260402.mbx

260402.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 2, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 66 Headlines A.O. SMITH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Water Heaters AARP: Denies Medicare Supplement Insurance Claims, Suit Says AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Putative and Derivative Suits AIRSLATE INC: Venegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALPINE WATER USA: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMAZON RETAIL: Settles Unpaid Wages Class Action Suit for $2-Mil. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Winchester Suit Removed to C.D. California ANOVA CULINARY: $500,000 Class Settlement Gets Court Initial OK AUTOTRADER.COM INC: Bazabal Suit Removed to S.D. California AUTOZONERS LLC: Holbrook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Epstein Class Action Suit for $72.5MM BANNER CAPITAL BANK: Rankin Files Suit in D. Nebraska BOBBY E. WRIGHT: Apolito Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage BRILLIANT EARTH: Xie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BROAD FINANCIAL LLC: Presta Files Suit in D. New Jersey BROWN ADVISORY: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Spacek Says CALIFORNIA APARTMENT: Appeals Denied Intervention Bid to 9th Cir. CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Spears Sues Over Consumer Privacy Violation CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Washington Sues Over Labor Law Breaches CARVANA LLC: Rushefsky Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Securities, Derivative Cases Resolved CHAN ZUCKERBERG: Siteman Suit Removed to N.D. California CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1MM CHILDREN'S COUNCIL: Kereti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHILDREN'S COUNCIL: Lacy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CLARK COUNTY, NV: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $800,000 CLASS VALUATION: Golar Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia COMPASS GROUP: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Barista Case COMPLETE PAYROLL: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $2.6MM COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMSCORE INC: Faces Singer Suit over Violations of California Laws CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL: Krishnamoorthy Balks at Fraudulent Scheme CONDUENT BUSINESS: Broman Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey CORNERSTONE STAFFING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hiler Says COSTAR GROUP: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 9th Circuit CREE LIGHTING: Sorenson Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice CW 7403 LLC: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers DAN REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ulic Suit Alleges DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO: Perez Files Suit in N.D. New York DAVID PEYSER SPORTSWEAR: Samaduroff Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DAVID PROTEIN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Nutritional Claims DIAMEDICAL EQUIPMENT: Discloses Clients' Personal Info, Nguyen Says ELECTRICAL SPECIALISTS: Pintarich Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Faces Owens Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ERSG US: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Finney" Per Diem Overtime Suit FLOCK GROUP: Dutcher Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info FLOWERS FOODS: Odom Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract FNZ GROUP: Employee Shareholders Sue Over Fiduciary Oversight FORD MOTOR: Loses Bid to Partially Deny "McCabe" Certification FRANCESCA'S ADMINISTRATIVE: Sek Alleges WARN Act Violations GENOMIC PREDICTION: Faces Class Suit Over Inaccurate IVF Testing GLOBAL-E ONLINE: Consumer Class Action Filed in Israel GOFO INC: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOOGLE LLC: Epstein Sexual Assault Survivors Sue Over Data Breach GRIFFIS GROUP: Charges Bogus Fees to Tenants, Sweeney Suit Alleges HERCULES CAPITAL: Faces Taylor Suit Over Undisclosed Material Info HIGHTOWER ADVISORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach HOME DEPOT: Yonan Suit Removed to N.D. California HOSPITALITY CENTER: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation HUDSON RIVER HOUSING: McCord Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. HUDSON RIVER HOUSING: Oquendo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. IMMUNITYBIO INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violation IN-SHAPE FAMILY FITNESS: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INFIRST HEALTHCARE: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INSUREME INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls IQVIA INC: Iqbal Suit Removed to S.D. California J.M. SMUCKER: Appeals Class Certification Order in Jeruchim Suit JACK GIANT: Discriminates on the Basis of Gender, Ross Alleges JARED POLIS: Sued Over Unlawful and Harmful Practices JBS PREPARED FOODS: Aguilar Suit Removed to E.D. California KAPLAN NORTH: Stoker Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info KAY'S TRANSPORT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Groover Says KCE CHAMPIONS LLC: Sherman Suit Removed to C.D. California KENNETH L. MARCUS: Bochra Files Suit in N.D. New York KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over Huggies Diapers' False Ads KINDRED HOSPITALS: Saucedo Suit Removed to C.D. California KING LASIK INC: Franky Files Suit in W.D. Texas KING.COM LIMITED: Onn Sues Over Candy Crush Contest's Deceptive Ads KORNIT DIGITAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Westchester Sues Over Drop in Share Price KYVERNA THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint L.A. DOWNTOWN: Martinez Balks at Compromised Personal, Health Info LAKESIDE PEDIATRIC: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Rosen Claims LAKEVIEW LOAN: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $26MM MARATHON REFINING: Agrees to Settle Unpaid Shifts Suit for $9-Mil. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Novak Wiretapping Suit Removed to D. Mass. MESA AZTECA: Huero Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages META PLATFORMS: Faces Rowe Suit Over AI Glasses' Data Interception META PLATFORMS: Irving et al. Sue Over Social Media Scam Ads META PLATFORMS: Rogers Sues Over AI Glasses' Invasion of Privacy METASEE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Alleges METRO KING DELI: Abdel-Qader Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MICHELS CORP: Beyer Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Circuit MISSION AREA HEALTH: Driggs Suit Removed to S.D. California MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Lowe Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Mullen Suit Over Unsafe Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Isabelle Sues Over Hazardous Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Mueller Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Dangerous to Human Health, Roman Claims NATURE'S BAKERY: Himmel Sues Over Deceptive Fig Bars' Labeling NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: Archie Files Suit in W.D. Washington NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: Fiore Files Suit in W.D. Washington NERDWALLET INC: Davis Suit Removed to N.D. California NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Garcia Suit Over Marketers' Spam E-Mails NEW YORK: Justin Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NOVARTIS AG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Sharing Practices NVIDIA CORP: District Court Certifies Crypto Class Action Lawsuit NYSONIAN INC: Post Suit Removed to W.D. Washington OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL: Reed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OJO LABS INC: Miholich Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California OMNI FAMILY: Abraham Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ONE SOURCE MEDICAL: Young Files Suit in M.D. Florida PACIFICA BEAUTY: Hoag False Marketing Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PAMELA BONDI: Arana Files Suit in D. New Jersey PATHSTONE FAMILY: Horton Files Suit in D. New Jersey PHARMAVITE LLC: Settlement in Douglass Gets Initial OK PHIA GROUP: Fryndej Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Oxford Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Ring Files Suit in D. Colorado PIZZA NOVA: Court Upholds $150MM Driver Classification Class Suit QC FRANCHISE: Faces Class Suit Over Unproven Stem Cell Therapies QUIET LOGISTICS: Palacios Suit Removed to C.D. California RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California RELIABLE CONCEPTS: Cervantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Peterson Suit Transferred to E.D. Kentucky REVERE HEALTH: Selective Seeks Declaratory Relief From Nakai Suit ROYAL CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wong Suit Alleges RUNYON OPTOMETRY: Jones Sues Over Unprotected Private Info SARATOGA, NY: Court Partially OKs Summary Judgment in "Mahan" SAS INSTITUTE: Stana Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit SCREAM TRUCK: Hulse Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers SEPHORA USA INC: Johnston Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHOE PALACE: Ramirez Seeks Assistant Managers' Unpaid Wages SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Denies Bids to Dismiss Class Action Suit SPAULDING PARTNERS: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Pardo Claims SPECIFIC PROTECTION: Underpays Security Professionals, Nelson Says STACKADAPT INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STAPLES INC: Sellin Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info STATE FARM: Seeks to Exclude Plaintiffs' Class Cert Experts STRYKER CORP: Faces Mangold Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info SUSHI VIDA: Fernandez Must File Default Judgment Bid by April 13 SWAGELOK COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Eric Patterson Suit SWIFT PORK: Force Seeks to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order SYNGENTA CROP: Ethington Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution SYNGENTA CROP: Jones Sues Over Wrongful Distribution of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Kane Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Kim Sues Over Wrongful Distribution of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Kokolus Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution SYNGENTA CROP: Mollineaux Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Rocheleau Sues Over Paraquat's Health Hazards TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Good & Gather Tuna's False Ads TARGET CORPORATION: Spry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TASTE IT: Vaughn Sues Over Website's Equal Access to Blind Users TEACHERS INSURANCE: Carfora Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175: Hanshaw Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia TEKNOR APEX COMPANY: Becerra Suit Removed to C.D. California THIRDLOVE INC: Johnston Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California TRACTOR SUPPLY: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $750,000 TYREE OIL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Swezey Alleges UBS FINANCIAL: Sweep Accounts Class Action Suit Moves Forward ULTA SALON: Asercion Suit Removed to N.D. California UNITED HEALTH GRP: Odom Health Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO in U.H.A. Class Suit to 8th Circuit UNITED STATES: Elhassan Seeks Writ of Habeas Corpus UNITED STATES: Faces Sumba Suit Over Unlawful Detention UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must File Opposition Reply by April 9 UNITED STATES: Smirk Suit Moved to Court of International Trade UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ellis TCPA Suit Removed to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fish Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. VAIL RESORTS: Mega Pass Bundling Drives Up Costs, Goloja Says VOLHARD DOG: See Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES: Walton Suit Transferred to D. Delaware WALMART INC: Rehak Suit Removed to W.D. Washington WAY.COM INC: Hogan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California WESTERN MANAGEMENT: Harris Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida WILSHIRE LAW: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $5.975MM WP COMPANY LLC: Kim Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ZINOFF & COMPANY: Velez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZONE SAFETY: Nock Seeks Unpaid OT for Traffic Control Employees [^] 10th Class Action Money & Ethics Conference -- 2026 Sponsors ********* A.O. SMITH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Water Heaters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that A.O. Smith has knowingly sold residential water heaters equipped with defective plastic drain valves that are prone to premature failure under normal use, leaving consumers vulnerable to an increased risk of leaks, water damage and expensive home repairs. The 38-page defective product lawsuit contends that A.O. Smith, a major water heater manufacturer in North America, failed to inform consumers that the drain valves incorporated at the base of its water heater tanks are made of a plastic, glass-filled nylon that is predisposed to warping and cracking when exposed to the hot, chlorinated water stored in a tank. The case charges that A.O. Smith designed the valves to be made of plastic instead of industry-standard brass as a cheaper, cost-effective alternative that the company advertises as having "comparable performance." However, the plastic valves are "materially inferior" and unsuitable for their intended use, the filing claims. Despite receiving complaints from consumers and plumbers alike, A.O. Smith has continued to tout its water heaters equipped with the defective drain valves as reliable, durable and high-quality, and has not issued a recall or informed the public of the issue, the suit says. "Glass–filled nylon is significantly less resistant to heat, pressure, and long–term exposure to hot, chlorinated water than brass," the case describes. "Unlike brass, which maintains its dimensional stability and sealing performance throughout the life of a water heater, glass–filled nylon is susceptible to chemical degradation, thermal distortion, and embrittlement under normal operating conditions." The basic function of a water heater is to heat and store anywhere from 30 to 80 gallons of water, the filing says. A water heater typically contains several safety and maintenance components to ensure proper functioning, and that the reservoir of hot water stays within the tank, the case mentions. A key component of proper water heater maintenance is the periodic draining or flushing of sediment built up in the tank using the drain valve, the lawsuit says. However, the suit relays that, because of the plastic A.O Smith valves at issue, consumers report being unable to fully close the watertight seal of the valve after draining their water heater, or, in some situations, notice spontaneous leaking without any prior interaction with the valve. "These failures are not the result of misuse, improper installation, or abnormal operating conditions," the filing asserts. "Rather, they arise from A.O. Smith’s decision to manufacture and install drain valves made of inexpensive glass–filled nylon instead of brass, a material known to withstand the high–temperature, high–pressure, corrosive environment inside a water heater." Consequently, A.O. Smith water heaters, which are sold under several brand names including State and Reliance, are incapable of living up to their eight- to 10-year expected lifespan, the class action lawsuit alleges. The plaintiff, a California resident, claims to have incurred approximately $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses to repair water damage in his home after his Reliance-brand A.O. Smith water heater leaked twice in less than two years. Per the complaint, after the first leak in July 2023, A.O. Smith sent the plaintiff a replacement plastic drain valve that predictably did not hold up any better than the first and left the man with no choice but to replace the water heater entirely. The A.O. Smith class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased a residential tank-style water heater manufactured or sold by A.O. Smith, including those branded as State or Reliance, that was equipped with a plastic drain valve. [GN] AARP: Denies Medicare Supplement Insurance Claims, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that AARP and UnitedHealthcare have colluded to solicit sales and renewals of Medicare Supplement, Medicare-Gap and Medi-Gap insurance plans despite being fully aware that United has for decades failed to pay for medically necessary healthcare not covered by Medicare and intends to continue to systematically deny such claims on the basis of a "phantom, non-existent" condition mandating that a healthcare provider participate in Medicare. The 26-page insurance lawsuit relays that the plans at issue, which only AARP members may enroll in, are intended to pay for medically necessary healthcare for which Medicare does not pay. The filing contends that the healthcare giants have, for years, deceived consumers by touting that those enrolled in the AARP Medicare Supplement Plans from UnitedHealthcare may "see any doctor without getting a referral" and have their treatment covered. In reality, the suit argues, AARP and UnitedHealthcare have worked in tandem to deny "countless" claims based on a non-existent clause in the Certificate of Insurance, a document that summarizes coverage details in an active insurance policy, requiring that the healthcare provider participate in or accept Medicare as payment in order for insurance claims to be accepted. The class action lawsuit chides United for wrongfully and systematically denying Medicare Supplement, Medicare-Gap and Medi-Gap claims on "legally invalid" grounds, and AARP for continuing to "endorse" the policies -- and receive royalty fees from sales of the policies -- despite its knowledge of United's intent to fraudulently deny proper insurance claims. According to the suit, the end result of this fraudulent practice is that consumers are forced to pay out of pocket for necessary medical treatment and procedures that, though not covered by Medicare outright, they believed would be covered under the supplemental plan based on AARP and UnitedHealthcare's promotions. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident described in the filing as a "senior citizen stroke survivor," purchased an AARP Medicare Supplement policy in 2014 and has renewed it annually in the years since, the case says. The suit explains that in 2024, the plaintiff underwent a Mohs procedure to remove cancerous tissue from his eyelid, which was followed by a corrective surgery to repair his eyelid. Importantly, the case notes that neither the Mohs procedure nor the corrective surgeries were elective or cosmetic surgeries, but were necessary medical interventions deemed "vision-saving and life-saving-care." The suit contests that at no point was the plaintiff ever informed of the necessity that his healthcare provider participate in or accept Medicare under his insurance policy. Further, the plaintiff asserts that an AARP customer service representative assured him in a recorded phone call that his insurance claim for these procedures would be covered, even though that was not the case. "Although the surgical repair of his eyelid was medically necessary, United refused to reimburse him by purporting to cite the 'phantom,' non-existent condition that appears nowhere in the Certificate Of Insurance, i.e., the healthcare provider must participate in Medicare," the lawsuit asserts. In the end, the plaintiff was left to pay nearly $8,000 in unexpected medical expenses, the suit shares. As a result of the alleged deception, the plaintiff obtained an attorney in New Jersey to file suit over apparent violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. During the litigation, the complaint says, United continued to "misquot[e] purported contractual language" that AARP ratified. Eventually, after the plaintiff's case was filed in 2025, AARP finally sent mail communications to policyholders informing them of the Medicare clause, but supposedly made no alterations to the issued Certificates of Insurance. "AARP continues to the date of filing to 'endorse' the subject policies and receive royalty fees from the sales of its endorsed policies despite actual and constructive knowledge that United wrongfully and systemically denied, and continues to intend to deny, and continues to deny, proper insurance claims by purporting to cite non-existent 'phantom' conditions that appear nowhere in the policies' Certificate of Insurance," the suit summarizes. The Medicare Supplement plan class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who, at any time since 2014, were an AARP member and policyholder of an AARP Medicare Supplement plan from UnitedHealthcare and received one or more denials of reimbursement for the expense of medically-necessary healthcare on the grounds that the provider did not participate in or accept Medicare payment, and either resided in New Jersey, were present in New Jersey when the purchase or renewal of an AARP membership and/or UnitedHealthcare policy occurred, or received the medically necessary healthcare in New Jersey. [GN] AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Putative and Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Agenus Inc. disclosed in its current report on Form 8-K dated March 24, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2026, that on March 24, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order in "Byron Olsen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Agenus Inc., Garo H. Armen, Christine M. Klaskin, Steven J. O'Day, and Todd Yancey," Civil Action No. 24-CV-12299-AK, a putative securities class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the company's public disclosures. Also as reported by the company, on January 15, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned "John Doe, derivatively on behalf of Agenus Inc. v. Garo H. Armen, Christine M. Klaskin, Steven J. O'Day, Todd Yancey, and Does 1-10," was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Said complaint, which names Agenus Inc. as a nominal defendant, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal securities laws based on substantially the same alleged misconduct and public disclosures at issue in the Olsen securities class action. The plaintiff in the derivative action seeks, among other relief, damages purportedly sustained by the company, corporate governance reforms, restitution, attorneys' fees, and costs. The company and the individual defendants deny any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against the derivative claims. Agenus Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of immuno-oncology therapies, including checkpoint antibodies, cell therapies, and cancer vaccines. AIRSLATE INC: Venegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airslate, Inc. The case is styled as Olivia Venegas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Airslate, Inc., Case No. 26CV177832 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." airSlate Inc. is a global SaaS technology company specializing in no-code document workflow automation, e-signature, and document management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James T. Hannink, Esq. Zach P. Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK LLP 4225 Executive Sq, Ste. 600 La Jolla, CA 92037-1484 Phone: 858-623-4200 Fax: 858-623-4299 Email: zachdostart@gmail.com ALPINE WATER USA: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpine Water USA, Inc. The case is styled as Tawnya Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alpine Water USA, Inc. d/b/a WWW.HALLSTEINWATER.COM, Case No. 26CU014294C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March 13, 2026). Alpine Water USA, Inc. doing business as Hallstein Water -- https://www.hallsteinwater.com -- is a premium artesian water from the Austrian Alps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com AMAZON RETAIL: Settles Unpaid Wages Class Action Suit for $2-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Amazon agreed to pay $2 million to resolve claims it failed to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly employees in Washington. The Amazon class action settlement benefits individuals who were employed by Amazon Retail LLC in Washington state in hourly positions between Oct. 3, 2021, and Oct. 27, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, Amazon failed to provide its hourly employees with rest and meal breaks as required by Washington law. As a result, employees were allegedly not compensated for all the wages they were owed. The retail giant has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Amazon settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and each class member's wages during the class period. Class members are guaranteed to receive at least $50 from the settlement. Higher wage earners will receive a larger share of the unpaid wages settlement fund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Amazon settlement is scheduled for May 22, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the Amazon unpaid wages settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits all individuals employed by Amazon Retail LLC in Washington state in hourly positions between Oct. 3, 2021, and Oct. 27, 2025. Potential Award At least $50 Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion and Objection Deadline 04/30/2026 Case Name Garner v. Amazon Retail LLC, Case No. 24-2-11344-0, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for Pierce County Final Hearing 05/22/2026 Settlement Website ARLLCWageSettlement.com Claims Administrator Garner v. Amazon Retail LLC c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 26170 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@arllcWageSettlement.com (888) 428-6671 Class Counsel James B. Pizl ENTENTE LAW PLLC Timothy W. Emery EMERY REDDY P.C. Defense Counsel Joseph R. Rose Megan Cooney GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Winchester Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Samson Winchester, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 25STCV36678 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03040 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. American Airlines, Inc. -- https://www.aa.com/ -- is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kelly S. Wood, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 823-6900 Fax: (949) 823-6994 Email: kwood@omm.com ANOVA CULINARY: $500,000 Class Settlement Gets Court Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Anova Applied Electronics, which does business as Anova Culinary, has agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the retailer required shoppers to provide certain personally identifiable information when making online purchases from the retailer using a credit card, in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. The Anova Culinary class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 28, 2026 and covers approximately 6,644 consumers with shipping or billing addresses in California who purchased merchandise from AnovaCulinary.com, or on the Anova Culinary mobile app, any time between June 12, 2023 and June 12, 2024. The court-approved website for the Anova Culinary settlement can be found at AnovaCreditCardSettlement.com. According to the website, Anova settlement class members do not need to take action to automatically receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment. The final amount of this payment, the agreement outlines, will depend on the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of all attorneys' fees, settlement administration expenses, taxes and lead plaintiff service awards. The agreement recommends that class members who prefer to receive their payment electronically or believe that they need to update the mailing address on file with Anova complete the payment election form to ensure their payment is issued successfully. To complete this form, class members will need to first log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. All payment election forms must be submitted online by June 18, 2026 The settlement further states that Anova settlement class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement and retain any legal rights to litigate the same claims must complete an online exclusion request or send a written letter to the settlement administrator stating their name, contact information, desire to be excluded, and other relevant information as described in the settlement notice. All exclusion requests and objections to the deal must be submitted online or by mail by May 19, 2026. Finally, as part of the deal, Anova has agreed to implement certain business practice changes to its checkout process for a period of at least two years following the preliminary approval order. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Anova Culinary settlement following a hearing on July 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Anova Culinary class action lawsuit claimed that the culinary retailer unlawfully required customers who shopped online with a credit card to provide personally identifying information to make purchases for marketing purposes in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. [GN] AUTOTRADER.COM INC: Bazabal Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Bazabal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AUTOTRADER.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU008296C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01769-H-AHG. The Plaintiff asserts five causes of action in his Complaint, alleging violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; Wiretap Act; California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; Invasion of Privacy; and California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ali Abugheida, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Email: aabugheida@orrick.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Holbrook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autozoners, LLC. The case is styled as David Holbrook, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Autozoners, LLC, Case No. MCV098382 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., March 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment for Civil Unlimited." AutoZone, Inc., doing business as AutoZone is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories, the largest in the United States.[BN] BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Epstein Class Action Suit for $72.