWINGS et al v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10732 (D.N.J., Filed Nov. 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order that the case is stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiffs' appeal. The Court having received the March 15, 2026, letter request submitted by Alex D. Silagi, Esquire, counsel for Defendant; and Defendant seeking an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint; and the Court noting Plaintiffs' pending appeal of the Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is responsible for providing postal service in the United States, its insular areas and associated states.[CC] UNITED STATES: Final OK of $125MM PACER Class Suit Deal Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, v. ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Interested Party-Appellant, Case No. 2024-1757 (Fed. Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's Final Approval Order approving the $125 million settlement agreement. This appeal concerns the settlement of a nationwide class action alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for accessing court records through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) by using fees to fund expenses beyond the system’s operation. The case was brought by three nonprofit organizations: Plaintiffs the National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Alliance for Justice. After nearly eight years of litigation, ultimately settled for $125 million. The district court approved the $125 million settlement, noting that hundreds of thousands of PACER users would be reimbursed for fees incurred during the class period. It also approved attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards for the three nonprofit class representatives. Appellant-objector Eric Isaacson appealed, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, abused its discretion in approving the settlement and awarding fees, and acted contrary to Supreme Court precedent in granting the incentive awards. Since 2012, PACER users have been charged $0.10 per page to download and print court records. Before this lawsuit, those fees were used not only to operate PACER but also to fund additional expenses, including the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing System, Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing, the State of Mississippi Study, the Violent Crime Control Act Notification System, Web-Based Juror Services, and Courtroom Technology. In April 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that PACER fees exceeded what was permitted under federal law because they far surpassed the cost of providing the records. They sought refunds of those allegedly excessive fees and asserted jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, which allows district courts to hear certain claims against the United States under $10,000. The Plaintiffs argued that each PACER download constituted a separate "illegal exaction" claim within the jurisdictional limit of the Little Tucker Act. The case was heavily litigated, including motions to dismiss, class certification, and summary judgment. The district court ultimately certified a class of PACER users and recognized a claim that the fees charged exceeded what was necessary to operate PACER, allegedly violating the E-Government Act and entitling plaintiffs to monetary relief under the Little Tucker Act. In a prior opinion on interlocutory cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that the class claim fell within the Little Tucker Act’s jurisdiction. It also upheld the court's interpretation of the Section 1913 Note, holding that PACER fees are limited to covering expenses tied to providing public access to electronic docketing information. Additionally, it agreed that the Government had been using PACER fees to fund unauthorized expenses. The Circuit Court remanded the case to the district court in August 2020. After nearly two years of negotiations, the parties reached a settlement. Under the agreement, the United States created a $125 million common fund to resolve the claims of all class members, defined as those who paid PACER fees between April 21, 2010, and May 31, 2018, before the judiciary stopped using those fees to fund prohibited expenses. The Settlement Agreement requires that at least 80% of the $125 million common fund, or $100 million, be distributed to the class. Class members are not required to submit claim forms. Instead, a claims administrator will use federal judiciary records to identify eligible members and distribute payments. Each class member will receive at least the lesser of $350 or the total PACER fees they paid. Any remaining funds will be distributed pro rata to those who paid more than $350, based on the amount paid above that threshold. Unclaimed funds will be redistributed among qualifying class members, with the limit that no one can recover more than what they paid during the class period. The agreement also caps attorneys' fees, incentive awards, and administrative costs at 20% of the settlement, or $25 million, and limits incentive awards to $10,000 per class representative. The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on May 8, 2023, and notice was sent to over 500,000 PACER account holders. There were 33 opt-outs and five objections, with only two filed on time, including the Objector's. After a fairness hearing, the court issued a detailed order finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). It also approved attorneys' fees of about $23.86 million, expenses of about $29,654.98, administrative costs of about $1.077 million, and $10,000 incentive awards for each class representative. The Objector raised several arguments, including challenges to jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, the allocation of the settlement fund, the attorneys' fees methodology, and the legality of incentive awards. The district court rejected all of these arguments. The Objector then filed a timely appeal. The Court of Appeals first addressed subject matter jurisdiction and held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act. It concluded that each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, and because no individual claim exceeded $10,000, the district court had authority to approve the settlement. Turning to the merits, the Objector argued that the district court abused its discretion in three ways: by approving the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; by awarding the class counsel $23,863,345.02 in attorneys' fees; and by approving incentive awards for the class representatives. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement, awarding attorneys' fees, or granting incentive awards. It found no support in the record for the Objector's claims that the wrong legal standard was applied or that the court acted improperly in any of these rulings. The Court of Appeals, having reviewed and rejected all of Objector's arguments, affirmed the district court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2026 Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/74kd7a3. DEEPAK GUPTA -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by JONATHAN TAYLOR -- jon@guptawessler.com; WILLIAM H. NARWOLD -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Hartford, CT; MEGHAN OLIVER -- moliver@motleyrice.com -- Mt. Pleasant, SC. ALEXIS M. DANIEL, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by KIRK THOMAS MANHARDT, YAAKOV ROTH, MARCUS S. SACKS. ERIC ALAN ISAACSON -- ericalanisaacson@icloud.com -- Law Office of Eric Alan Isaacson, La Jolla, CA, argued pro se. UNITED STATES: Wins Dismissal of "Bradley" Student Loan Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Emerson Bradley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Education, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-3442 (RBW) (D.D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint brought under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a. The Plaintiff alleged that his father, Lars D. Bradley, forged and fraudulently submitted twelve Endorser Addendums for Federal Direct Plus Loans to the Defendant between April 2012 and June 2020, listing the Plaintiff as an endorser, despite the Plaintiff never having borrowed money through a federal student loan program. The Plaintiff identified multiple hallmarks of identity theft in the addendums, including a P.O. Box in San Diego listed as his permanent address, email addresses associated with his father, telephone numbers he never used, and a listed employer of the U.S. Navy, despite the Plaintiff serving on active duty with the U.S. Army. The Defendant processed the applications, leaving the Plaintiff with an outstanding co-signed balance of $492,000. The Plaintiff did not become aware of the fraudulent loans until after December 2020, when he was denied a credit card. This matter was filed as a putative class action. Class certification had not been sought or granted, and the Court had stayed the deadline to move for class certification pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff alleged six violations of the Privacy Act: (a) failure to maintain only relevant and necessary information under Section 552a(e)(1); (b) failure to collect information directly from the subject individual under Section 552a(e)(2); (c) failure to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records under Section 552a(e)(5); (d) failure to make reasonable efforts to assure accuracy before disseminating records under Section 552a(e)(6); (e) failure to establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards under Section 552a(e)(10); and (f) unauthorized disclosure of records to third parties under Section 552a(b). The Court dismissed each claim. On the Section 552a(e)(1) claim, the Court found that the Endorser Addendums are plainly relevant and necessary for the Defendant to administer federal student loan programs, and that this subsection does not contain an accuracy standard. On the Section 552a(e)(2) claim, the Court concluded that unwittingly receiving information from an impostor or identity thief does not constitute a willful and intentional violation. On the Section 552a(e)(5) claim, the Court held that although the Defendant arguably should have further investigated the information in the addendums, the Privacy Act's intentional and willful standard requires more than mere negligence. On the Section 552a(e)(6) claim, the Court found that requiring the co-signer's address, personal telephone number, and employment information on the Endorser Addendums constituted a reasonable effort to ensure accuracy, and that the Defendant disseminated the information before it was notified of the potential fraud. On the Section 552a(e)(10) claim, the Court held that this subsection is concerned with the safety and security of records already in the agency's possession, not with the submission of records, and that the identity theft at issue was committed before the fraudulent applications were submitted. On the Section 552a(b) claim, the Court held that when an agency discloses records in response to a request it justifiably believed to be authorized, the agency cannot have willfully violated the Privacy Act. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of the Courts MEMORANDUM OPINION dated March 23, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YzrDl0 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Represented By: Samuel Rebo Doj-Civ 202-514-6582 samuel.a.rebo@usdoj.gov Plaintiff EMERSON BRADLEY Represented By: Drew David Sarrett Leonard Anthony Bennett Kevin Dillon Consumer Litigation Associates, PC 804-905-9900 drew@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com kevin@clalegal.com VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Lyons Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN LYONS, TORI SMITH, AND VALERIE NECCI individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00318 (M.D. Tenn., March 17, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Retirement Plan and a proposed class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan, against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by failing to appropriately monitor the Plan's investments, resulting in the retention of unsuitable investments in the Plan instead of prudent alternative investments that were readily available at all times. The Defendants selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class Period. To remedy these fiduciary breaches and other violations of ERISA, Plaintiffs bring this class action to recover and obtain all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek such other equitable or remedial relief for the Plan and the proposed Class as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the circumstances. Vanderbilt University Medical Center is a non-profit corporation located in Nashville, Tennessee. Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt University Medical Center became separate non-profit entities in 2016. They operate under an Academic Affiliation Agreement and as part of this agreement, Vanderbilt University faculty may be employed by VUMC and subject to the University's oversight.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Alex J. Ephraim, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: aje@federmanlaw.com VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: May 5, 2026 Pretrial Conference Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dettmering, et al., v. VBIT Technologies Corp. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01482 (D. Del., Filed Nov. 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' request to vacate the May 5, 2026, Pretrial Conference and 5-day Jury Trial beginning on May 18, 2026. The court has the pending Motion to Certify Class, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Strike under advisement, and an amended trial scheduling order is deferred pending disposition of the motions. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act. VBit is a Philadelphia-based cryptocurrency mining company.