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Sakshi Venkatraman, writing for BBC, reports that Bank of America Corp. has reached a $72.5m (GBP54.6m) settlement in a lawsuit brought on behalf of victims of Jeffrey Epstein, who had accused the bank of facilitating his sex trafficking operation. The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in October by a Florida woman who says she was abused by Epstein "on at least 100 occasions" between 2011 and 2019 and held two accounts at Bank of America at the direction of his business team. It alleged that the bank had "a plethora of information regarding Epstein's sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims". In the court documents, Bank of America says the settlement makes "no admission of liability" or "wrongdoing" on its part. The settlement was reached earlier this month, but details of the deal had not been revealed until documents were filed on Friday, March 27, in a federal court in New York. They now await a judge's approval. Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for the victims, told the BBC in a statement earlier this month that the resolution was "one more step on the road to much deserved justice". It marks the third such settlement by a major bank, after JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank agreed to pay out $290m and $75m respectively. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of a "Jane Doe", cites a record of "incredibly alarming and erratic banking behaviour" in her own Bank of America accounts, which were used by Epstein's team. She says she met Epstein in Russia in 2011, and was controlled and sexually abused by him up until his death in jail in August 2019. The financier's death was ruled a suicide, and Jane Doe called it her "ultimate escape". The lawsuit also points to more than $150m paid to Epstein by billionaire Leon Black, co-founder of Apollo Global, for "purported 'tax and estate planning advice'", via Black's Bank of America account. Black, who stepped down from Apollo amid scrutiny over his ties to Epstein, has denied wrongdoing. He was questioned as part of the case last week. Bank of America had previously urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying it had provided routine services to people who at the time had no known links to Epstein, calling the complaint "threadbare and meritless". "While we stand by our prior statements made in the filings in this case, including that Bank of America did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes, this resolution allows us to put this matter behind us and provides further closure for the plaintiffs," Bank of America told the BBC in a statement on Saturday. [GN] BANNER CAPITAL BANK: Rankin Files Suit in D. Nebraska ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Banner Capital Bank. The case is styled as Erica Rankin, individually, and on behalf of her minor child, J.R., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Banner Capital Bank, Case No. 8:26-cv-00118 (D. Neb., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Banner Capital Bank -- https://www.bcbank.net/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank provides products and services including saving and fixed deposits, personal and commercial loan, credit cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Torres, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 - and - Grace M. Wiseman, Esq. James W. Healey, Esq. Thomas E. Horgan, Esq. HORGAN LAW FIRM 13304 W Center Road, Suite 109 Omaha, NE 68144 Phone: (402) 965-0652 Fax: (402) 965-0691 Email: grace@horganlawfirm.com will@horganlawfirm.com tom@horganlawfirm.com BOBBY E. WRIGHT: Apolito Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Apolito, and other similarly situated persons v. BOBBY E. WRIGHT COMPREHENSIVE BEHAVIORAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03068 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (the "FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked to the Plaintiff and brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with health insurance benefits. By Plaintiff's estimates, Plaintiff routinely worked 40 hours or less in a work week. In most, if not all, work-weeks, Plaintiff was not paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiff was routinely in contact with Defendant regarding payment failures. Despite Plaintiff's reports to Defendant about her unpaid wages, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff her agreed-upon pay rate for all hours worked. In addition to not paying Plaintiff her wages earned for all hours worked, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with health insurance. The Plaintiff suffered multiple adverse employment actions including but not limited to termination. The Defendant's reason for termination was pretextual, as it became clear to Plaintiff that she had been terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, including reporting genuine concerns of financial non-compliance and complaining before the OEIG. As a result, not only is Plaintiff owed the total amount of compensation owed but also liquidated damages and attorney fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Program Coordinator from September 26, 2023 until Plaintiff's unlawful termination on March 16, 2026. Bobby E. Wright Comprehensive Behavioral Center, Inc. is a corporation specializing in the health industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yasmeen Elagha, Esq. Mohammed Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Email: yelagha@atlaslawcenter.com mbadwan@atlaslawcenter.com BRILLIANT EARTH: Xie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brilliant Earth, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Meifen Xie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brilliant Earth, LLC, Case No. CGC26634848 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Brilliant Earth -- https://www.brilliantearth.com/ -- is the global leader in ethically sourced fine jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com BROAD FINANCIAL LLC: Presta Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broad Financial LLC. The case is styled as Lucrezia Presta, Presta IRA LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Broad Financial LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02721-SRC-CF (D.N.J., March 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Broad Financial -- https://broadfinancial.com/ -- specializes in self-directed IRAs and Solo 401(k)s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adolfo J. Anzola, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607 Miami, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 912-3000 Email: aanzola@sonnlaw.com BROWN ADVISORY: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Spacek Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINA SPACEK-SPIVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROWN ADVISORY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01160-EA (D. Md., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on January 21, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Brown Advisory LLC is an investment advisory firm based in Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Hussey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 M. St. SE, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 772-0558 Email: ryan.hussey@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com CALIFORNIA APARTMENT: Appeals Denied Intervention Bid to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to intervene in the lawsuit entitled Ian Smith, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Apartment Association, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-05398-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On Nov. 17, 2025, California Apartment Association filed a motion to intervene, which Judge Jon S. Tigar denied on Mar. 13, 2026. The Court cannot find that the factors for intervention as of right or permissive intervention have been met thus the motion is denied. The appellate case is styled as Smith, et al. v. California Apartment Association, et al., Case No. 26-1648, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 24, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 28, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees IAN SMITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Craig David Castellanet, Esq. Melissa Antoinette Morris, Esq. Michael F. Rawson, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT 449 15th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 94612 - and - Emily Roznowski, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 300 S. Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Sean Paul Betouliere, Esq. Thomas Philip Zito, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Defendant-Appellant CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION is represented by: Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Esq. NIELSEN MERKSAMER, LLP 2350 Kerner Boulevard, Suite 250 San Rafael, CA 94901 CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Spears Sues Over Consumer Privacy Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Gail Spears and Revital Yogev, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY; WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC.; GENEROUS BRANDS LLC; and PACIFIC FOODS OF OREGON LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02385-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2026), is brought concerning egregious violations of consumer privacy in violation of California law. When consumers visit Defendants' ecommerce websites (including www.campbells.com (the "Campbell's Website"), www.bolthouse.com (the "Bolthouse Website"), www.Rao's.com (the "Rao's Website"), www.pacificfoods.com (the "Pacific Foods Website"), and michaelangelos.com (the "Michael Angelos Website") (collectively, the "Websites"), Defendants display to them popup cookie consent banners, which are different in appearance and form on each Website, but which function similarly and make similar representations. Specifically, each of Defendants' cookie banners disclose that each Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used, including the option to reject all cookies other than those necessary for the Website to operate. Contrary to users' express rejection of cookies and tracking technologies on the Websites, Defendants caused cookies, including the Third Parties' cookies, to be sent to Plaintiffs' and other visitors' browsers, stored on their devices, and transmitted to the Third Parties along with user data. These cookies permitted the Third Parties to track and collect data in real time regarding Websites' visitors' behaviors and communications, including their browsing history, visit history, website interactions, user input data, demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping behaviors, device information, referring URLs, session information, user identifiers, and/or geolocation data—including whether a user is located in California. This type of tracking and data sharing is exactly what Website visitors sought to avoid when they clicked or selected the buttons or options to reject or opt-out of cookies on the Websites' cookie consent banners and/or the Your Choices tool on the Campbell's Website. Defendants falsely told the Websites' users that they respected their privacy choices and would refrain from tracking and data sharing when users rejected cookies. Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, Defendants ignored those choices and violated statues and torts duties owed to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated users of the Websites, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs visited the websites. Campbell's is the owner and operator of the Campbell's Website, Rao's Website and Michael Angelos Website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Washington Sues Over Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against CareSource Management Services LLC. The case is captioned Washington v. CareSource Management Services LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00037-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, February 5, 2026). The case is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. CareSource Management Services LLC is non-profit managed health care plan headquartered in Dayton, OH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash , IV 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (833) 694-5729 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com CARVANA LLC: Rushefsky Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN RUSHEFSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARVANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02286 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.carvana.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty buttons, empty links that contain no text, missing form labels, broken references, contract errors, and improper semantic markup. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Carvana, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in 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 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Securities, Derivative Cases Resolved ------------------------------------------------------- GP-Act III Acquisition Corp. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K dated March 26, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2026, that several securities class actions were filed in Nevada and Florida against Celsius Holdings, Inc. between January and September 2023, alleging securities law violations and naming certain common directors and officers with Celsius, including Alexandre Ruberti, who served on the board from February 2021 until March 2024, and that the class action cases were resolved and closed in January 2024. Separately, several derivative actions were filed in Nevada and Florida against Celsius Holdings, Inc. between January and September 2023, and the parties reached a stipulation and settlement agreement regarding these derivative actions in December 2024, followed by a preliminary approval order issued by the court in January 2025, with no objections filed. GP-Act III Acquisition Corp. is a special purpose acquisition company formed to effect a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. CHAN ZUCKERBERG: Siteman Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stephanie Siteman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHAN ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; GIRISH PATANGAY, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-26-634840 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02362. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: Federal Equal Pay Act, California Equal Pay Act, California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, unlawful and unfair business practices, discrimination based on physical disability in violation of Government Code Sections 12940(a) and 12926(l), failure to accommodate actual or perceived physical disability in violation of Government Code Section 12940(m), failure to engage in good faith in the interactive process in violation of Government Code Section 12940(n), discrimination based on sex/gender in violation of Government Code Sections 12940(a) and 12926(o), harassment – hostile workplace environment in violation of Government Code Sections 12940(a) and 12926(o), negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, failure to prevent discriminatory practices in violation of Government Code Section 12930(k), retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act, Government Code Section 12940(h), and retaliation in violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq. Teresa W. Ghali, Esq. Jen Cornell, Esq. Ryan C. King, Esq. GBG LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 840 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com teresaghali@gbgllp.com jencornell@gbgllp.com ryanking@gbgllp.com CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Charleston Area Medical Center has agreed to a $1,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the West Virginia hospital failed to protect sensitive patient information stored on its systems from an October 2024 data breach. The $1 million Charleston Area Medical Center class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 12, 2026 and covers all United States residents whose personal information was potentially compromised in the October 2024 data breach and who received notice of the breach from the healthcare provider. Court documents estimate that approximately 67,413 individuals may have been affected by the data breach. The court-approved website for the Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) data breach settlement can be found at CAMCDataBreachSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, all CAMC settlement class members are automatically eligible to enroll in four free years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services with no claim form required. The settlement agreement states that class members will be provided a unique enrollment code for the credit monitoring service through a separate settlement summary notice. CAMC settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form also have multiple options for monetary reimbursement from the settlement. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented monetary losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $6,000. The agreement explains that class members must submit third-party documentation, like receipts or bank statements, to receive compensation for unreimbursed losses related to fraud, identity theft, credit monitoring costs and miscellaneous expenses such as postage or travel. The agreement further states that class members may also submit a claim form to receive compensation for up to four hours of time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $20 per hour, with a written attestation of how such time was spent. Per the agreement, the lost-time benefit is intended to cover activities such as changing passwords on potentially impacted accounts, monitoring suspicious activity, or researching the data breach. In lieu of claims for documented losses and/or lost time, CAMC class members may file a claim form to receive a one-time, pro-rated alternative cash payment. The final amount of this payment, the agreement notes, will depend on the number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund following payment of attorneys' fees, administration costs, lead plaintiff service awards and all other settlement benefits. Class members may receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, and the agreement says all checks must be cashed within 120 days of issuance before expiration. To file a CAMC data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the ILYM ID and passcode found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator on the first page of the document. Consumers who did not receive a settlement notice but believe they are included in the class may still file a claim form on this page by entering their name, email address and any other relevant information required to determine settlement eligibility. All CAMC settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 10, 2026. Finally, CAMC has agreed to implement improved data security measures for a period of four years following the effective date of the settlement. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the CAMC data breach settlement following a hearing on June 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Charleston Area Medical Center class action lawsuit alleged that the multi-specialty hospital in West Virginia failed to enact proper cybersecurity measures to prevent an email phishing attack in October 2024 that granted an unauthorized user access to protected patient information by way of an employee's email account. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the data breach includes full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, contact information, driver's license information, medical information and health insurance information. [GN] CHILDREN'S COUNCIL: Kereti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Council of San Francisco. The case is styled as Keila Kereti, Donetta Collins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Children's Council of San Francisco, Case No. CGC26634800 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Children's Council of San Francisco -- https://www.childrenscouncil.org/ -- is a child care agency in San Francisco, California [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com CHILDREN'S COUNCIL: Lacy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Council of San Francisco. The case is styled as Shanicie Lacy, Lorraine Hanks, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Children's Council of San Francisco., Case No. CGC26634785 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Children's Council of San Francisco -- https://www.childrenscouncil.org/ -- is a child care agency in San Francisco, California [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com CLARK COUNTY, NV: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $800,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shari Phiel of The Columbian reports that Clark County has agreed to pay $800,000 to settle a class action lawsuit filed last year in Clark County Superior County over an October 2023 data breach. The suit claimed negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment when the county failed to secure its network and allowed residents' information to be compromised. James Reese, Jessica Hardwick, Melissa Parker and Tanya Severson consolidated their individual lawsuits into a class action suit in September. While the county denied any wrongdoing or liability for the data breach, the settlement agreement said it wanted to "put to rest all controversy and to avoid the uncertainty, risk, and/or expense of burdensome, protracted, and costly litigation." Mediation with retired Judge Ronald Leighton began in December. The settlement agreement was finalized March 17. The county's information technology department began investigating the data breach after suspicious activity was detected on its computer network. Some parts of the county's website -- such as online maps, the property information center and the geographic information services department -- were unavailable while the investigation continued. "As with most organizations, Clark County monitors the security of its networks, which is how this issue was discovered," county spokesperson Joni McAnally said soon after the discovery. McAnally initially said there was no indication that residents' data or any other data had been accessed or stolen. But in May 2025, the county began notifying residents impacted by the data breach. "The investigation determined that an unknown actor gained access to Clark County systems between Oct. 16, 2023, and Oct. 21, 2023, and accessed and/or stole data stored on certain Clark County systems," according to a news release at the time. The class action lawsuit also asked the county to pay for 10 years of credit monitoring services for those affected by the breach. The settlement agreement allows up to $5,000 per class member for expenses directly related to the security incident, including credit monitoring. [GN] CLASS VALUATION: Golar Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Class Valuation, LLC. The case is styled as La Rica Golar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Class Valuation, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01377-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. Class Valuation LLC -- https://www.classvaluation.com/ -- offers real estate services. The Company provides real estate asset valuation and appraisal management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Baker Hall, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 876-8100 Fax: (404) 876-3477 Email: chall@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com COMPASS GROUP: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Barista Case ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Carla Mercedez, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25 Civ. 942 (GS) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gary Stein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Carla Mercedez (Mercedez) brought this action against Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc. (Compass) alleging that Compass unlawfully undercompensated Plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York law. In October 2021, Mercedez was hired by Compass to work as a barista at the Starbucks located at 45 West 4th Street, New York, NY. She worked for Compass until approximately February 2023, when she was terminated. Mercedez alleged several categories of unlawful behavior. First, she alleged that Compass failed to pay overtime compensation as required under the FLSA and New York Labor Law due to timeshaving, including requiring employees to clock out at the end of their scheduled shift yet continue performing close-out procedures for approximately 30 minutes, at least twice a week. Second, she alleged that Compass frequently changed her scheduled hours at the last minute without notice and failed to award premium pay in violation of the New York City Fair Workweek Law. Third, she alleged that Compass did not provide proper wage statements in violation of the Work Theft Protection Act. Compass moved to compel Mercedez to arbitrate her claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and to stay the action pending arbitration, relying on a one-page Mutual Arbitration Agreement that Mercedez digitally signed on September 28, 2021, prior to her first day of work. The Agreement set forth binding individual arbitration as the sole and exclusive means to resolve all legal claims arising out of or related to employment, compensation, or termination of employment. It also contained a delegation clause confiding issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. As a barista at the NYU-Starbucks, Mercedez was a member of Local 1102 RWDSU UFCW, which represented a bargaining unit of food service employees at that location. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Union and Chartwells, the Compass division that operates the NYU-Starbucks location, was in effect from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023, encompassing Mercedez's entire tenure. On the question of consideration, the court found that the Mutual Arbitration Agreement contained mutual promises to arbitrate, and that such mutuality constitutes sufficient consideration under Second Circuit precedent. The court therefore rejected Mercedez's argument that the Agreement was illusory or void for lack of consideration. On the threshold question of who decides arbitrability, Compass argued that the delegation clause required the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve Mercedez's challenge. The court found that Mercedez's challenge was directed specifically at the validity of the agreement to arbitrate itself and therefore required court adjudication. The court further found that because a delegation clause is itself an agreement to arbitrate, Mercedez's challenge applied equally to it: if the parties could not lawfully agree to arbitrate their disputes, they likewise could not lawfully agree to arbitrate disputes about the arbitrability of those disputes. The court therefore proceeded to the merits. On the merits, the court applied the Second Circuit's decision in Mendez v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., which held that under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), only the d the employee's terms and conditions of employment, and that individual arbitration agreements intruding upon subjects within the union's exclusive bargaining realm are unenforceable as unlawful side agreements. Compass argued that Article 7 of the CBA, a Management Rights Clause preserving Compass's right to, among other things, make and enforce reasonable work rules, authorized the Agreement. The court rejected this argument. The plain meaning of the term work rules connotes rules governing conduct in the workplace, not an agreement specifying the forum in which disputes between a worker and Compass shall be resolved. The court also found that the CBA's Management Rights Clause was textually similar to that in Mendez and materially different from the CBA in Hedges v. United Parcel Service, which had explicitly authorized extra-contract agreements with individual employees. The court therefore concluded that the Union had not waived its right to bargain over the adoption of individual arbitration agreements applicable to its members. Compass also argued that Mercedez was not yet a union member when she signed the Agreement during the onboarding process. The court found this distinction unpersuasive. The Agreement was intended to and did govern the terms and conditions of Mercedez's employment after she became a union member. To allow employers to usurp a union's exclusive bargaining role by obtaining arbitration agreements during the hiring process would elevate form over substance and subvert the clear command and purpose of the NLRA. The court further found that Mercedez's post-employment status did not revive the Agreement, as a contract void ab initio is a nullity that cannot spring back to life without a new assent. Accordingly, the court held that although the Agreement is supported by adequate consideration, it is not authorized by the CBA, violates the Union's exclusive bargaining rights under the NLRA, and must be found void and unenforceable. Defendant's motion to compel arbitration was therefore denied. The parties were directed to meet and confer and submit a joint status letter by April 3, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 20,2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=knneSC Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc. Represented By Brian Jeffrey Gershengorn Fisher & Phillips, LLP 212-899-9970 bgershengorn@fisherphillips.com Seth Diamant Kaufman Fisher & Phillips 212-899-9975 skaufman@fisherphillips.com Plaintiff Carla Mercedez Represented By C.K. Lee Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 212-465-1180 cklee@leelitigation.com COMPLETE PAYROLL: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $2.6MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Complete Payroll Solutions has agreed to a $2,600,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the payroll processing service failed to protect the confidential information stored on its systems from a data breach discovered by the company in March 2024. The $2.6 million Complete Payroll Solutions class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 18, 2026 and covers all individuals who were sent a notice from the payroll company regarding potential impact from the data breach discovered on or around March 10, 2024 or otherwise determined to have potentially had their personal information impacted by the breach. According to court documents, approximately 376,943 individuals may have been affected by the data breach. The court-approved website for the Complete Payroll Solutions (CPS) class action settlement can be found at CPSSettlement.com. The agreement states that CPS settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive multiple settlement benefits. Class members who submit a claim form with proof of documented monetary losses traceable to the data breach are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The agreement states that class members must provide supporting third-party documentation, such as bank statements or phone bills, to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to identity theft, fraud, bank fees, credit monitoring costs incurred between March 10, 2024 and June 18, 2026 and miscellaneous expenses like postage. Further, the agreement relays that class members may not receive compensation for losses that have been previously reimbursed by another source, including through the credit monitoring and identity theft protection product offered by CPS as part of the data breach notice letter. Additionally, all class members may submit a claim form to receive a one-time pro-rated cash payment from the settlement fund with no proof required, which court documents say will be approximately $100. Court documents state that the final amount of the pro rata, or equal share, cash payment will depend on the number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, administration expenses, lead plaintiff service awards and all other settlement benefits. In addition to monetary benefits, all class members may submit a claim form to receive an enrollment code for three free years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes dark web monitoring, identity theft insurance and identity recovery services, per the agreement. Moreover, CPS has agreed to implement certain business practice changes related to information security to better safeguard the sensitive information stored in its systems as part of the settlement. To submit a CPS settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the first page. All CPS settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 18, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the CPS settlement following a hearing on June 25, 2026. Compensation will only begin to be distributed to class members after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Complete Payroll Solutions class action lawsuit claimed that the payroll processing service failed to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures to prevent a data breach discovered on or around March 10, 2024. Per the filing, personal information that may have been compromised in the breach includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information and health insurance information. [GN] COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comprehensive Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Care, LLC. The case is styled as Wanda Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comprehensive Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Care, LLC, Case No. NNH-CV26-6167385-S (Cal. Super. Ct., New Haven Cty., March 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Misc - All Other." Comprehensive Orthopaedics -- https://comprehensiveorthopaedics.com/ -- has board-certified orthopedic surgeons in Connecticut provide expert care for knee, hip, shoulder, and sports-related injuries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, New York 10151 Tel: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com COMSCORE INC: Faces Singer Suit over Violations of California Laws ------------------------------------------------------------------ Comscore, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K dated March 25, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2026, that in February 2026, a purported class action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California captioned "Singer et al. v. Comscore, Inc. et al.," No. 2:26-cv-01108, alleging violations of various California laws and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as well as certain common-law claims, in connection with the company's alleged collection of internet data from California residents. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek certification as a class, injunctive relief, statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and although the company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims, it cannot reasonably estimate the outcome of this matter or the potential liability, if any, that may be incurred in this matter. Comscore, Inc. is a media measurement and analytics company that provides marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers, helping clients plan, transact and evaluate media across platforms. CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL: Krishnamoorthy Balks at Fraudulent Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Parthasarathy Krishnamoorthy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concorde International Group, Ltd., Swee Kheng Chua, Sze Yin Ong, Terence Wing Khai Yap, Mark Allen Brisson, Kreit And Chiu CPA, LLP, R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc., Cogency Global Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02283 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Concorde securities between April 21, 2025, and July 14, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This case arises from the crash of Concorde's stock in July 2025, following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. In the weeks leading up to July 10, 2025, Concorde's share price surged from the initial public offering price of $4 to an all-time high of $31.06, despite no fundamental news from the Company justifying such a spike. Investigations and public reports have since revealed that Concorde utilized social media to orchestrate an illicit "pump-and-dump" promotion scheme to defraud investors. These reports detail how impersonators claiming to be legitimate financial advisors touted Concorde in online forums, chat groups, and through social media posts with sensational but baseless claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. Additionally, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of its securities trading activity throughout the class period. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Concorde was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media-based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) that insiders and/or affiliates used offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during a price inflation campaign; (3) that Concorde's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. Concorde International Group, Ltd., founded in 1997 and based in Singapore, is an integrated security services provider. It combines physical manpower with IoT technologies (i-Guarding) to serve commercial and government clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean T. Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Mollie E. Chadwick, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com mchadwick@scott-scott.com - and - Tom Grady, Esq. GRADYLAW 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34102 E-mail: tgrady@gradylaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Broman Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kent Broman, individually and all other California citizens similarly situated v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-00155 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 19, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02840 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Conduent Business Services -- https://www.conduent.com/ -- is a leading global provider of business process outsourcing (BPO) and digital solutions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wendy Qiu, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.896.2433 Fax: 213.896.2450 Email: Wendy.Qiu@hklaw.com CORNERSTONE STAFFING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hiler Says --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS HILER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORNERSTONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02478 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members in a cyberincident that occurred in November 2025. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The incident was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current, former, and prospective clients of Defendant. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a staffing and recruiting agency that assists employers and job-seekers across multiple roles including IT, manufacturing and administrative.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolwayers.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com COSTAR GROUP: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- COSTAR GROUP, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Dywanna Drummer, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CoStar Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01047-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for personal injury. On July 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Jesus G. Bernal denied on Oct. 22, 2025. On Dec. 22, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to certify interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292 (b) and stay pending resolution of interlocutory appeal, which Judge Bernal granted on Feb. 13, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Drummer, et al. v. CoStar Group, Inc., Case No. 26-1652, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 24, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 28, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DYWANNA DRUMMER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Kim Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 - and - Donald Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Defendant-Petitioner COSTAR GROUP, INC. is represented by: Michael H. Rubin, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Alexander Wyman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Nicholas Boyle, Esq. Blake E. Stafford, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 CREE LIGHTING: Sorenson Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY SORENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREE LIGHTING USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00445-SCD (E.D. Wis., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Wisconsin Mini-Warn Act, known as the Wisconsin Business Closing and Mass Layoff Law. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or about March 13, 2026, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act and Wisconsin WARN Act. Cree Lighting USA LLC is a lighting solutions provider based in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq. DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC 136 E. Saint Paul Ave. Waukesha, WI 53189 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 Email: nathan@dela-law.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com CW 7403 LLC: Pardo Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. CW 7403 LLC and GALQUI FAMILIEN GRUPPE, LLC D/B/A LA BODEGUITA MERCADO CAFETERIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21847 (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Defendant's commercial property and commercial market business located within the commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendant's property and commercial market store has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and market and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. These barriers include inaccessible general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel, says the suit. CW 7403 LLC as the Landlord own, operate and/or oversee the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com DAN REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ulic Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ROK ULIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAN REALTY LLC; and DINKO POPOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02204 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 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 Ulic was employed by the Defendants as a handyman. Dan Realty LLC owns and manages residential rental properties in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO: Perez Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel F. Martuscello, III, et al. The case is styled as Jarrell D. Perez, on his behalf and behalf of others similarly situated v. Daniel F. Martuscello, III, Commissioner of Department of Correctional and Community Services; S. Danforth, former Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, individually; Z. Trombley, current Acting Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, individually; State of New York, Case No. 9:26-cv-00416-AMN-CBF (N.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Daniel F. Martuscello III assumed oversight of the Department as Acting Commissioner on June 9, 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DAVID PEYSER SPORTSWEAR: Samaduroff Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brittney Samaduroff and Eve Summers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVID PEYSER SPORTSWEAR, INC. d/b/a 32 DEGREES, Case No. 26-2-00704-06, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Clark, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05275-GJL. The Plaintiffs have raised allegations against Defendant in connection with these emails, including that Defendant's emails "contain false or misleading information in the subject line" in violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer L. Crow, Esq. SCHEER.LAW PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3860 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (503) 446-1767 Fax: (206) 490-0866 Email: jen@scheer.law DAVID PROTEIN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Nutritional Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriela Barkho, writing for Modern Retail, reports that in the MAHA age, food and beverage companies are facing more complex consumer criticisms of their health and wellness claims. Some of these consumer counterclaims are increasingly leading to class action lawsuits. The latest class action of this kind came earlier this year, claiming that protein bar startup David contains more calories and fat than is labeled. The lawsuit cited independent lab tests that found up to 275 calories and 13.5 grams of fat in a David bar, in contrast to the company's heavily advertised 150 calories and two grams of fat per serving. David has defended its labeling by stating the latest tests misinterpreted the nutrient makeup of EPG, the proprietary fat substitute used in its bars, and that EPG simply passes through the body and is not directly digested as energy. The David class action comes on the heels of a somewhat similar suit filed against Poppi in 2024. The better-for-you soda brand was hit with a class-action lawsuit in California by customers, who claimed its label falsely promoted the prebiotic fiber dose as a gut health benefit. Last year, Poppi settled the class action for $8.9 million. The company has also since moved away from the gut health positioning on its labels. There is indeed evidence that class action filings against food and beverage brands' label claims have increased this decade. These types of suits reportedly hit a 10-year high in 2021 and jumped by more than 58% between 2023 and 2024, per tracking by law firm Perkins Coie. Why brands' health claims are facing greater scrutiny Donnelly McDowell is a partner at Kelley Drye who advises companies on FDA and consumer protection risks. McDowell told Modern Retail that health and nutrition claims, along with related marketing campaigns, have been an active source of litigation and enforcement for many years. "The politicization of these issues recently has increased attention," he said. That has also changed the way that lawyers and regulators are approaching and talking about these issues. "There is also a whole new set of legislators and regulators that are taking a more active role at the state level," McDowell said. He added that, historically, it would have been unlikely for a red state's Attorney General to view these issues through a broader UDAP (Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices) lens. "But we're now seeing investigations and enforcement from both red and blue states on top of the longstanding private litigation," he said. On the class-action lawsuit side, despite a spike in legal filings, many of these cases end up dismissed or eventually settled. One prominent example came in 2022, when beverage brand Ensure faced a suit alleging that the "healthy" claims on its shakes were misleading due to the high amount of added sugar. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Second Circuit in 2025, with the court claiming that the defendant's label clearly disclosed the sugar content in the product. In 2025, Chobani successfully defended its "Zero Sugar" yogurt line's claims against a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the product indeed contains sugar. The class action claimed that Chobani's claims did not clearly disclose the company's use of the fruit-derived sweetener allulose as a sugar substitute. In the ruling, an Illinois federal judge said the label met current FDA label requirements. Social media is shaping the conversation around nutrition claims Thanks to viral conversions on platforms like Reddit, X and TikTok, certain narratives around brand claims can form much more quickly than they could in previous decades. Tara Naughton, senior vp at Storyful Intelligence, said that Americans are more health-conscious than ever. "And Storyful data and insights show consumers are paying close attention to claims about the brands they consume, and that can create increased virality," she said. Popular better-for-you brands, like David and Poppi, can often face greater risk. "That's because their health-conscious customers can feel misled, particularly if the products are a part of their health routines," Naughton said. Naughton said brands can monitor the conversations around their claims early to better inform their messaging. Per Storyful's tracking, the conversation around David's macros claims was born all the way back in September 2024, around the time the company launched. These discussions began on niche Reddit threads and on X. That month saw one of the first instances of people questioning the accuracy of David's caloric breakdown, with one Reddit user claiming the bars are "collagen spiked" and should be marked as 186 cals instead of 150. By October, multiple communities were independently arriving at the same conclusion, with users literally weighing the bars and doing their own math. That was followed by the class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in January, which was resurfaced earlier this month thanks to press coverage and social media posts. What food and beverage companies can do McDowell said it is important that companies feel confident in their claims, both in the actual underlying nutrition calculations and in the related messaging around function claims or health benefits. "This can be challenging for startup brands that grow quickly and experience exponential growth," he said. As in, claims that may seem low-risk when a company is starting in a few markets can suddenly become a bigger target for a plaintiff's lawyers as its distribution and popularity grow. Bernardo Silva, management consulting food and beverage industry lead at Teneo, said that mitigating litigation risk goes well beyond label and packaging changes. From a process perspective, Silva said companies need to run a disciplined claims substantiation process with credible evidence for every front-of-pack, digital and trade claim. This is especially important around superfluous labels like "natural" and "healthy," plus protein and ingredient absence like "zero sugar," among others. Brands should also tighten recall readiness and traceability to mitigate liability impacts and defend against economic loss claims. "When it comes to labeling specifically, the front and back labels must tell the same story," with qualifiers that are clear, proximate and easy to read, he said, adding, "Courts and regulators assess the entire packaging and often penalize front-of-pack ambiguity." Additionally, Silva said, brands should consider the upcoming changes to the definition of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) by the FDA and USDA, which are jointly developing a formal, uniform definition expected to be unveiled sometime this year. The pending changes may bring additional challenges to manufacturers, as broad or ambiguous definitions could create new plaintiff theories. As nutritional benefits like high protein and fiber are prominently displayed on products, McDowell said it's possible that more consumers and litigators will dispute these claims. But it will depend on how these lawsuits fare in court. "We continue to see actions challenging both the methodology of calculation -- express claims related to nutrient content -- as well as implied health, wellness and nutritional benefit claims," McDowell said. [GN] DIAMEDICAL EQUIPMENT: Discloses Clients' Personal Info, Nguyen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HIEN NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIAMEDICAL EQUIPMENT USA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00636 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of California Trap and Trace Law and intrusion upon seclusion. According to the complaint, DiaMedical Equipment aids third parties, including LiveRamp, to intercept users' communications on its website without prior consent. DiaMedical Equipment installed tracking technologies on its website which serve to track and disclose its users' activity, in real time, including their personal information, suit says. In doing so, DiaMedical Equipment undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal information of individuals seeking its services and breached its users' trust, violating state and federal law. DiaMedical Equipment USA, LLC is a company that distributes medical equipment and supplies in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: jparkkinen@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com ELECTRICAL SPECIALISTS: Pintarich Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PINTARICH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRICAL SPECIALISTS, INC. d/b/a THE SUPERIOR GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00341-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2026) challenges certain policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant had a policy and practice of deducting, or causing to be deducted, 30-minute unpaid meal breaks from employees' time work, including from Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendant failed to accurately record and compensate Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all time worked, including time worked during missed and/or interrupted unpaid meal breaks. As a result of Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice, the Defendant knew or had reason to know that it was not compensating Named Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all wages that they actually earned, including overtime pay, says the suit. Named Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately November 1, 2025 until December 22, 2025, as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Specifically, Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Journeyman Foreman in Columbus, Ohio. Electrical Specialists, Inc. d/b/a The Superior Group is a for-profit Ohio commercial electrical contractor with its headquarters in Columbus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Faces Owens Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASIA OWENS, GROVER HOWARD, TELEEA MAYES, MICHAEL LILLEY and DEVON THOMAS, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00837 (D.N.M., March 19, 2026) is a civil action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated employees worked on the Hermits Peak FEMA PA-TAC project in New Mexico during their employment. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the similarly situated employees were paid under an invalid non guaranteed hourly rate system, without any compensation for overtime worked, thus requiring overtime due at a rate of an additional one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. Emergency Management Partners, LLC is an emergency management consulting firm that provides professional services to a variety of public and private-sector clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hessam Parzivand, Esq. Travis Bryan Texas, Esq. THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185 Sugar Land, TX 77477 Telephone: (832) 233-7527 Facsimile: (713) 533-8193 E-mail: hp@parzfirm.com travis@parzfirm.com ERSG US: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Finney" Per Diem Overtime Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Devon Finney, Individually and For All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ERSG US Holdings Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 6:24-CV-1238 (GTS/MJK) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, to strike Plaintiff's class allegations. Plaintiff Devon Finney, a Quality Control Technician, filed this wage payment class action against ERSG US Holdings Inc. (ERSG) pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). He asserted three claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated: (1) failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA based on (a) automatic deductions for meal breaks that Plaintiff and class members were required to work through, and (b) failure to include per diem payments in the regular rate of pay for calculating overtime; (2) failure to pay overtime wages under NYLL Section 190 on the same bases; and (3) failure to pay timely wages under NYLL Section 191, related to Defendant's practice of paying Plaintiff on a biweekly rather than weekly schedule as required under New York law for manual workers. The court identified a concerning ambiguity in Plaintiff's complaint regarding when precisely he performed work for Defendant in New York. The complaint alleged conflicting employment date ranges -- from approximately August 2021 to December 2022 in one paragraph, April 2021 to October 2021 in another, and April 2022 through October 2022 in yet another. Because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the actual date range of his employment, the court dismissed his FLSA and NYLL claims, granting leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On the meal break claim, the court found that Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim. He alleged he worked approximately 12 hours a day for 6 days a week (72 hours a workweek) on a rotating schedule of 6 weeks on and one week off. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes a day for unpaid meal breaks but did not actually provide a bona fide meal break, instead requiring Plaintiff and other manual workers to remain on-duty and perform compensable work during those breaks. The court found these allegations, though bordering on conclusory, plausibly suggested that Plaintiff was made to work uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours. On the per diem claim, the court held that whether the per diem meets one of the enumerated exceptions under 29 U.S.C. Section 207(e) is an affirmative defense on which Defendant bears the burden. Plaintiff alleged the per diem was not paid on days when he could not work due to inclement weather, and the court accepted that allegation as true on the motion to dismiss, finding that dismissal would therefore be inappropriate. On the Section 191 timely pay claim, the court denied dismissal, relying on its prior decision in Euson v. TRC Engineers, LLC (N.D.N.Y. 2025), and finding that amendments to NYLL Section 198(1-a) approved on May 6, 2025, resolve the split of authority by providing a private right of action for violations of Section 191. The court also declined to strike Plaintiff's class allegations, finding that whether material differences exist between Plaintiff's situation and that of other class members is a question best considered after discovery. Defendant's bases for striking mirrored the class certification inquiry and are more appropriately addressed at that stage. Accordingly, the court dismissed Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims without further order unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint within 30 days, and denied Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 19, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z5yXim from PacerMonitor.com Defendant ERSG US Holdings Inc. is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Alex W. Karasik, Esq. Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Plaintiff Devon Finney is represented by: Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Michael Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP Ryan G. Files, Esq. BOUSQUET HOLSTEIN, PLLC Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC FLOCK GROUP: Dutcher Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------- LANCE DUTCHER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOCK GROUP INC., d/b/a FLOCK SAFETY, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV07141 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026) is a putative class action against Flock for violations of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' right to privacy and protection of personally identifiable information under California Civil Code and other relevant consumer protection statutes and constitutional provisions. Defendant Flock sells, uses, installs, implements and maintains Automated License Plate Reader cameras, which are ALPR systems that capture the license plate information, location, date, and time -- and upon information and belief, driver and passenger information -- of vehicles across the State of California. Flock provided to third parties and maintained, without consumers' authorization or notice, ALPR systems that captured the license plate information, location, date, and time as Plaintiff and the Class Members drove and/or parked their vehicles in the view or vicinity of the Flock Cameras. The Defendant maintains and stores massive amounts of data captured from its system of Flock Cameras across the State of California, and it allows unauthorized, improper, and unprotected access to that data, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated for: (i) unauthorized federal agency (and out-of-state agency) access and use of ALPR information, and (ii) failures to implement code compliant privacy policies that are available to the public in writing. Flock Safety, founded in 2017, is a nationwide, private vendor of Automated License Plate Reader cameras and accompanying software that allows for the analysis of its cameras' data.