[CC] VICTORY ON 28TH PROPERTY: William Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victory On 28th Property, LLC. The case is styled as Anishka Ruth William, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Victory On 28th Property, LLC, Case No. 26STCV08258 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." Victory on 28th Property LLC doing business as Heritage Student Housing -- https://heritagestudenthousing.com/ -- are modern apartments near USC offering convenient student housing in Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com WHALECO INC: Nelson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN NELSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHALECO INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11333-MPK (D. Mass., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated TCPA by initiating, or causing to be initiated, telephone solicitations to persons such as Plaintiff and the class members who registered their respective cellular or residential telephone numbers with the DNC Registry, which is a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government. The subject text messages expressly promoted Defendant's goods and services by advertising a "TEMU Free Gifts event" and offering recipients the opportunity to obtain items at no cost. These messages were not informational or transactional in nature, but instead constituted advertisements because they promoted the availability of Defendant's goods and services and were designed to generate consumer interest and engagement, says the suit. Whaleco Inc. is engaged in a marketing and advertising business that provides businesses platforms to connect to potential users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com WILLARD WRECKER: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Bogar Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN MATTHEW BOGAR, BRITTEN WRIGHT, OTIS WILLINGHAM, MARVIN LEWIS, ROBERT HUNTER, AND DONALD BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. WILLARD WRECKER SERVICE, INC., JIMMY WILLARD, and SHERRY WILLARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01526-SEG (N.D. Ga., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages. This is a wage and hour case in which Plaintiffs and the putative class allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors and were denied overtime pay on that basis. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Collective regularly operated trucks owned by Defendants for the purpose of providing towing and rollback services for the operators and owners of disabled and abandoned vehicles on Interstate and U.S. highways, thereby keeping the instrumentalities of interstate commerce free from obstructions. The Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Collective regularly worked more than 40 hours per work week for Defendants. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring drivers to work a mandatory 12 hour shift each scheduled workday. The Defendants compensated Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Collective on a per shift basis and were not paid an overtime premium, adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs request relief for the Proposed Collective because the members of the Proposed Collective are similarly situated to Plaintiffs and each other in that they were all subject to the same common policy or scheme to misclassify as independent contractors and were all denied statutory overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime worked. Plaintiffs ALLEN MATTHEW BOGAR, BRITTEN WRIGHT, OTIS WILLINGHAM, MARVIN LEWIS, ROBERT HUNTER, AND DONALD BROOKS were employed by Defendants as drivers who regularly provided roadside services to customers on Interstate and U.S. highways. Defendant WILLARD WRECKER SERVICE, INC. is a towing and recovery specialist, providing tow services for the Gwinnett County Police Department, HERO Units, and the Georgia State Patrol. Defendant JIMMY WILLARD was an owner and/or operator of Willard Wrecker. Defendant SHERRY WILLARD managed the operations of Willard Wrecker.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq. CALDWELL BRIDGERS & BENJAMIN, LLC 1425-A Dutch Valley Place NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Facsimile: (404) 970-3170 E-mail: bridgers@appliedlegalinsight.com benjamin@appliedlegalinsight.com - and - Gregory R. Fidlon, Esq. FIDLON LEGAL, PC 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (844) 529-4967 Facsimile: (844) 529-4329 E-mail: greg@fidlonlegal.com WM WHOLESALE: Court Certifies Injunction Subclass in Hernandez -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josue Hernandez v. WM Wholesale, LLC et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-02228-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Klausner entered an order certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunction subclass comprising of: "All persons nationwide who purchased Defendants Products on delta8repellers.com from Nov. 21, 2021, through Feb. 1, 2026". WM manufactures and sells vape products online and in stores. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8iBSL0 at no extra charge.[CC] WYNN RESORTS: Murray Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC. The case is captioned as Brian Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00615-GMN-DJA (D. Nev., March 4, 2026). The case is brought by the Plaintiff over alleged personal injury claim against the Defendant. Judge Gloria M. Navarro presides over the case. Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates a casino hotel resort property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miles N. Clark, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC 5510 S. Fort Apache Road, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700 Telephone: (702) 856-7430 Facsimile: (702) 552-2370 E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 275-9295 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ZAKERY BONDS: Court Stays Summary Judgment Bid vs Wolfclan ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN and ZAKERY BONDS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion in the alternative to stay the defendants' motion for summary judgment: 1. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion in the alternative. 2. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Daniel Rapp are stayed until such time as the Court has ruled upon the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mR4FM4 at no extra charge.[CC] ZULILY LLC: Pre-Certification Discovery Extended to April 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend certain case deadlines related to class certification. The pre-certification discovery deadline is extended to April 17, 2026, and the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must move for class certification is extended to April 27, 2026. Zulily is an American e-commerce website. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Agoshf at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***