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com FLOWERS FOODS: Odom Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY ODOM, BENJAMIN BISHOP, MAURICE DODSON, BRYAN MOORE, BRANDON KINNEY, KEVIN MCINTOSH, EDWARD FRANCIS JOSEPH, MARQUIS APPLE, JULIAN BILLS-SNEED, CALVIN B. STANFIELD, ZACKERY UTTERBACK and SARAH UTTERBACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MORRISTOWN, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF KNOXVILLE, LLC, and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00336 (M.D. Tenn., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as distributors in Tennessee. Flowers Foods, Inc. is a bakery company, with its principal place of business in Thomasville, Georgia. Flowers Baking Co. of Morristown, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc., based in Morristown, Tennessee. Flowers Baking Co. of Knoxville, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc., based in Knoxville, Tennessee. Flowers Baking Co. of Tennessee, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc., based in Thomasville, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Landry Smith, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com lsmith@jsyc.com FNZ GROUP: Employee Shareholders Sue Over Fiduciary Oversight ------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Welsh of Benefits and Pensions Monitor reports that nearly 200 employee shareholders of global fintech firm FNZ are moving ahead with one of the world's "largest active class actions," a USD $4.6 billion claim that puts Quebec-based pension fund La Caisse right in the middle of the legal spotlight. The move could draw fresh attention from the pension sector to governance and fiduciary oversight. In a press release, announced March 27, Kiwi Cayco GP said that its board has authorized the continuation of legal proceedings tied to a USD $4.6 billion claim against FNZ Group and 17 current and former directors. The High Court of New Zealand has also scheduled the first public hearing for May 12, 2026. La Caisse is FNZ's principal shareholder and manages the retirement savings of millions of Quebecers. According to the press release, the employee shareholders allege that La Caisse and other institutional investors leveraged their control of the FNZ board to execute three capital raises in 2024 and 2025 on terms that effectively wiped out the value of employee-held shares. The plaintiffs contend these transactions involved the issuance of preference shares and warrants on what they characterize as non-commercial terms. Since the claim was filed in July 2025, FNZ and its co-defendants, including La Caisse, have mounted an aggressive defence strategy. The defendants submitted seven separate memoranda and two affidavits seeking to suspend proceedings, all of which were rejected by the High Court. An additional injunction was pursued in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands to prevent Kiwi Cayco GP from acting as plaintiff. That effort also failed. "While the most recent developments represent a step in the right direction, we will remain cautious and vigilant against any further attempts to impede these proceedings, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere," said Mike Stevens, a shareholder and former FNZ employee in a statement. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Loses Bid to Partially Deny "McCabe" Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Daniel McCabe, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:23-10829-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied without prejudice Defendant's motion for partial denial of class certification. Plaintiffs represent putative classes of purchasers and lessees of Ford vehicles equipped with a 10R80 10-speed automatic transmission. The consolidated complaint alleges that the transmission can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, clunk, and hesitate between gears. Plaintiffs assert that they have not received the benefit for which they bargained and that the value of the class vehicles has diminished. The remaining claims are: (1) violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) by Alabama Plaintiffs and (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability by Plaintiffs from Texas, Pennsylvania, California, and Massachusetts. Defendant sought to deny class certification as to both sets of claims. efendant contended that the ADTPA's express class-action bar -- which provides, under Section 8-19-10(f) of the Alabama Code, that a consumer bringing an action under that chapter may not bring an action on behalf of a class -- should be enforced in this federal proceeding. The Court found that Berk v. Choy, decided in January 2026, clarified that the test in the Shady Grove plurality opinion controls. That opinion garnered the support of at least eight Justices and made clear that whether a state law is substantive makes no difference to whether a federal rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. Read together, Berk v. Choy and Shady Grove squarely resolve the question of whether Rule 23 applies in federal court notwithstanding a state law class-action bar. It does, and the Alabama class-action bar is therefore unenforceable in this action. The Court denied Defendant's request to deny certification of the Alabama class. Defendant sought to enforce the class-action waiver in Ford's New Vehicle Limited Warranty (NVLW) against the remaining implied-warranty claims. Plaintiffs raised three objections: (a) the NVLW is unenforceable against them, (b) the waiver does not encompass implied-warranty claims arising by operation of law, and (c) it is premature to decide whether such a waiver is unconscionable. On enforceability, Plaintiffs' admission in the complaint was dispositive. The complaint expressly alleged, twice, that the NVLW was part of the basis of the bargain, and Plaintiffs sought to enforce its terms against Defendant. The Court held that Plaintiffs are bound by the terms of the NVLW by their judicial admission. On scope, the Court found that the plain language of the waiver, covering any warranty-related claim, encompasses implied-warranty claims. The Court noted that both "any" and "related" are broad terms, and that the waiver must encompass the only other kind of warranties mentioned in the sub-section -- implied warranties. Other district courts addressing the same issue have reached the same conclusion. On unconscionability, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the issue is not yet ripe. Whether the class-action waiver is unconscionable is a fact-specific analysis, and without all the facts before it, the Court could not determine whether that inquiry must proceed on an individualized or classwide basis. The Court agreed that resolution of the issue must precede class certification, but given the limited factual record, it denied the motion without prejudice to its renewal. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for partial denial of class certification was denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 25, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lV7Bee from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Ford Motor Company is represented by: Jacob J. Lantry, Esq. Michelle I. Schaffer, Esq. CAMPBELL CONROY & O'NEIL, P.C. Email: jlantry@campbell-trial-lawyers.com Email: mschaffer@campbell-trial-lawyers.com Cindy Kelly, Esq. Stephen Thomasch, Esq. Hector Torres, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP Email: ckelly@kasowitz.com Email: sthomasch@kasowitz.com Email: htorres@kasowitz.com Plaintiffs Daniel McCabe, Jeffrey Pollack, and Daniel Wright are represented by: Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. Tyler Litke, Esq. Leland Humphrey Belew, Esq. Mitchell Mark Breit, Esq. Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Email: rmcmillan@milberg.com Email: astraus@milberg.com Email: tlitke@milberg.com Email: lbelew@milberg.com Email: mbreit@milberg.com Email: gcoleman@milberg.com John R. Fabry, Esq. Jose Luis Munoz, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, PC Email: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com FRANCESCA'S ADMINISTRATIVE: Sek Alleges WARN Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Ashlyn Sek, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Francesca's Administrative Management Inc., Defendant, Case No. 26-11312-MEH (D.N.J., March 12, 2026), accuses the Defendant of violating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around January 14, 2026, and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. Headquartered in Houston, TX, Francesca's Administrative Management Inc. operates as women's fashion retailer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com GENOMIC PREDICTION: Faces Class Suit Over Inaccurate IVF Testing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuit, reports that a new class action lawsuit alleges a genetic testing company misled patients and fertility clinics about the accuracy of its embryo screening technology, raising concerns that IVF families may have made critical reproductive decisions based on flawed or unproven results. The complaint was filed by Adrian Anderson, Amanda Malkin and Maureen Ewing in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 19, naming Genomic Prediction Inc. as the defendant. The lawsuit claims the company marketed its preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a scientifically validated method for identifying which embryos are better suited for implantation, despite a lack of sufficient clinical evidence to support those claims. IVF is a widely used assisted reproductive technology that involves fertilizing eggs outside the body and selecting embryos for implantation. In recent years, advances in genetic testing have allowed clinics to screen embryos for certain abnormalities and other inherited conditions, which may affect the embryos' implantation rates. However, the new class action complaint alleges that Genomic Prediction's PGT-A screening goes beyond established practices by attempting to predict complex traits and risks using scoring methods that remain controversial within the scientific community. Plaintiffs warn this may have led prospective parents to discard viable embryos and suffer significant financial and emotional strain. IVF Testing Concerns Genomic Prediction's embryo screening relies on implantation risk scores that are calculated using large datasets to estimate the likelihood of an embryo's healthy implantation. While such methods have been used in research settings, plaintiffs argue that their application in embryo selection is premature and not sufficiently validated for clinical use. According to the complaint, the company failed to adequately warn patients and providers that the predictive accuracy of these tests is limited, particularly when applied to embryos. Unlike testing for single-gene disorders or chromosomal abnormalities, PGT-A screening involves complex statistical models that may not reliably translate into real-world outcomes. Plaintiffs claim that by presenting the testing as a meaningful tool for improving IVF success, the company created a false impression that the results could be relied upon when making decisions about which embryos to implant. The lawsuit alleges that in reality the differences in predicted risk between embryos are often minimal and may not be clinically significant. The complaint further indicates that patients may have discarded or deprioritized viable embryos based on these test results, potentially reducing their chances of achieving a successful pregnancy. In some cases, individuals may have undergone additional IVF cycles, incurring significant financial costs and emotional strain, based on misleading information about the benefits of the testing. In addition, the lawsuit raises concerns about the lack of regulatory oversight for this type of testing, suggesting that the company took advantage of a gap in federal regulation to bring the product to market without sufficient scrutiny. Plaintiffs argue that the marketing of the tests outpaced the underlying science, exposing patients to unnecessary risks. "Plaintiff and the Class members would not have purchased PGT-A from Defendants had they known that it was unproven, inaccurate, incapable of providing information claimed, and unreliable." -- Adrian Anderson et al v. Genomic Prediction Inc. The complaint raises allegations of breach of warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Laws. It seeks class certification to represent individuals who paid for or used Genomic Prediction's PGT-A screening services, as well as those who made reproductive decisions based on the test results, in addition to compensatory damages, restitution and other relief, including potential changes to how the tests are marketed and disclosed to consumers. [GN] GLOBAL-E ONLINE: Consumer Class Action Filed in Israel ------------------------------------------------------ Global-E Online Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F dated March 26, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2026, that in February 2026, a claim and a motion to certify a class action were filed in Israel against one of the company's merchants and the company, in connection with allegations concerning product descriptions on the merchant's Israeli website and the asserted suitability of a certain product family for its intended use. The certification motion asserts various causes of action under Israeli law and estimates aggregate class-wide damages of approximately $9 million. The company intends to seek dismissal of the claims at a preliminary stage, as the allegations relate to representations made on the merchant's website, which are outside the scope of the company's involvement. Proceeding is at a preliminary stage. Global-E Online Ltd. is a cross-border e-commerce platform that enables and accelerates global, direct-to-consumer e-commerce for brands and retailers, providing localized online shopping experiences for international customers. GOFO INC: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOFO Inc. The case is styled as Benson Lee, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. GOFO Inc., Case No. 26STCV08304 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GOFO -- https://www.gofo.com/us/ -- is a U.S.-founded last-mile logistics provider combining innovative technology with local expertise to deliver efficiency, reliability, and trust.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com GOOGLE LLC: Epstein Sexual Assault Survivors Sue Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a group of sexual assault survivors of Jeffrey Epstein filed suit Thursday, March 26, against the United States and Google, claiming the disclosure of their personal information through the Epstein files and subsequent proliferation online continues to cause harm. The plaintiffs, named Jane Does in the putative class action complaint, claim that in late 2025 and early 2026, the Department of Justice wrongfully disclosed and republished victim-identifying information such as names, phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses and images of around 100 survivors of the convicted sexual predator Epstein, identifying them to the world through online portals. "Even after the government acknowledged the disclosure violated the rights of the survivors and withdrew the information, online entities like Google continuously republish it, refusing victim's pleas to take it down," the plaintiffs said in the complaint. "Survivors now face renewed trauma. Strangers call them, email them, threaten their physical safety, and accuse them of conspiring with Epstein when they are, in reality, Epstein's victims." The class action was filed in the Northern District of California federal court. The plaintiffs bring Privacy Act violation claims against the government and seek compensatory damages. The plaintiffs also seek to enjoin Google from republishing personal information, as the search engine continues to bring up information in search results and artificial intelligence-generated content. Additionally, the plaintiffs bring claims of violations of California Civil Code that targets doxxing, violations of California's unfair competition law, invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. They seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief from Google. For both defendants, the plaintiffs demand a jury trial. From Dec. 19, 2025, until Jan. 30, 2026, several thousand pages of unredacted investigative files, victim statements, witness interviews, correspondence and other materials were released with identifiable information, all stemming from the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Congress, the DOJ and Freedom of Information Act requests sought a wide swath of records pertaining to Epstein's criminal conduct, the plaintiffs said. "These survivors have already endured Epstein's abuse," plaintiffs' attorney Elizabeth Kramer of Erickson Kramer Osborne told Courthouse News in an email. "The government's disclosures of their identities and personal information — and Google's refusal to remove that sensitive material despite repeated requests — has subjected them to renewed victimization, harassment, and fear for their safety. Federal and state laws exist to protect crime victims' privacy, and both defendants have flagrantly violated those protections." In allowing the unredacted files with personal information to be disclosed and republished by Google without consent, the plaintiffs claim the government violated a subsection of the Privacy Act. Furthermore, the plaintiffs said the government's decisions were intentional. "The United States, acting through the DOJ, made a deliberate policy choice to prioritize rapid, large-volume disclosure over protection of Epstein survivors' privacy," the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs claim Google can remove their information from its sites and search functions but purposefully chooses not to. "Google has the technological capability to remove or de-index specific URLs and content from search results and caches. The company maintains policies and procedures for removing content in response to legal demands, court orders, and certain categories of sensitive personal information," they said in the complaint. "Google's refusal to use such tools in this case shows its conduct is reckless, in wonton disregard for the well-being of plaintiff and other victims, and willful." Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] GRIFFIS GROUP: Charges Bogus Fees to Tenants, Sweeney Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASHUA SWEENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRIFFIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, LLC dba GRIFFIS RESIDENTIAL, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01742-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful retention of residential security deposits, breach of written contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair and deceptive business practices, statutory larceny, unlawful utility fees, and violations of Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for alleged intentional failure to follow landlord tenant laws and repeated scheme of larceny and defrauding tenants by demanding payment for bogus fees, charges, and expenses. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises the prices of its available units and represents the monthly lease amounts in the ads. But the stated amounts do not include all the mandatory bogus fees it charges. Further, the leases that the Defendant required the Plaintiff and Class members to sign did not describe a uniform fee schedule. Fees were added to base rent and spread out through several addendums to the lease. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit. Griffis Group of Companies, LLC, doing business as Griffis Residential, is a multifamily real estate investment and property management company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: Dan@ShayLegal.com HERCULES CAPITAL: Faces Taylor Suit Over Undisclosed Material Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ HUNTER HANLON TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERCULES CAPITAL, INC., SCOTT BLUESTEIN, and SETH H. MEYER, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02465-VC (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hercules Capital securities between May 1, 2025 and February 27, 2026, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, theDefendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated the due diligence with which it conducted its deal sourcing and/or loan origination process; (2) the Company overstated the due diligence with which it conducted its portfolio valuation process; (3) the Company reported misclassified portfolio investments; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company overstated and/or misrepresented its portfolio valuations; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Hercules Capital is a private credit firm, also known a Business Development Company, which specializes in making private loans to companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com HIGHTOWER ADVISORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Donachie of Wealth Management reports that Hightower is the latest firm facing a class-action lawsuit in the wake of an alleged cybercriminal data breach of client information. Elliott Adams, who claims he is a former employee of the firm, filed the suit in Illinois federal court this week, alleging Hightower failed to "properly secure and safeguard" client information that was exposed during a data breach the company disclosed earlier this month. "While (Hightower) sought to minimize the damage caused by the data breach, it cannot and has not denied that there was unauthorized access to the sensitive private information of plaintiff and class members," the suit read. "Individuals affected by the data breach are, and remain, at risk that their data will be sold or listed on the dark web, and, ultimately, illegally used in the future." According to a data breach notification filed with the Maine attorney general, the data breach occurred around Jan. 8, affecting about 131,483 individuals. Hightower learned that clients' personally identifiable information had been accessed, including names, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers, the lawsuit states. On March 23, the firm disclosed the breach to customers, acknowledging that it posed "a present, continuing and significant risk of identity theft" and offering clients credit monitoring and "proactive fraud assistance" services. However, Adams nevertheless took Hightower to task, claiming the firm could have prevented the breach by "properly encrypting or otherwise protecting" private client information. Other suggestions included awareness and training programs for employees, "strong" spam filters to block phishing emails, scanning incoming and outgoing emails for threats and building firewalls to "block access to known malignant IP addresses." After the data breach, Adams claims he lost "considerable time" researching its impact, monitoring his bank accounts, checking his credit reports and engaging in other "necessary mitigation efforts" to keep his information safe. Adams also claimed he suffered "fear, anxiety and stress," which increased after he faced "a significant uptick" in spam texts, calls and emails after the breach. "(Adams) anticipates spending considerable time and money on an ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harms caused by the data breach," the suit read. "In addition, (Adams) will continue to be at present and continued increased risk of identity theft and fraud for years to come." Hightower declined to comment for this story. Hightower is the latest of several industry firms to fall victim to a data breach by hackers since the start of the year. Beacon Pointe Advisors, Pathstone Family Office and Edelman Financial Engines all told regulators and some customers about data breaches occurring this year. Additionally, Mercer Advisors faced a similar class action complaint alleging it failed to properly protect client information from a cybercrime extortionist outfit known as ShinyHunters. According to the suit filed by Mercer customer Paul Berger, in February, ShinyHunters breached Mercer's cyber defenses and demanded a ransom payment within 48 hours. Otherwise, the criminals would leak about 5.7 million client records onto the dark web. Mercer refused, and the group published the stolen information. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Yonan Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yolih Yonan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C25-03697 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02421. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; waiting time penalties; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John D. Hayashi, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: Tel: +1.949.399.7107 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: john.hayashi@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com - and - Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grande Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.310.907.1000 Fax: +1.310.907.1001 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com HOSPITALITY CENTER: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- SURAMA REYES, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE HOSPITALITY CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60801 (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for Defendant's unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the federal law by failing to pay her and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate. The Plaintiff also contends that she was terminated in retaliation for having complained about not receiving proper overtime compensation for those hours worked over 40 each week. The Plaintiff was designated to work at Defendant's client, DeliverLean, at the Nations Market's facilities located in Hollywood, Florida. The Plaintiff had duties as a line person, working decanting duties in the production department. The Plaintiff's relevant employment period is from March 18, 2023 to August 31st, 2024, or a total of 76 weeks. The Hospitality Center is a staffing agency providing personnel to the hospitality industry.[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 HUDSON RIVER HOUSING: McCord Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson River Housing, Inc. The case is styled as Carol McCord, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hudson River Housing, Inc., Case No. 2026-51490 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Negligence (Data Breach). Hudson River Housing, Inc. (HRH) -- https://www.hudsonriverhousing.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization with substantial experience developing and managing affordable housing in our communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com HUDSON RIVER HOUSING: Oquendo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson River Housing, Inc. The case is styled as Ildefonso Oquendo, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hudson River Housing, Inc., Case No. 2026-51495 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Negligence (Data Breach). Hudson River Housing, Inc. (HRH) -- https://www.hudsonriverhousing.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization with substantial experience developing and managing affordable housing in our communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired ImmunityBio, Inc. ("ImmunityBio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:IBRX) securities during the period of January 19, 2026 through March 24, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your ImmunityBio investments, you have until May 26, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. For more information: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/immunitybio-inc What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (1) Defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Company's Executive Chairman of the Board, materially overstated the capabilities of Anktiva, an FDA-approved IL-15 receptor agonist immunotherapy that combats cancer, in public statements. On March 24, 2026, before markets opened, the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a warning letter to ImmunityBio. The FDA stated in the warning letter that a TV ad and podcast, which can be accessed through ImmunityBio's website, has been determined to be "false or misleading." The FDA also stated that "Untitled Letters dated September 9, 2025, and January 7, 2026" were sent to "Altor BioScience, LLC (an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ImmunityBio, Inc.) [which] addressed presentations of Anktiva that were, in certain respects, similar to presentations in the TV ad and podcast addressed in this [warning] letter." "[D]espite receiving these previous Untitled Letters, ImmunityBio continues to promote Anktiva in a similarly misleading manner. On this news, the price of ImmunityBio shares declined by $1.99 per share, or approximately 21.2%, from $9.40 per share on March 23, 2026 to close at $7.41 on March 24, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunityBio securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] IN-SHAPE FAMILY FITNESS: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Elena M. Diaz, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC, Randy Karr, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV006539 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." In-Shape Fitness -- https://www.inshape.com/ -- has 60+ highly rated gyms with premium amenities including pools, studio quality group fitness classes, Kid Zone, personal training and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. KING & SIEGEL, LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 213-465-4802 Fax: 213-465-4803 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com INFIRST HEALTHCARE: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFIRST HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02298 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.mylicon.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Infirst Healthcare Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal INSUREME INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Shapiro writing for JD Supra, reports that it's no secret many folks pay a high premium and have a high deductible for their health insurance and such expenses can be costly. Well, an insurance brokerage company may be feeling the pain soon if they are not careful as one just got hit with a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the TCPA. The factual allegations here are a classic composition that we see in many of these TCPA class action lawsuits. In Gary Klouda v. InsureMe, Inc. and Does 1-10., 1:26-cv-00456-CEF (E.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2026), Plaintiff alleges that around March 2024, Defendant began placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number while Defendant was on the National Do-No-Call Registry. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant placed at least twenty (20) calls during 2024 and never provided express consent to receive calls. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered annoyance, aggravation, frustration, emotional distress, (get this) wasting his time and all the other classic supposed harm a party alleges in a complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: All persons within the United States whose telephone numbers were registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who received more than one call or text message within any twelvemonth period, placed by or on behalf of Defendants and which promoted Defendants' products or services, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification. What is interesting here is that Plaintiff does not allege in the complaint that his phone was registered for at least 30 days prior to Defendant's allegedly calling him initially. It should also be noted that that Plaintiff alleges the twenty calls happened during 2024 but does not specifically say when and only notes that the calls began "during or about March 2024." For all we know right now, it could be possible that all twenty calls came within 30 days of Plaintiff registering his number on the National Do-Not-Call list (assuming he even did that). These are just a couple of glaring points that are important for the Defendant and their counsel to note because if they aren't careful, this will be a costly lawsuit for them. As a reminder, there is a statutory $500 award for each call in violation of the TCPA and $1,500 if it is determined that the calls were knowing and willful. This could amount to $30,000 for the twenty calls Plaintiff alleges and that does not consider if the class gets certified which could end up skyrocketing that figure. This is exactly why making sure you have good counsel on your side is crucial to not only spotting pitfalls in the allegations set forth but to also prevent you from being slapped with a costly order of awards for the Plaintiff and the class. Spotting these loopholes, developing a good defense strategy and being apprised of all the new developments regarding the TCPA is paramount for saving you from a big headache caused by expensive award of damages. As always, I will be sure to report back on this case once there are more developments. Until next time, TCPAWorld! [GN] IQVIA INC: Iqbal Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Shehryar Iqbal, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IQVIA, INC., IQVIA RDS, INC., IQVIA HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 26CU008575C 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-01736-AJB-BLM. The Complaint alleges six causes of action against Defendants under California state law for various alleged wage and hour violations, including: Failure to Pay Compensation Due for Hours Worked; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Regular Wages; Pay Statements; Unfair Business Practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200. The Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants "wrongfully misclassified exempt clinical research associates ("CRA") in California."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Annette L. Rose, Esq. Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com arose@seyfarth.com nkreeger@seyfarth.com J.M. SMUCKER: Appeals Class Certification Order in Jeruchim Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Sandra Jeruchim, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the Defendant for allegedly misleading statements and omissions relating to three brands of pet food products that it produces and sells. On July 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge William H. Orrick granted on Jan. 22, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden in establishing both the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) factors thus their motion is granted. The Court certifies the following Rule 23(b)(3) class: All persons in California who from November 4, 2018, to and through December 31, 2022, purchased any of the Defendants' 9Lives-branded, Kibbles 'n Bits-branded, and/or Meow Mix-branded products at issue. The Court appoints Sandra Jeruchim and Melissa Vargas as the representatives of the class. The Court also appoints Bursor & Fisher, PA as class counsel. The appellate case is styled as Jeruchim, et al. v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 26-1661, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 24, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 28, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SANDRA JERUCHIM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia Kathryn Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Defendant-Appellant THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Perlette Michele Jura, Esq. Matt Aidan Getz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 5300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Michael Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS, LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 JACK GIANT: Discriminates on the Basis of Gender, Ross Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CYRIS ROSS, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACK GIANT INC., individually and d/b/a GIANT FITNESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02254-ESK-MJS (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant brought pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, seeking damages to redress the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being harassed and discriminated against on the basis of his sex/gender in a place of public accommodation. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against men/males by perpetuating a sex-based double standard in which male members were charged higher membership fees and denied access to entire portions of Defendant's facilities, while female members paid less and enjoyed greater access. Additionally, the Defendant paternalistically touted that certain equipment in the women-only area was specially designed to help "reduce cellulite," reinforcing sexist stereotypes to justify barring men from those spaces, says the suit. The Plaintiff enrolled in the Platinum Membership plan at Defendant Giant Fitness in November 2021. Giant Fitness owns and manages multiple gym/fitness facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa N. Berouty, Esq. Christine E. Hintze, Esq. ARCE LAW GROUP, P.C. 45 Broadway, Suite 2810 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-0120 E-mail: melissa.berouty@arcelawgroup.com c.hintze@arcelawgroup.com JARED POLIS: Sued Over Unlawful and Harmful Practices ----------------------------------------------------- Issac N. through his next friend Katy Saehler, and Tony S. through his next friend Leigh Truhe, for themselves and those similarly situated v. JARED POLIS, in his official capacity as the Governor of Colorado; and MICHELLE BARNES, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services, Case No. 1:26-cv-01123 (D. Colo., March 18, 2026), is brought seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor of Colorado and the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services ("CDHS"), in their official capacities, to ameliorate these unlawful and harmful practices and provide legally required procedures, placements, and services. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated youth who currently are, or in the future will be, detained in a Colorado Division of Youth Services ("DYS") secure detention facility, who are not serving a commitment sentence, and for whom a juvenile court has determined that the youth may be released from detention ("Releasable Youth"). The Plaintiffs are children between the ages of 10 and 18 who are charged with juvenile delinquency and incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities by the State of Colorado. Juvenile court judges have determined that these children can be released from detention. But Defendant Colorado officials instead confine these releasable children in highly restrictive carceral facilities, often for weeks or months on end, in violation of the children's constitutional and statutory rights. Defendants warehouse Plaintiff children in dangerous and harmful detention facilities only because the State fails to provide them with the processes, placements, and services to which they are legally entitled, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are charged with juvenile delinquency offenses who are currently held by Defendants in a secure detention facility in Colorado. Jared Polis is the Governor of Colorado and is sued in his official capacity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephanie Persson, Esq. Ira Lustbader, Esq. Stephen Dixon, Esq. Micaela Heery-Hyatt, Esq. Eleanor Roberts, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 88 Pine Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Email: spersson@childrensrights.org ilustbader@childrensrights.org sdixon@childrensrights.org mheeryhyatt@childrensrights.org eroberts@childrensrights.org JBS PREPARED FOODS: Aguilar Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Clemente Garcia Aguilar, an individual, and similarly situated v. JBS PREPARED FOODS INC., a Delaware Corporation; JBS USA FOODS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; WESLEY BATISTA FILHO, an individual; and DOES 1 - 50, Inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-557 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00971-CKD. The Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against Defendants under the California Labor Code: failure to pay regular and minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide lawful meal periods and pay premium pay; failure to provide lawful rest breaks and pay premium pay; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and failure to timely pay final wages upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim for unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathon M. Watson, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 839-3800 Facsimile: (303) 839-3838 Email: jmwatson@spencerfane.com KAPLAN NORTH: Stoker Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- THERESA STOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60808 (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between October 30, 2025, and November 18, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Kaplan North America, LLC is an international educational services company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Cassandra Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com KAY'S TRANSPORT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Groover Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JARIEM GROOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAY'S TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02979 (D.N.J., March 23, 2026) is a collective and class action to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, and damages owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant. The complaint relates that the Defendant unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as independent contractors, but they were actually employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Furthermore, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that they were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, adds the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff contends that he and other similarly-situated employees are owed overtime compensation which were denied to them as a result of Defendant's unlawful misclassification and pay practices. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the FLSA by discriminating against, and terminating him, in retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the FLSA and NJWHL. Specifically, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment because he complained of Defendant's unlawful misclassification and failure to pay overtime compensation. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends the Defendant violated the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law by discriminating against, and terminating, him in retaliation for using earned sick leave, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action as a representative action under the FLSA and NJWHL for monetary damages and penalties, to seek redress for Defendant's willful, unlawful, and improper conduct. Plaintiff Jariem Groover is a citizen of the United States and Pennsylvania who was employed by the Defendant in the position of Driver or in positions with similar job duties. Defendant Kay's Transport, Inc. is a New Jersey company that maintains a principal place of business in Elizabeth, NJ and also conducts business at 1210 Raritan Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-021 E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com KCE CHAMPIONS LLC: Sherman Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cinea Sherman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. KCE CHAMPIONS LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2600164 was removed from the Superior Court of the County of San Bernadino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01304. The Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment-Related Losses/Expenditures; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Separation; and Unfair Business Practices in violation of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: 503-552-2140 Facsimile: 503-224-4518 Email: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com - and - Omar M. Aniff, Esq. Haik Kolsuzyan, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: omar.aniff@ogletree.com haik.kolsuzyan@ogletree.com KENNETH L. MARCUS: Bochra Files Suit in N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KENNETH L. MARCUS, et al. The case is styled as Mark Bochra, and behalf of others similarly situated v. KENNETH L. MARCUS, Former Secretary for Office for Civil Rights in both his official and individual capacity; MELANIE VELEZ, Former OCR Atlanta Director in both her official and individual capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, Secretary for the Department of Education in both her Official and individual capacity; KIMBERLY M. RICHEY, Secretary for Office for Civil Rights in both her official and individual capacity; JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., in his official capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States; ROBERT J. CONRAD, in his official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, and their members in both their official and individual capacities overseeing Judicial Misconduct Proceedings of all Circuit Courts of U.S.A.; CHIEF JUDGE DAVID JEREMIAH BARRON; JUDGE WILLIAM E. SMITH et al.; additional defendants to be added; Case No. 1:26-cv-00917-UNA (N.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Neglect of Duty. Kenneth L. Marcus was the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education from August 6, 2018, through July 9, 2020.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over Huggies Diapers' False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jasmine Rojas filed a class action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corp. Why: Rojas claims the company falsely advertises its Huggies Little Movers diapers as hypoallergenic and made for sensitive skin. Where: The Huggies class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Kimberly-Clark Corp falsely advertises its Huggies Little Movers as "hypoallergenic diapers" and made for sensitive skin when they actually contain ingredients that can cause skin irritation. Plaintiff Jasmine Rojas filed the Huggies class action complaint against Kimberly-Clark Corp. on March 6 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the market for hypoallergenic diapers and hygiene products is rapidly growing, driven by consumers' increasing awareness of skin sensitivities and conditions like eczema. Rojas claims Kimberly-Clark has sought to capitalize on this demand by marketing its Huggies Little Movers hypoallergenic diapers as hypoallergenic and safe for sensitive skin. However, the diapers contain ingredients that can cause skin irritation and Rojas points to online reviews from parents who claim the hypoallergenic diapers caused rashes and other allergic reactions in their children. Lawsuit: Huggies diapers contain chemicals that can cause skin irritation The Huggies class action lawsuit claims the diapers are designed with a new formulation that includes an interior blue lining, which has been linked to a chemical smell and skin irritation. Rojas further alleges that the ingredients in the hypoallergenic version of the diapers are similar to those in the non-hypoallergenic version, making it unclear what differentiates the two products. Rojas claims Kimberly-Clark's misleading marketing has led parents to purchase the hypoallergenic diapers under the false impression that they are safe for children with sensitive skin. "No reasonable consumer would purchase diapers for their children advertised as being hypoallergenic -- when they could simply purchase non-hypoallergenic alternatives -- had they known that the ‘hypoallergenic' Product exposed (or risked exposing) their children to chemicals that irritate skin," the Huggies class action says. Rojas wants to represent anyone who purchased Huggies Little Movers hypoallergenic diapers in New York. She is suing for violations of New York consumer laws and seeks certification of the Huggies class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Another lawsuit making the same allegations against Huggies was filed on Nov. 25 in New York district court. What do you think of the claims made in this Huggies class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Max S. Roberts, Victoria X. Zhou and Caroline C. Donovan of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Huggies class action lawsuit is Rojas v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Case No. 1:26-cv-1331, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] KINDRED HOSPITALS: Saucedo Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Romeo Saucedo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KINDRED HOSPITALS EAST, L.L.C., a California corporation; KND DEVELOPMENT 55, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVRS2607788 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01265. On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") adding KND as a Defendant. In the FAC, Plaintiff seeks recovery for the following: failure to pay wages due and owing; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide uninterrupted meal and rest breaks; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages twice each calendar month; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to pay unpaid off-the-clock work; violation of the Unfair Competition Law; and violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul G. Sherman, Esq. J. Scott Carr, Esq. 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 493-3988 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 Email: psherman@kcozlaw.com scarr@kcozlaw.com KING LASIK INC: Franky Files Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against King Lasik, Inc. P.S. The case is styled as Meghan Franky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. King Lasik, Inc. P.S.; Case No. 1:26-mc-00632-DAE (W.D. Tex., March 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash. King LASIK -- https://www.kinglasik.com/ -- offers expert vision correction options including LASIK Eye Surgery and EVO ICL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com KING.COM LIMITED: Onn Sues Over Candy Crush Contest's Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ONN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING.COM LIMITED and ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02471 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged misrepresentation of its tournament game called Candy Crush All Stars 2023. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to inform the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals key facts about the tournament: (1) the number of players advancing through each tournament stage, (2) that some competitors gain an unfair advantage by cheating, (3) that some competitors have an unfair advantage because they have unlocked game modes that give them enhanced abilities ("Super Users"), and (4) that some users can play offline, which masks their running scores. The Defendants' actions in misrepresenting and concealing the number of players in the competition, and the existence of cheaters, Super Users and offline players, had the effect of causing the Plaintiff and Class Members to overestimate their chances of success, which in turn had the intended effect of causing the Plaintiff and Class Members to spend significant sums on in-app purchases that they otherwise would not have spent, suit says. King.com Limited is a video game developer, with its principal place of business in St. Julian's, Malta. Activision Blizzard, Inc. is the parent company of King.com Limited, with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan J. Welde, Esq. ROPERS MAJESKI PC 801 South Figueroa St., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 312-2000 Facsimile: (213) 312-2001 Email: susan.welde@ropers.com - and - Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq. Margaret Schuchardt, Esq. Akshay Soman, Esq. JASZCZUK PC 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 442-0509 Email: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com asoman@jaszczuk.com KORNIT DIGITAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kornit Digital Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F dated March 26, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated securities case a in U.S. federal court in New Jersey and discovery will commence in the near term. In February 2023, two securities class action complaints were filed by certain shareholders of the company in said court against the company, certain of the company's current and former officers and directors, the underwriters of the November 19, 2021 follow-on public offering, and Amazon (which sold shares in that public offering), as defendants. The complaints assert claims under certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified damages. This was consolidated on August 30, 2023. On October 27, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that, between February 2021 and July 2023, the Company made misrepresentations and omissions in its public statements and disclosures in violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 21, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and the lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants motion to dismiss on February 16, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the court held an oral hearing on defendants motion to dismiss, following which it granted the defendants motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 8, 2024. The amended complaint was filed against the company, Mr. Samuel, its chief executive officer, Mr. Rozner, its former chief financial officer, and the underwriter defendants, but all other directors were no longer named as defendants. On January 24, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants motion to dismiss on March 10, 2025, and defendants filed replies in support of the motion to dismiss on April 25, 2025. On September 4, 2025, the court held oral argument on defendants renewed motion to dismiss, following which it granted the defendants motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed all claims under the Securities Act, thereby dismissing all claims against the underwriters for the 2021 offering, and dismissed most claims under the Exchange Act, except for claims arising from five allegedly false or misleading statements. On October 20, 2025, plaintiffs informed the Court that they do not intend to amend their complaint and on December 4, 2025, defendants filed their answer to the operative complaint, followed by a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of one of the five allegedly false or misleading statements remaining in the case on grounds not previously raised in defendants prior motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 22, 2025, and defendants reply brief was due last January 7, 2026. Kornit Digital Ltd. is a provider of digital printing solutions for the global printed textile industry, offering systems, inks, consumables and services for on-demand, eco-friendly printing on textiles and garments. KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Westchester Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- WESTCHESTER PUTNAM COUNTIES HEAVY & HIGHWAY LABORERS LOCAL 60 BENEFIT FUNDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KYNDRYL HOLDINGS, INC.; MARTIN J. SCHROETER; DAVID B. WYSHNER; and VINEET KHURANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02211 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a Class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Kyndryl securities between August 1, 2024 and February 6, 2026, inclusive, against Kyndryl and certain of its officers and executives (collectively, "Defendants"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants carried out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct that was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Kyndryl's securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Kyndryl securities at artificially inflated prices. Kyndryl common stock fell $12.90 per share, or more than 54%, from a closing price of $23.49 per share on February 6, 2026, to a closing price of $10.59 per share on February 9, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's securities when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides applications, data, AI, cloud, core enterprise, digital workplace, security, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Nicholas Corso, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com ncorso@saxenawhite.com KYVERNA THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K dated March 26, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2026, that it is facing a shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering. Following oral argument, on March 23, 2026, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss on all claims and provided plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the court's March 23 order. An amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2025, alleging that the registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the company's initial public offering and the prospectus contained therein contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. Pursuant to a stipulated order setting a response schedule, on June 26, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and moved to dismiss all of the claims, with plaintiff filing an opposition on August 18, 2025. Defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025. Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing cell therapies for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. L.A. DOWNTOWN: Martinez Balks at Compromised Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRYSTAL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.A. DOWNTOWN MEDICAL CENTER LLC f/k/a SILVER LAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV07100 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2026) is a class action arising out of Defendant LADMC's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business operations. On February 24, 2026, the threat actor "TheGentlemen" successfully breached LADMC's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive patient data. The incident was publicly reported on DeXpose. According to the complaint, Defendant's failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a February 2026 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of LADMC, an organization that provides medical services and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons who are similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, for failing to promptly detect the cyberattack, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access and exfiltration by cybercriminals. The Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct, and assert claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; (iii) violation of California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code; (iv) public disclosure of private facts, and California constitutional right to privacy; (v) breach of implied contract; (vi) breach of fiduciary duty; (vii) unjust enrichment; (viii) and declaratory judgment. L.A. Downtown Medical Center LLC is a Los Angeles, California-based hospital serving the neighborhoods of Silver Lake, Historic Filipino Town, Echo Park, Rosemead, Alhambra & San Gabriel.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com LAKESIDE PEDIATRIC: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Rosen Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON ROSEN, individually and on behalf of K.R., minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00159-DCN (D. Idaho, March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about November 1, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lakeside Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, PLLC is a medical services provider in Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Gigray, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 950 W. Bannock St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (251) 800-6041 Email: mary.gigray@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com LAKEVIEW LOAN: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $26MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Lakeview Loan Servicing, Pingora Loan Servicing, Community Loan Servicing and Bayview Asset Management have agreed to a $26,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the major mortgage loan servicers failed to protect the sensitive consumer information on their systems from an October 2021 data breach. The $26 million Lakeview Loan Servicing class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 4, 2026 and covers all United States residents who were sent notice from Lakeview, Pingora, Community Loan or Bayview stating that their private information was potentially accessed during the October 2021data breach. Per court documents, approximately 5.8 million individuals are covered by the deal. The court-approved website for the Lakeview Loan Servicing data breach settlement can be found at LakeviewDataBreachSettlement.com. According to the website, Lakeview settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive a up to $5,000 in reimbursement The settlement agreement outlines that class members must submit third-party documentation, like receipts or bank statements, to receive compensation for expenses incurred after October 11, 2021, that are unreimbursed and related to fraud, identity theft, obtaining credit reports, credit freezes, credit monitoring, and miscellaneous expenses such as postage and travel. Per the agreement, should the total amount of documented-loss payments exceed $5 million, payments will be reduced on a pro rata, or equal share, basis. In addition to, or in lieu of, a documented-loss payment, all Lakeview settlement class members may file a claim form to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment. The final amount of this payment, the agreement explains, will depend on the number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs, lead plaintiff service awards and all other settlement benefits. In addition to both cash payment options, the agreement reports that class members who resided in California at the time of the data breach may also claim an additional pro-rated statutory cash payment associated with provisions in the California Consumer Privacy Act. The agreement states that the California statutory payment will be the same amount as the pro-rated cash payment; essentially, California residents may receive two pro-rated shares of the net settlement fund, whereas all other claimants are eligible to receive one pro-rated share. Class members may receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary settlement benefits, class members may also file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for one free year of CyEx Financial Shield Total, which includes three-bureau credit monitoring, transaction monitoring, credit score tracking, dark web monitoring, identity monitoring and identity theft insurance, per the agreement. To file a Lakeview data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the class member ID found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed at the top of the document. All Lakeview settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 22, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Lakeview Loan Servicing settlement following a hearing on July 2, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Lakeview Loan Servicing class action lawsuit alleged that the nationwide mortgage loan provider, along with Pingora Loan Servicing, Community Loan Servicing and Bayview Asset Management, all of which operate under either Bayview Asset Management or Bayview Companies, failed to enact reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the private information stored on its systems, which led to a data breach that started on or around October 11, 2021. [GN] MARATHON REFINING: Agrees to Settle Unpaid Shifts Suit for $9-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carleen Bongat, writing for HRD, reports that Marathon Refining Logistics Services agreed to pay $9 million to settle allegations that hundreds of refinery workers went uncompensated for mandatory on-call shifts. The settlement, filed for final approval on March 23, 2026, resolves a class action involving 748 current and former operators and lab workers at Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC's Los Angeles Refinery -- the largest refinery on the West Coast, with a crude oil capacity of 365,000 barrels per calendar day. The case is pending before Judge Dale Fischer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, with a final approval hearing set for April 27, 2026. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by Marathon. At the center of the dispute is a scheduling practice called "Primary Relief." According to court filings, Marathon assigned employees to two-hour on-call windows during which they had to stay available and be able to reach the refinery within 90 minutes. They were expected to be well-rested, sober, and keep the rest of their day clear in case they needed to work a full 12-hour shift. If they failed to answer the call or show up, they risked discipline -- up to and including termination. Here is the part that matters most: employees who were called in got paid their normal rate for a 12-hour shift. Employees who stayed on standby but were never called in allegedly got nothing. The plaintiffs argued that the level of control Marathon exercised over their time during these on-call windows amounted to compensable work under California's reporting time pay rules. Marathon contended that being scheduled for a Primary Relief shift did not equate to reporting for work or compensable on-call time, and that employees were not entitled to wages unless actually required to report to the refinery. The case was originally filed on May 4, 2023, by Louis Butel, an operator at the refinery since 2005, and Pam Mocherniak, who worked there from 2001 to 2023. What followed was nearly three years of aggressive litigation -- two motions to dismiss, a contested class certification fight, a failed appeal to the Ninth Circuit by Marathon, and a fully briefed summary judgment motion in which the company argued the claims were preempted by federal labor law. The parties eventually mediated in October 2024 and reached a deal. Finalizing it, however, took close to another year because the settlement also required a going-forward agreement with the United Steelworkers union, which had to be ratified by the union membership. The total potential recovery, based on the plaintiffs' review of timecard and payroll data, was estimated at roughly $24 million. The $9 million settlement represents about 37 percent of that figure. After deductions for attorneys' fees, administration costs, service awards, and penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act, the net payout to class members comes to $6,588,750 -- an average of approximately $8,808 per person, allocated by how many weeks each worker was assigned Primary Relief during the class period from May 2020 through November 2025. The class response was telling. Not a single member out of 748 objected. Not one opted out. Eighteen workers disputed their allocated weeks, and 16 of those disputes were resolved in the workers' favor. This is not an isolated case. The filing references a string of similar settlements at California refineries -- including a separate $9 million deal against the same defendant in a Northern District case, as well as reporting time cases and other wage and hour class actions against Equilon Enterprises, Corteva, ExxonMobil, and Dow Agrosciences involving shift workers. For HR professionals, the pattern is worth watching. The recurring question across these cases is a practical one: at what point do the restrictions an employer places on an employee's off-duty time turn unpaid standby into paid work? The legal landscape remains unsettled -- the filing itself acknowledges that this is a novel issue in the law and that courts have gone both ways, with summary judgment limiting or preempting similar claims in other cases. That uncertainty cuts in every direction, but the exposed liability when these cases do settle is substantial. The case is Butel et al. v. Marathon Refining and Logistics Services LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-04547-DSF-JPR, in the Central District of California. [GN] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brenda Mendoza, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV06972 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02990. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 10 causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest break premiums; unpaid minimum wages; failure to pay final wages timely; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices, in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Greg S. Labate, Esq. Eric T. Angel, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com eangel@sheppardmullin.com MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Novak Wiretapping Suit Removed to D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case CHRISTINE NOVAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2623CV000117, was removed from the Springfield District Court of Hampden County, Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 20, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-30044 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company ("MassMutual") utilizes a call-recording system that records incoming and outgoing telephone conversations between MassMutual's representatives and callers without disclosure or customer consent in violation of MassMutual's policy and the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company is an insurance provider based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ian D. Roffman, Esq. Christopher H. Lindstrom, Esq. Maya Ginga Ritchie, Esq. NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP Seaport West 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-2421 Email: iroffman@nutter.com MESA AZTECA: Huero Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ MARCELO JUNIOR HUERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MESA AZTECA CORP. (D/B/A MESA AZTECA), JOAQUIN F. VELAZQUEZ, GUSTAVO ROSAS, and CESAR REYES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01659 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours exceeding 10 hours, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish an accurate wage notice. Plaintiff Huero was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker, dishwasher, and cook at their restaurant located in Brooklyn, New York. Mesa Azteca Corp. operates a Mexican restaurant located in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 META PLATFORMS: Faces Rowe Suit Over AI Glasses' Data Interception ------------------------------------------------------------------ ESSENCE ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., SAMASOURCE IMPACT SOURCING INC., d/b/a SAMA, and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02398 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Meta intentionally intercepted the Plaintiff's and Class Members' wire, oral, and electronic communications by capturing audio and video data through the Meta Artificial Intelligence (AI) Glasses under the Ray-Ban and Oakley brands and transmitting that data to its cloud servers and onward to Sama's annotation facilities in Kenya without adequate notice or consent. Meta used the contents of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' intercepted communications to train and refine its AI models, enhance its products, and power its advertising platform. Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known the true scope of Meta's data practices, including highly intimate recordings in their homes, bedrooms, and bathrooms, they would not have purchased the Glasses or used the AI features, and they would not have agreed to Meta's collection and use of their data, suit says. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company based in Menlo Park, California. Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., doing business as Sama, is an operator of data annotation facilities, based in San Francisco, California. Luxottica of America, Inc. is an eyewear company based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S., Unit 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com META PLATFORMS: Irving et al. Sue Over Social Media Scam Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY IRVING, YAAKOV STRAUSS, and SANTOSH KUMAR, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01127-YGR (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2026), arises from Meta's role in enabling, facilitating, and materially contributing to a stock manipulation scheme that used advertisements created by Meta and distributed through its social media platforms, and its messaging service, to extract millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. According to the complaint, Meta has long been aware of scam ads on its social media platforms, but it has avoided implementing technology, personnel, and processes to monitor, identify, and prevent scam ads. Instead, Meta has invested billions in developing generative artificial intelligence tools that have only worsened the proliferation of fraudulent advertisements and enhanced their effectiveness by generating hundreds of variations of advertisements that are optimized to drive engagement by vulnerable users. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for aiding and abetting fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, negligence, and for unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Menlo Park, CA, Meta Platforms, Inc. owns and operates the Facebook and Instagram social media platforms, and the WhatsApp messaging service. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 780-3993 E-mail: leo@moka.law META PLATFORMS: Rogers Sues Over AI Glasses' Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., SAMASOURCE IMPACT SOURCING INC., d/b/a SAMA, and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02401 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Meta intentionally intercepted the Plaintiff's and Class Members' wire, oral, and electronic communications by capturing audio and video data through the Meta Artificial Intelligence (AI) Glasses under the Ray-Ban and Oakley brands and transmitting that data to its cloud servers and onward to Sama's annotation facilities in Kenya without adequate notice or consent. Meta used the contents of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' intercepted communications to train and refine its AI models, enhance its products, and power its advertising platform. Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known the true scope of Meta's data practices, including highly intimate recordings in their homes, bedrooms, and bathrooms, they would not have purchased the Glasses or used the AI features, and they would not have agreed to Meta's collection and use of their data, suit says. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company based in Menlo Park, California. Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc., doing business as Sama, is an operator of data annotation facilities, based in San Francisco, California. Luxottica of America, Inc. is an eyewear company based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S., Unit 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com METASEE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METASEE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02025 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations 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. Metasee LLC, operates the Fanttik online retail store, as well as the Fanttik interactive website, www.fanttik.com, which offers automotive tools, outdoor gear, home improvement tools, and personal care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 METRO KING DELI: Abdel-Qader Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro King Deli Corp., et al. The case is styled as Riyad Mohammad Hasan Abdel-Qader on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Metro King Deli Corp., Metro King Deli 1 Corp., Haroon A. Fotaih, Mohamed H. Mozeb, Case No. 707957/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Commercial (New York Labor Law). Metro King Deli Corp., located in Middle Village, Queens, NY, is a 24/7 deli.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com MICHELS CORP: Beyer Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA BEYER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Amanda Beyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Michels Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00514-PP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed this case in April 2021, alleging that the Defendant failed to compensate employees for time worked before their scheduled shift, failed to count as hours worked the time during which their lunch breaks were interrupted and failed to include annual bonuses in computing their regular rate for overtime pay. On May 31, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 28, 2024. On Aug. 12, 2025, Judge Pamela Pepper granted in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Counts I, II, III of the third amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice. On Aug. 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Pepper denied on Nov. 18, 2025. On Feb. 27, 2026, Judge Pepper entered an Order dismissing the case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Beyer v. Michels Corporation, Case No. 26-1530, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant AMANDA BEYER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. PREVIANT LAW FIRM, SC 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Defendant-Appellee MICHELS CORPORATION is represented by: Amy C. Miller, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP Ten E. Doty Street Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 620-8347 MISSION AREA HEALTH: Driggs Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jesse Driggs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MISSION AREA HEALTH ASSOCIATES D/B/A MISSION NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CENTER, Case No. CGC-26-632713 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02413. On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint ("CAC") against removing Defendant Mission for damages, injunctive relief and equitable relief for Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; and California Unfair Competition Law ("State Court Action").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 310.861.7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com - and - Jill H. Fertel, Esq. Ryan P. Slaven, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. Three Valley Square, Suite 305 512 E. Township Line Road Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: (610) 567-0700 Email: jfertel@c-wlaw.com rslaven@c-wlaw.com MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Lowe Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled James Lowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-4098, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, Georgia Payday Lending Act, and Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act. On July 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On Aug. 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration, which Judge Dale E. Ho denied on Mar. 9, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Defendant's cash advance product known as Instacash constitutes consumer credit, making it subject to various statutes and voiding any arbitration clauses in the Plaintiffs' contract with the Defendant. The appellate case is styled as Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Case No. 26-655, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES LOWE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 - and - Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 - and - Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendant-Appellant MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC. is represented by: James Kim, Esq. COOLEY LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Mullen Suit Over Unsafe Roundup Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN MULLEN, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-272 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026), is a class action arising from Defendants' 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. The Plaintiff maintains that Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. In addition, the Plaintiff also alleges that Monsanto lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with use of Roundup. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Isabelle Sues Over Hazardous Roundup Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE ISABELLE, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-279 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants’ 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. The Plaintiff maintains that Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. In addition, Plaintiff also alleges that Monsanto lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with use of Roundup. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mueller Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN CHARLES MUELLER, on behalf of the estate of EMMETT MUELLER, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-276 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026) seeks for damages for injuries sustained by Emmett Mueller's exposure to herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Shawn Charles Mueller now maintains that Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that Monsanto lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with use of Roundup. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff Emmett Mueller developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Plaintiff Shawn Charles Mueller asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability-design defect, strict products liability-failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, for breach of consumer protection, unfair and/or deceptive trade practices statutes, and for wrongful death. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Dangerous to Human Health, Roman Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ROMAN, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-278 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants' 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. The Plaintiff maintains that Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. In addition, Plaintiff also alleges that Monsanto lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with use of Roundup. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of their use of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing him to suffer from Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability-design defect, strict products liability-failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, and for breach of consumer protection, unfair and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com NATURE'S BAKERY: Himmel Sues Over Deceptive Fig Bars' Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE HIMMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURE'S BAKERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01439 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026) arises from Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive marketing of its Nature's Bakery Fig Bars as natural and healthy. The Defendant represents to consumers through its name that the Nature's Bakery Fig Bars are natural and wholesome or healthy. However, unbeknownst to consumers, these products contain synthetic citric acid and excessive amounts of sugar. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350, and for breach of express warranty. Headquartered in Reno, NV, Nature's Bakery, LLC manufactures fig-based snacks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: Archie Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as James Archie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00927 (W.D. Wash., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.naviabenefits.com/ -- provides comprehensive health and compliance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@tousley.com NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: Fiore Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Anne-Marie Fiore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00929 (W.D. Wash., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.naviabenefits.com/ -- provides comprehensive health and compliance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC 600 University ST, Ste 2700 Seattle, WA 98101-3143 Phone: (206) 389-9332 Email: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP (NY) 33 Whitehall St. 27th Fl New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com NERDWALLET INC: Davis Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fatima Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NERDWALLET, INC. a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV169084 was removed from t the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-02384. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of: the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); the Wiretap Act, Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); Invasion of Privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan Ball, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 660 Newport Center Dr., Suite 450 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: +1 949 743 3400 Fax: +1 213 623 1673 Email: RBall@goodwinlaw.com NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Garcia Suit Over Marketers' Spam E-Mails ------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01762-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the California Business and Professions Code for sending unsolicited commercial e-mails. According to the complaint, New York Life pays high commissions to various "affiliate marketers" that spam anyone with an e-mail address. New York Life's affiliate marketers send spam using falsified header information, spoofed domains (to evade spam filters), and false and deceptive subject lines. The Defendant has not established and implemented, with due care, practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of Section 17529.5 that would justify a reduction in liquidated damages, says the suit. New York Life is an insurance company based in New York that sells life insurance and financial services products.[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) 706-646 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com NEW YORK: Justin Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- DAUDI JUSTIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Daudi Justin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Milton Adair Tingling, in his official capacity as County Clerk of New York County and Commissioner of Jurors, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10370, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Dec. 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Defendant in his official capacity challenging the constitutionality of Section 510(3) of New York's Judiciary Law, which disqualifies individuals with felony convictions from serving on a jury, as it is applied only in New York County. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 26, 2025. On Feb. 13, 2026, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are dismissed. The appellate case is styled as Justin v. Tingling, Case No. 26-665, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAUDI JUSTIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Perry Maxwell Grossman, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Defendant-Appellee MILTON ADAIR TINGLING, in his official capacity as County Clerk of New York County and Commissioner of Jurors, is represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 NOVARTIS AG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Sharing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- iclg.com reports that lawsuit alleges the pharma giant shared patients' private personal and health data with unauthorised third parties without consent, prioritising profits over privacy. A new has been filed with a New Jersey district court over allegations that Novartis with third parties such as Google and ContentSquare. The lawsuit rests on allegations that the Swiss pharmaceutical company secretly installed tracking tools on consumer websites marketing its pharmaceutical products, collecting data on users' medical conditions, prescriptions and medical expenses and transmitting the information to advertising companies without consent. The complaint was filed last week (20 March) by Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a Vermont-based cancer patient, identified only as 'P.M.', who had been prescribed Novartis's 'Kisqali' therapy to treat her condition. P.M. had visited the Kisqali website in 2024 to obtain information on the drug and to register with the associated savings programme. According to the lawsuit, P.M. only became aware that Novartis had installed the tracking tools and shared her sensitive health information with third parties after she visited other websites and began seeing targeted advertisements for products and services related to her medical condition. The tracking tools are alleged to have been invisible to patients using Novartis's websites, with no disclaimer alerting website users to the inevitable disclosure of their sensitive health information and providing them an opportunity to consent to its data sharing practices. Novartis is said to have been compensated for allowing tracking tool providers to collect users' data, benefitting from "advanced advertising services and cost-effective marketing on third-party platforms". "[Novartis] is a company that chose to prioritise their marketing efforts and profits over their patients' privacy," the complaint reads. Pointing to the significant value of health data, the lawsuit noted that such information has reportedly fetched prices of up to $250 on the black market. Payment card information, the next highest data type, is said to sell for just $5.40. The complaint adds that the obtained data could be used for analysing consumer behaviour and "identifying new market segments to exploit". Alongside the Kisqali website, trackers are alleged to have been installed on Novartis's sites for its arthritis, heart failure, cholesterol, and melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer drugs, among others. The lawsuit lists numerous statutory and common law claims, including invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Novartis did not immediately respond to ICLG News' request for comment. The proposed class is being represented by Alyssa Tolentino, Jordan Underhill and Sojay Singh of Siri & Glimstad. A continuing trend In 2023, telehealth and prescription drug discount provider GoodRx Holdings agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine for breaching the US Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR) by failing to notify consumers that it had disclosed personal health information to third parties such as Google and Facebook. The case marked the first enforcement action taken under the HBNR, which entered into force in 2009. The rule was amended in 2024 to clarify its applicability to health apps and expand what information companies must provide when alerting consumers to a data breach involving health information. In the same year, the FTC announced it had levied a $7.8 million fine against online counselling service BetterHelp for transmitting consumers' sensitive health data to companies such as Facebook and Snapchat for targeted advertising. BetterHelp obtained email addresses, IP addresses and health questionnaire information despite promising users that it would not use or disclose their personal data "except for limited purposes, such as to provide counselling services". Last year, Flo Health, the creator of the menstrual cycle and fertility tracking app Flo, settled a class action lawsuit that accused the company of illegally sharing the sensitive health data of million of US women with Google and Meta, as well as other third parties. [GN] NVIDIA CORP: District Court Certifies Crypto Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stockwits reports that a U.S. district court has certified a class action lawsuit against Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang over disclosures tied to crypto-related GPU sales. -- The lawsuit alleges Nvidia understated the extent of gaming revenue linked to cryptocurrency mining between 2017 and 2019. -- Plaintiffs argue that Nvidia's stock decline in November 2018 reflected previously undisclosed crypto exposure. -- Nvidia has maintained that crypto mining accounted for only a limited portion of its overall business. Nvidia (NVDA) and CEO Jensen Huang are facing renewed legal scrutiny after a U.S. federal judge certified a class action lawsuit accusing the chipmaker and Huang of misleading investors about how much of its gaming GPU revenue was driven by crypto mining between 2017 and 2019. According to the filing, a federal judge in California granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This allows investors to proceed collectively in pursuing claims that Nvidia failed to disclose the scale of crypto-related demand embedded within its gaming business and misled shareholders about exposure to cryptocurrency mining. NVDA stock edged 0.1% lower in pre-market trade on Thursday amid weakness in the broader market. Retail sentiment around Nvidia on Stocktwits moved lower within 'bearish' territory over the past day, accompanied by chatter at 'low' levels. Nvidia Lawsuit Extends Eight-Year Run The lawsuit, first filed in 2018, alleges that Nvidia concealed more than $1 billion in GPU sales linked to cryptocurrency mining and that Huang downplayed the extent of that exposure. Plaintiffs argue that this led investors to underestimate the company's vulnerability to swings in crypto demand. In the March 25 order, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. said Nvidia failed to demonstrate that its statements about crypto mining revenue had no impact on its stock price. After the case was initially dismissed in 2021, it was revived on appeal and later survived a challenge at the Supreme Court. The latest ruling now allows the case to proceed toward trial. Instead of individual investors chasing allegations separately, a class certification allows them to pursue claims collectively. Dispute Over Role Of Crypto Mining In Nvidia's Gaming Revenue Since the lawsuit was initially filed in 2018, Nvidia's position has been that crypto mining represented a relatively small portion of its business and that mining-related demand was largely tracked outside its core gaming segment. However, according to the plaintiffs, a large portion of crypto-driven sales flowed through Nvidia's GeForce gaming GPUs and was recorded within the gaming division, leaving the company more exposed to crypto market cycles than disclosed. The filing points to Nvidia cutting its guidance in August 2018 after citing excess inventory and a drop in crypto-related demand. It also noted that Nvidia's chief financial officer, Colette Kress, said following November that gaming performance fell short due to the slower sell-through of "post crypto channel inventory” and delayed price normalization following a "sharp crypto falloff.” According to the complaint, Nvidia's stock declined by about 28.5% over the two trading sessions following the November announcement, indicating a delayed recognition of the tech giant's cryptocurrency exposure. The certified class includes investors who purchased Nvidia shares between August 10, 2017, and November 15, 2018. A case management conference is scheduled for April 21, when the court is expected to outline the next steps. "Investors who purchased NVIDIA in the 2017-2018 timeframe have done incredibly well, as our corporate strategy unfolded as we consistently predicted. We will address the complaint in court," an Nvidia spokesperson told Stocktwits in a statement. [GN] NYSONIAN INC: Post Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Breanna Post, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NYSONIAN, INC., AND NYSONIANSOLUTIONS, INC., D/B/A NOBL TRAVEL,, Case No. 26-2-07054-7 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00941. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are "engaged in persistent marketing through mass email campaigns across the United States" and that the "sheer volume of email marketing that defendants engage in put it on notice that Washington residents would receive its emails."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kevin S. Costanza, Esq. Marc C. Levy, Esq. SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 5400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-622-4900 Email: MarcL@seedip.com KevinCo@seedip.com OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL: Reed Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oakland Unified School District, et al. The case is styled as David Reed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oakland Unified School District, Jabbar Faris, Case No. 26CV176831 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights/Discrimination." Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) -- https://www.ousd.org/ -- offers music, language, hands-on learning and STEAM opportunities for preschoolers to seniors in high school.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq. HERSHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL, APC 3080 Washington St. San Francisco, CA 94115-1618 Phone: 415-317-7756 Email: david@hrw-law.com OJO LABS INC: Miholich Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ojo Labs Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kyle Miholich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ojo Labs Inc., Ojo Home LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01732-GPC-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. OJO -- https://ojo.com/ -- is a real estate development company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 11510 Eaglesview Ct. San Diego, CA 92127 Phone: (858) 299-5879 - and - Nadir Osman Ahmed, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: nadiroahmed@gmail.com OMNI FAMILY: Abraham Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Omni Family Health. The case is captioned Samantha Abraham vs. Omni Family Health, Case No. 26CUB00431 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., February 5, 2026). The case is brought over Defendant's failure to prevent cyberattack and data breach. Omni Family Health provides primary and preventative healthcare services throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (626) 550-1250 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com ONE SOURCE MEDICAL: Young Files Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Source Medical Group, LLC. The case is styled as Gloria Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. One Source Medical Group, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00716 (M.D. Fla., March 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. One Source Medical Group LLC -- https://onesourcemg.com/ -- provides pharmaceutical products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com PACIFICA BEAUTY: Hoag False Marketing Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACE HOAG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PACIFICA BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-00983-34, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Thurston, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05246-DWC to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act. Pacifica Beauty, LLC is a cosmetics company headquartered in Carpinteria, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin E. Wechkin, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 8426 316th Pl SE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (415) 439-1799 E-mail: rwechkin@sidley.com - and - Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-9500 E-mail: alally@sidley.com - and - Jacquelyn E. Fradette, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 E-mail: jfradette@sidley.com PAMELA BONDI: Arana Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pamela Bondi. The case is styled as Andres Felipe Lazo Arana, and those similarly situated v. Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as U.S. Attorney General; Marcos Charles, in his official capacity acting executive associate director, enforcement and removal operations; Todd M. Lyons, in his official capacity as acting director, immigration and customs enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Luis Soto, in his official capacity as warden of the corrections division Delaney hall detention facility; Case No. 2:26-cv-02322-BRM (D.N.J., March 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus (General) for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Pamela Jo Bondi is an American attorney and politician who has served as the 87th United States attorney general since 2025.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Franklin S. Montero, Esq. 245 Lexington Avenue Passaic, NJ 07055 Phone: (973) 777-8718 Email: montero@fmonterolaw.com PATHSTONE FAMILY: Horton Files Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pathstone Family Office, LLC. The case is styled as William Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pathstone Family Office, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02726 (D.N.J., March 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pathstone -- https://pathstone.com/ -- is an investment and wealth advisory firm serving individuals and families of significant wealth, family offices, and institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Settlement in Douglass Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PHARMAVITE LLC, FOODSTATE, INC., PHARMAVITE DIRECT LLC, and BONAFIDE HEALTH LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01721-MRH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Hornak entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement purpose only and for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Pharmavite manufactures and distributes dietary supplement products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h8GzWK at no extra charge.[CC] PHIA GROUP: Fryndej Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against The Phia Group LLC. The case is captioned Fryndej v. The Phia Group LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-10586 (D. Mass., February 5, 2026). The case is brought over a data breach that has exposed sensitive personal and medical information. The Phia Group LLC provides healthcare cost containment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Suzutaro Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: gishimoto@zlk.com PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Oxford Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIANN OXFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE HOLDINGS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01131 (D. Colo., March 19, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. On November 25, 2024, the Defendant experienced a network disruption that impacted certain systems. Upon discovery, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed its IT Network between November 11, 2024, and November 25, 2024. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's alleged inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained on behalf of its clients, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to its clients and their affected patients, including Plaintiff and Class Members, of the breach and the types of information unlawfully accessed. Pinnacle Holdings, Ltd. is a Colorado based provider of healthcare consulting services to various healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Ring Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Holdings, Ltd. The case is styled as Diana Ring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Holdings, Ltd., Case No. 1:26-cv-01090-TPO (D. Colo., March 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pinnacle Holdings -- https://pinnacleholdings.com/ -- invests in strategically located commercial real estate in California, Texas, and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com PIZZA NOVA: Court Upholds $150MM Driver Classification Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lin Albalos, writing for HRD, reports that on March 24, 2026, Ontario's Divisional Court issued a split ruling in a class action in which the plaintiff claimed $150 million in general damages and $5 million in punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages, alleging that approximately 1,800 or more Pizza Nova delivery drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. In Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd., Justice Matheson, writing for a three-judge panel, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal while granting the franchisees' appeal in part, striking the conspiracy claim. What survived: a class action alleging those drivers were employees, not independent contractors, denied entitlements under Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000. At the centre of it all were a mandatory Operations Manual, the pizza delivery system, a template driver contract, and two forms of franchise agreements -- documents the court identified as central to the question of who controlled how drivers were classified and engaged. The documents that made it to court Pizza Nova grew from a single Toronto restaurant into a franchisor with approximately 140 franchisees across Ontario. Lead plaintiff Juan Jose Lira Cervantes drove for four Pizza Nova locations in Toronto, was paid as an independent contractor, and received none of the statutory benefits he claimed were owed, including minimum wage, vacation pay, and employer contributions to EI and CPP. These documents sat at the heart of the case as the court examined who actually controlled how drivers were classified and engaged. The amended statement of claim alleged that "the Franchisor, not the Franchisees, retained extensive control over the terms and conditions of the agreements with the drivers." That allegation placed those documents at the heart of the employer liability question. When "independent contractor" is not enough The court upheld the certification of employment status as a common issue. The motion judge, whose reasoning the Divisional Court upheld, found that core factors of the employment relationship could be assessed collectively across all drivers, and that individual differences "existed at the margins of the working relationship, not at its core." The certified non-conspiracy claims were limited to the Franchisor and the four Cervantes Franchisees the plaintiff had made deliveries for. The plaintiff was granted leave to propose additional plaintiffs to expand that certification but had not yet done so at the time of the ruling. On negligence, the court declined to strike the claim, citing the motion judge's reasoning that "a delivery driver searching for low paid shift work may not have the same ability to regulate their affairs in a contract such that a negligence claim would be precluded." What the ruling leaves on the table The Divisional Court upheld certified claims for breach of the ESA, breach of contract and the duty to act in good faith, unjust enrichment, and in the alternative, negligence, against the Franchisor and the four Cervantes Franchisees. The plaintiff had claimed $150 million in general damages and $5 million in punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as other remedies. The conspiracy claim was struck. The court found that the franchisees had merely acquiesced to the franchisor's standard-form requirements, and that acquiescence alone did not amount to a coordinated unlawful act among franchisees. The parties were directed to submit a draft order specifying the amendment to the certification order within two weeks. The motion judge had expressly made "no finding that a negligence claim would succeed at trial." See Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2026/2026onsc713/2026onsc713.html [GN] QC FRANCHISE: Faces Class Suit Over Unproven Stem Cell Therapies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Florida QC Kinetix clinics lure elderly and "desperate" consumers by deceptively touting purported "miracle" pain treatment cures and "lucrative" financing options while intentionally failing to disclose both the experimental nature of the stem cell injections and that they have not been approved by the FDA. The 55-page lawsuit alleges franchisor QC Franchise Group and its Florida franchisees, such as defendant QC Kinetix Doral, have engaged in a predatory scheme whereby they subject prospective patients to a "high-velocity sales pitch" designed to induce them into signing on to receive "alternative" chronic pain treatments before they can "scrutinize the product or the price." The "primary engine" of the apparent scheme, the complaint alleges, is QC Kinetix's intentional failure to disclose in advertising any details concerning "the legality or effectiveness" of the stem cell injections, or that the treatments have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for pain management. According to the suit, Florida law mandates that any advertisement for therapies such as those offered by QC Kinetix must disclose their lack of FDA approval. The filing says that the purposeful omission of the lack of FDA approval renders QC Kinetix's services "misleading, legally misbranded, and worthless at the point of sale." Further, the class action suit alleges QC Kinetix effectively pulls a bait-and-switch on consumers by promising "0% interest" and payment plans "as low as $100 per month" before co-defendant Med-Den Funding "flips the script" once patients are inside the clinic and committed to the unapproved procedure. According to the filing, the loans provided by Med-Den often come with interest rates in excess of 9.99 percent and additional fees, and the defendants together "conceal these discrepancies" by rushing patients through a "click-wrap application" while failing to make basic loan application disclosures. Broadly, the class action lawsuit accuses QC Franchise Group and its QC Kinetix franchises in Florida of utilizing a "turnkey" clinic model backed by non-medical investors to sell unproven stem cell therapies to vulnerable elderly and disabled consumers, systematically "prioritiz[ing] profits over patients," with ads that exploit consumers' fear of invasive surgery. Per the case, the plaintiff, an 87-year-old Florida resident with chronic knee pain, was influenced to obtain treatment at QC Kinetix Doral through the clinic's overstated advertisements and claims. According to the complaint, prospective patients like the plaintiff are drawn in with claims that the treatment available at QC Kinetix is a nonsurgical, regenerative medicine with minimal downtime, with ads that utilize iconography of doctors in white coats, anatomical diagrams, and robust medical jargon. These ad claims are accompanied by the promise that procedures are affordable, easily financeable with pricing as low as $100 per month, zero interest through the first year and might even have a sticker sale with a certain dollar amount off depending on the season, the suit adds. In reality, the lawsuit says, the treatments offered by QC Kinetix -- stem cell procedures that involve injections of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) and Bone Marrow Concentrate -- are not approved by the FDA. The filing contends that the omission of the lack of FDA approval is a matter of "public safety" according to Florida legislation and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 2025, the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 2025-185, which explicitly covers the marketing of stem cell therapy and requires that providers include notice that the FDA has not approved this form of treatment. Similarly, the FTC, after securing a victory in Federal Trade Commission v. Peyroux in 2024, established that the marketing of stem cell therapy as "comparable or superior to surgery" is misleading, per the case. ccording to the lawsuit, QC Kinetix patients who cannot pay out of pocket are forced into predatory loans, often without warning or disclosure, financed by Med-Den. Typically, patients receiving treatment must sign up for multiple sessions, costing thousands of dollars, and practitioners pressure patients to complete financing applications on the spot, the case claims. The suit alleges that the QC Kinetix clinics receive some form of financial benefit after facilitating a loan payment plan with Med-Den, regardless of how feasible it is for the patient to actually make payments, and the company protects itself from risk through revolving lines of credit that absorb inevitable future costs and leave patients with a "long-term loan obligation" to the financer. This was largely the experience of the plaintiff, who received treatment from the QC Kinetix Doral clinic in August 2025, the filing says. The lawsuit relays that the plaintiff was forced to use technology he was unfamiliar with to consent to treatment and financing, had a Gmail account made for him by the staff, and was presented with documentation for treatment plans and financing in English, when he only spoke Spanish. Instead, the plaintiff was spoken to in Spanish but was never informed that a loan was being opened on his behalf, and the staff merely instructed the man to sign at the bottom of the page without any mention of what he was consenting to, the complaint contends. "Despite knowing that Plaintiff Estrada lived on a poverty-level fixed income of just $1,250 per month, the QC Defendants and Med-Den Funding approved a $9,000 loan -- representing 60% of his annual income -- with a monthly payment of $166.69," the lawsuit reads. According to the plaintiff, the injections did not alleviate his knee pain. The case claims that the experience of the plaintiff is akin to that of thousands of consumers who have received treatment at the clinics, given that QC Franchise Group maintains a strict control over "every material aspect" of its clinics, including treatment materials, pricing and what the clinics are allowed to say to the public. The QC Kinetix class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who purchased regenerative or stem cell medical services from a QC Kinetix clinic located in Florida, whether operated by the QC Franchise Group or its franchisees or affiliates, during the applicable statute of limitations period. The suit also looks to represent all members of this Florida class who entered a loan, line of credit or other financing agreement that was brokered through or administered by Med-Den Funding, operating as Proceed Finance, or through its affiliates and partner banks, to pay for regenerative or stem cell treatment. [GN] QUIET LOGISTICS: Palacios Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wendy Palacios, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. QUIET LOGISTICS, INC.; a Delaware Corporation; WORKFORCE PERSONNEL, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01465625-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00626. The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that Defendants violated California wage and hour law through alleged: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify for business expenditures; failure to pay interest on deposits; violation of Labor Code section 227.3; violation of quota laws; unfair competition; violations of California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Swaja Khanna, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: pjeng@sheppard.com jellis@sheppard.com skhanna@sheppard.com RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lynette Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2600684 was removed from the Superior Court of the County of San Bernadino, California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01309. The Plaintiff alleges that REI violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), among other statutes, by using certain tracking technologies on its website, www.REI.com (the "Website").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott S. Humphreys, Esq. Brianna R. Howard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: humphreyss@ballardspahr.com howardbr@ballardspahr.com RELIABLE CONCEPTS: Cervantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliable Concepts Corporation. The case is styled as Edgar Enrique Cervantes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Reliable Concepts Corporation, Case No. 26STCV08643 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Reliable Concepts Corporation -- https://rcc-bgm.com/ -- operates as a general contractor specializing in transforming commercial spaces through expert general contracting, tenant improvements, and comprehensive building services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Peterson Suit Transferred to E.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Keith Peterson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Republic Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01344 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on March 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00021-GFVT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Republic Services -- https://www.republicservices.com/ -- provides the most complete set of recycling, waste and environmental solutions from a single-source provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Ross Strauser, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (469) 421-9091 Email: mstrauser@burnscharest.com REVERE HEALTH: Selective Seeks Declaratory Relief From Nakai Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVERE HEALTH PC dba CENTRAL UTAH CLINIC PC and JOHNNY NAKAI, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00231 (D. Utah, March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief regarding the parties' rights and obligations under a commercial general liability policy that was issued by Selective to Revere. Selective seeks a declaration that it does not have any obligation to defend or indemnify Revere with respect to the claims asserted by Nakai against Revere relating to an alleged August 11, 2024 data breach, or any other claims by Nakai, or any prospective class member, against Revere arising out the alleged data breach event giving rise to his/their purported damages. Selective Insurance Company of America is an insurance company based in New Jersey. Revere Health PC, doing business as Central Utah Clinic PC, is a healthcare services provider, with its principal place of business in Provo, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin S. Hepworth, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 7251 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 430 Las Vegas NV 89128 Telephone: (725) 248-2900 Email: justin.hepworth@clydeco.us - and - Jordan M. Quick, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 1099 18th Street, Suite 2220 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 301-8950 Email: jordan.quick@clydeco.us ROYAL CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wong Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- FUK SANG WONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ROYAL CARE INC.; CHAIM KLEIN A/K/A JOSH KLEIN; FAYE KLEIN; and YANKEL BERNATH, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01585 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 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 Wong was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide. The Royal Care Inc. offers occupational therapy, home health aides, nursing and geriatric care, and housekeeping services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent S. Wong. Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG 39 East Broadway, Suite 306 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: (212) 349-6099 Facsimile: (212) 349-6599 RUNYON OPTOMETRY: Jones Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------- SHATERRI JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUNYON OPTOMETRY, P.A., doing business as, VISION CARE 4LIFE, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-01062 (D. Kan., March 12, 2026), arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of certain individuals including, but not limited to: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of medical service, medical condition or treatment information, medical diagnosis information, Medicare or Medicaid numbers, individual health insurance policy numbers, patient account numbers, and medical record numbers. On or about February 9, 2026, the Defendant reported a data breach to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights. To date, Plaintiff and Class Members have not been informed of: (1) whether Defendant was able to contain or end the cybersecurity threat, leaving victims to fear whether the private information that Defendant continues to maintain is secure; (2) when Defendant's data security systems detected the data breach and when the data breach initially occurred; (3) the specific types of data that was accessed and exfiltrated; and, (3) details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. Headquartered in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, Runyon Optometry P.A. does business as Vision Care 4Life and provides eye care services such as eye examinations, laser vision correction, and ocular eye disease diagnosis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd #1100, St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SARATOGA, NY: Court Partially OKs Summary Judgment in "Mahan" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ryan Mahan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. County of Saratoga, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-880 (MAD/PJE) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Defendant's liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Class action status: This is a putative collective action under the FLSA, not a class action. Plaintiffs had not yet moved for certification of the proposed collective as of the date of this ruling. Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Saratoga County Sheriff's Department, holding positions as Deputy Sheriffs, Sergeants, Investigators, School Resource Officers (SROs), and K-9 Officers. They filed suit on July 16, 2024, asserting three causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week; (2) failure to properly calculate their regular pay rate; and (3) failure to pay overtime in a timely manner. Seventy Plaintiffs opted into the action and ten were selected as discovery plaintiffs. On the rounding policy, the court found that the uncontroverted record confirmed Defendant's practice of rounding down clock-in and clock-out times falling within the seven-minute pre-shift window, without compensating employees for that time. On the overtime claim, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Deputy Sheriffs, Sergeants, SROs, and K-9 Officers. The record established that these employees regularly performed compensable pre-shift work -- including logging into computer programs, conducting shift briefings, disseminating zone assignments, gathering equipment, and caring for canines -- without compensation and with Defendant's actual or constructive knowledge. Citing the parallel FLSA ruling in Beardsley v. County of Saratoga (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026), the court held that obtaining job equipment, logging into necessary computer programs, and facilitating a shift change constitute compensable work under the FLSA. As to K-9 Officers, the court found that when canine hour was used for responding to calls, officers performed off-the-clock canine care for which Defendant denied overtime compensation, and Defendant did not specifically controvert that evidence. The court denied summary judgment on the uniform-donning portion of the overtime claim. A material factual dispute existed as to whether employees were required to change into their uniforms on the employer's premises before beginning compensable work, and that dispute precluded judgment as a matter of law. The court also denied summary judgment on the Investigators' overtime claim. While their pre-shift computer work was found compensable, the record did not establish, as a matter of law, that Defendant should have known through reasonable diligence about that overtime work based on electronic building access records alone. On the regular rate claim, the court granted summary judgment in Plaintiffs' favor. Defendant failed to include extra duty premiums, cash payments in lieu of health insurance, canine care stipends, and retroactive lump-sum pay increases in its regular rate calculations. Defendant neither invoked any FLSA exemption nor offered expert testimony to rebut the findings of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Louis Lanier. On the timeliness claim, deposition testimony established overtime payment delays of at least two weeks, which the court held unreasonable as a matter of law. On liquidated damages, the court found that Defendant failed to take active steps to ascertain and comply with the FLSA and never sought independent legal advice regarding its pay practices before the lawsuit was filed. Accordingly, the court held Plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages. The court declined to rule on Plaintiffs' straight time claim, as it was not asserted in the complaint and could not be introduced at the summary judgment stage. The court ordered the parties to file a joint status report within sixty days on damages calculation, potential settlement, and a timeline for collective certification. A copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order dated March 19, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSaNVn from PacerMonitor.com Defendant County of Saratoga is represented by: John D. Wright, Esq. Matthew J. McAuliffe, Esq. BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. One Washington Street, Glens Falls, New York 12801 Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard G. Wien, Esq. ISAACS DEVASIA CASTRO & WIEN LLP 75 South Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10601 Sarah M. Block, Esq. Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Rachel Lerner, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue Northwest, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005 SAS INSTITUTE: Stana Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN STANA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled John Stana, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAS Institute, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00105-D-RN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs are among the participants and beneficiaries of the SAS Retirement Plan of which Defendants act as "fiduciaries". They allege that the Defendants failed to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent in terms of performance. The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan is in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Plaintiffs are seeking damages, attorneys' fees, and other equitable relief to redress the Defendants' illegal practices and enforce the provisions of ERISA. On July 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 4, 2025. On Feb. 12, 2026, Judge James C. Dever III entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as John Stana, et al. v. SAS Institute, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1305, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2026. [BN] SCREAM TRUCK: Hulse Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------- ISSAIAH HULSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ERIC MURPHY, JASON BLACK, and SCREAM TRUCK LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:26-cv-02574-EP-JBC (D.N.J., March 12, 2026), arises from Defendants’ longstanding policy of intentionally misclassifying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as exempt employees in an effort to unlawfully avoid paying mandatory overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Wage & Hour Law, and New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a driver or Scream Pro in Bergen County, New Jersey, from approximately May 15, 2025, until approximately January 1, 2026. Plaintiff and the Class Members regularly and routinely worked more than 40 hours per work week. However, they did not receive overtime wages because of their employment classification. Headquartered in Basking Ridge, NJ, Scream Truck LLC owns and operates a fleet of ice cream trucks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pearl Shah Dalsania, Esq. MCGRAIL & BENSINGER LLP 888-C 8th Avenue #107 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (908) 801-6056 - and - Zachary Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 137 5th Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (516) 212-6944 SEPHORA USA INC: Johnston Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mateo Johnston, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sephora USA, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC26634676 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Sephora -- https://www.sephora.com/ -- is the world's leading global prestige beauty retail brand.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Rose Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Avenue 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 911011639 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law SHOE PALACE: Ramirez Seeks Assistant Managers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- NORMA AILU RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. SHOE PALACE CORPORATION; THE FINISH LINE USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV174213 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., March 4, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover damages on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The suit alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class Members but failed, among other things, to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages); to provide split shift premiums; to provide one day's rest in seven; to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which they were entitled; to timely pay them all wages due during their employment; to timely pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment; to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements; and to reimburse them for necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants since approximately February 2025 to the present as an assistant manager. Shoe Palace Corporation retails apparel and footwear. The Company offers shirts, tanks, shorts, leggings, jackets, sweatpants, jeans, hoodies, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. Shelby L. Miner, Esq. Joseph O. Marshall, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com sminor@blackstonepc.com jmarshall@blackstonepc.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Denies Bids to Dismiss Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Van Bramer, writing for Plan Adviser, reports that a federal judge allowed a proposed class action against the Southwest Airlines Co. related to its 401(k) plan investments to move forward, rejecting the company's attempt to dismiss claims that it failed to remove a long-underperforming fund. In a March 25 ruling in Anderson et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al., U.S. District Judge Karen Gren Scholer denied Southwest's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that plan participants had plausibly alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas by several plan participants on behalf of a broader class, centers on the Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund, a large-cap growth strategy that plaintiffs say lagged its benchmark and peer funds for years. According to the complaint, a prudent fiduciary would have removed the fund by early 2019, after extended periods of underperformance. Scholer concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations supported a reasonable inference that Southwest's process for monitoring and retaining the fund may have been flawed. The ruling clears the way for the case to proceed to discovery, where the plaintiffs will seek internal records related to how the airline and its plan committees evaluated investment options. Case Background The case stems from a January 2025 lawsuit accusing Southwest and its retirement plan committee of breaching their fiduciary duties by keeping the Harbor Capital fund in the plan despite years of weak results. Participants alleged the fund had "more than 15 years of poor performance" and consistently lagged both its benchmark and comparable large-cap growth funds across multiple time horizons. By the end of 2023, the plan had roughly $2.3 billion -- about 17% of total plan assets -- invested in the fund, amplifying the alleged harm to participants' retirement savings, according to the plaintiffs' initial filing. Judge Rejects Key Defense Arguments Southwest had argued that the case should be dismissed because allegations of underperformance alone are insufficient to establish imprudence and because the plaintiffs failed to identify meaningful benchmarks for comparison. Scholer declined to adopt a strict "meaningful benchmark" requirement at the pleading stage, noting that neither the Supreme Court nor the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has formally imposed such a standard. Scholer also rejected arguments that the plaintiffs could not base a fiduciary breach claim on a single fund and that the plan's monitoring process -- acknowledged in the complaint -- undermined the allegations. Instead, she stressed that fiduciaries must not only monitor investments, but also remove imprudent ones when necessary. In addition, Scholer allowed a related "failure to monitor" claim against plan fiduciaries to proceed, finding sufficient support in case law for such claims at this stage. The plaintiffs are represented by the Sloan Law Firm and Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represents Southwest Airlines and related defendants. [GN] SPAULDING PARTNERS: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Pardo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPAULDING PARTNERS LLC and ORIENTAL CHINESE RESTAURANT AND BAR INC. D/B/A SALA'O CUBAN RESTAURANT AND BAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21873 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such entrance access and path of travel and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Spaulding Partners LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. Oriental Chinese Restaurant and Bar Inc., doing business as Sala'O Cuban Restaurant and Bar, is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com SPECIFIC PROTECTION: Underpays Security Professionals, Nelson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DELAWRENCE NELSON, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. SPECIFIC PROTECTION SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00958 (D.D.C., March 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as supporting District of Columbia Department of Employment Services regulations. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security professional during the past three years from the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiff and all current and former similarly situated hourly security professional employees were misclassified as independents contractors so that they were not paid time and a half for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the suit. Specific Protection Services LLC is the largest independent security firm in the Washington, D.C. metro region with more than 100 security professionals employed during the past 3 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Joseph Goodson, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 400 East Pratt Street, Suite 810 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (202) 919-5952 E-mail: tjosephgoodson@hkm.com - and - Gian Fanelli, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 978-3272 E-mail: gfanelli@hkm.com STACKADAPT INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stackadapt Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miguel Rodriguez, Maya Churchill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stackadapt Inc., Stackadapt US, Inc., Case No. CGC26634782 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Personal Injury/Property Damage - Non-Vehicle Related." StackAdapt -- https://www.stackadapt.com/ -- is the leading technology company that empowers marketers to reach, engage, and convert audiences with precision.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Phone: 224-632-4500 Email: mruan@fklmlaw.com STAPLES INC: Sellin Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE SELLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAPLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11342-ADB (D. Mass., March 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 11, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Staples, Inc. is an American office supply retail company, with its principal place of business in Framingham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Ste. 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com STATE FARM: Seeks to Exclude Plaintiffs' Class Cert Experts ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert(s) for purposes of class certification: Accordingly, State Farm requests that the Court exclude Hughes's report and/or any supplementation thereof with regard to its consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion. State Farm also requests that this Court exclude any additional experts Plaintiffs may offer in the future in support of the already-pending Plaintiffs’ Motion. The Court should exclude (1) Daniel Hughes as an expert witness in this case for all purposes, including class certification and (2) the Plaintiffs' reliance on anonymous or future expert testimony in support of class certification. Here, by scheduling the class certification motion deadline two months before the expert deadline, it is implicit that any class certification evidence and expert opinions would need to be provided no later than the filing of a class certification motion. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' reliance on undisclosed experts should be disregarded, and Plaintiffs should be precluded from attempting to supplement the Plaintiffs' Motion with future expert disclosures. The case is based on the Plaintiffs' theory that State Farm (their homeowners insurer) owes them interest on a payment made by State Farm following the appraisal of their claim. There is no dispute State Farm made the appraisal payment. The dispute is whether – because Plaintiffs allege State Farm did not make the payment within 15 days after the appraisal award – Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the payment amount. State Farm provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v7YR0g at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. Scott E. Allbright, Jr., Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com scott.allbright@akerman.com STRYKER CORP: Faces Mangold Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT MANGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00911 (W.D. Mich., March 19, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard PII that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant lost control over Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The complaint alleges that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former employees of the Defendant. Stryker Corporation is an American multinational medical technologies corporation based in Portage, Michigan, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK Bloomfield Hills, MIC 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Samuel Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com SUSHI VIDA: Fernandez Must File Default Judgment Bid by April 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez v. Sushi Vida, Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-09886-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Clarke entered an order that the Plaintiff shall file a motion for default judgment no later than April 13, 2026. Pursuant to the Order entered on March 9, 2026, Plaintiff submits the within request. Plaintiff received the Clerk's Certificate of Default on Feb. 3, 2026, but did not send it out to the Defendant March 6, 2026. The Plaintiff requests an additional 30 days to file for a Default Judgment against the Defendant to allow time for the Defendant to make an appearance on this matter. The Plaintiff does not intend on filing for class certification at this time. The Defendant is a sushi restaurant with multiple locations in New York. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RwNb7f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 SWAGELOK COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Eric Patterson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC L. PATTERSON, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00470-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: UnitedHealth specializes in health insurance and health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UYyD9U at no extra charge.[CC] SWIFT PORK: Force Seeks to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRIN FORCE and NICOLLE CRUZ RIVERA, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, v. SWIFT PORK COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-03018-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), granting unopposed motion to modify the scheduling order on the motion for class certification and extend the time for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification by two weeks. The Plaintiffs request a two-week extension of time, or until April 3, 2025, because they are unable to file their Motion for Class Certification the prior week. Two of Plaintiffs' attorneys, Maureen A. Salas and Douglas M. Werman, will be on vacation with their families the week of March 23rd through March 27th. The Plaintiffs now request a two-week extension of those deadlines, and they ask the Court to re-set the briefing schedule as follows: a. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due by April 3, 2026. b. The Defendant's response due by May 15, 2026. c. The Plaintiffs' reply due by June 5, 2026. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) by failing to pay all overtime wages to Plaintiffs and other hourly employees for the unpaid time they worked at the beginning and end of the workday and during the time Defendant took a 30-minute meal break from their hours worked. Swift Pork produces and processes meat products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XwFK4M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Anne R. Kramer, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com akramer@flsalaw.com SYNGENTA CROP: Ethington Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Ethington, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-438 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: Jones Sues Over Wrongful Distribution of Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Jones, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-443 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: Kane Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- James Kane, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-453 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 24, 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: Kim Sues Over Wrongful Distribution of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Kim, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-435 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: Kokolus Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Kokolus, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-424 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: Mollineaux Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Mollineaux, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-434 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: Rocheleau Sues Over Paraquat's Health Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA ROCHELEAU, Plaintiff, v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-283 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026), accuses the Defendants of concealing the dangers of Paraquat for at least four decades, hiding evidence of its dangers from government safety agencies, and knowingly unleashing on the public a product that they knew caused Parkinson's disease. As a result of Plaintiff's years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to Defendants' Paraquat products, she contracted Parkinson's disease. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now 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 their use. The Plaintiff brings this case to recover from Defendants, under the following theories of liability: compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of Plaintiff to Defendants' Paraquat products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability-design defect; strict product liability--failure to warn; negligence; breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability; and fraudulent misrepresentation. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is an agricultural technology company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mary S. Thomas, Esq. 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 E-mail: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Good & Gather Tuna's False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Target falsely advertises that its Good & Gather tuna is caught sustainably, despite evidence that the retail giant's suppliers rely on dangerous fishing practices that threaten marine ecosystems. The 59-page lawsuit contends that Target deliberately "turns a blind eye" to the dangerous fishing practices used by its tuna suppliers so as to keep up its sustainability claims and promotions, which the case notes are highly marketable to environmentally-conscious consumers. In particular, the case describes that Target communicates its sustainable seafood harvesting promise to consumers on the back- and front-label promotions found on all of its Good & Gather tuna packages, which relay that the tuna is wild-caught, sustainable and sourced in a way that protects marine life. The purported commitment to sustainability is further reinforced by Target's accreditation from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), depicted as a blue check on the label of every package. However, the class action lawsuit alleges that Target is aware that the fisheries from which it sources its Good & Gather tuna use harmful fishing methods, and that any representations to the contrary are deceptive and intended to increase the company's profits by leading consumers to believe that they are making an environmentally conscious purchase. "Target seeks to have it both ways: pleading ignorance to the harmful practices of the fisheries that source the Tuna Products, while also using the Sustainability Promise to promote the sale of the Tuna Products," the suit asserts. According to the complaint, the fisheries that source Target's tuna, operating as The Tuna Store LLC and owned by The Bolton Group LLC, rely on two large-scale fishing methods: purse seines and longlines. Purse seines refers to the practice of throwing large nets over a school of fish, and longlines involve the use of a miles-long fishing line equipped with thousands of hooks to catch the targeted species of fish. The lawsuit argues that these methods of fishing are predisposed to the disruption, unintentional catching, injury and even deaths of thousands of other marine creatures, including "…the suffocation and crushing of dolphins caught in fishing nets that are then hauled onto fishing boats while severely injured or dead; the torturously slow death of endangered sea turtles after getting caught on large hooks meant for haddock; and the entangling of critically endangered whales by fishing gear causing deep wounds and intense suffering," the case reads. Furthermore, the lawsuit contends that any certifications offered by the MSC for Target's suppliers are practically meaningless due to the organization's "seriously undermine[d]" credibility. The case charges that these certifications can be effectively "rushed" or bought by fisheries, as the MSC charges retailers 0.5 percent net wholesale value as a royalty fee for using its label, and the organization has rarely denied an applicant in the last 20 years. "Experts are concerned, and Target is aware, or should have been aware, of this concern, that the rapid growth of the MSC and the inherent conflict of interest involved with its operations have influenced the MSC to compromise its objective," the filing relays. Because Target's sustainability initiatives are only supervised and enforced internally by the fisheries and their vendors, the suit posits that any "violations" or actions deemed harmful for the environment are much more likely to be ignored, underreported, or otherwise swept under the rug. Despite the accusations against MSC and Target's suppliers, Target continues to deceptively market its Good & Gather tuna as sustainably sourced, a claim reiterated further by Target executives who promote environmental consciousness and sustainability as matching consumer demand, according to the suit. "The lack of transparency, combined with the self-policing nature of the industry allows fish retailers like Target to reap the benefits of harmful fishing practices, all while falsely promising customers that its Tuna Products are sustainably caught," the complaint summarizes. The Target class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who, during the fullest time allowed by law, purchased a Good & Gather Tuna product in California, or any state with similar laws, for personal or household use within the applicable statute of limitations period. The varieties of Good & Gather tuna mentioned in the lawsuit include Good & Gather portable pouch Chunk Light Tuna in Water, portable pouch Lemon Pepper Chunk Light Tuna, portable pouch Albacore Chunk White Tuna in Water, portable pouch Sweet and Spicy Chunk Light Tuna, tinned Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water, and tinned Chunk Light Tuna in Water. [GN] TARGET CORPORATION: Spry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Christie Spry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 0:26-cv-02027 (D. Minn., March 24, 2026), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), claiming that the Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable positions but different titles (collectively, "ETLs"), are entitled to, inter alia: unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and liquidated damages. The Defendant assigns non-management work to its ETLs, including Plaintiff, which generally takes up more than 50% of their time, closely supervises their work, and pays them only a little more than its non-exempt employees. It schedules them to work 47.5 hours or more each week, but schedules so few hourly staff that in fact they regularly work 50-65 hours or even more per week. Target classifies all of its ETLs as exempt "executives" and does not pay them overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a Workweek. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without receiving wages from Defendant for all hours worked, as well as overtime compensation as required by federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May 2023 to April 2025. The Defendant owns and operates retail department stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-1199 - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA, & DINSMORE,LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Fed Bar No.: ct11629 Phone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Amy C. Winters, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Phone: (856) 596-4100 TASTE IT: Vaughn Sues Over Website's Equal Access to Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTE IT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03182 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://ingoodtaste.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Taste It Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law TEACHERS INSURANCE: Carfora Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CARFORA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled John Carfora, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-8384, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case arises from a years-long scheme by Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America (TIAA) to defraud higher education employees of their retirement savings through manipulative and misleading sales tactics, which culminated in TIAA paying $97 million to settle federal and state charges following investigations into these practices by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and New York's Attorney General. On Nov. 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 18, 2023. On May 31, 2024, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Mar. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed another motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Failla granted on Mar. 3, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs lack class standing to pursue claims on behalf of participants in these other retirement plans. The Defendants' motion is hereby granted. The appellate case is captioned as Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America, Case No. 26-674, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOHN CARFORA, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Sean E. Soyars, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Defendants-Respondents TEACHERS INSURANCE ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al. are represented by: Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175: Hanshaw Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teamsters Local 175. The case is styled as James Hanshaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Teamsters Local 175, Case No. 2:26-cv-00217 (S.D.W. Va., March 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Teamsters Local 175 is an association/organization located in Charleston, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney Arthur Smith, Esq. ROD SMITH LAW 108-1/2 Capitol Street, Suite 300 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 342-0550 Email: rod@LawWV.com TEKNOR APEX COMPANY: Becerra Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Gilberto Becerra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TEKNOR APEX COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV04659 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03022. On February 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant which set forth the following nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wage and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code Section 2802; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages; Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay Under Labor Code Sections 245 et seq. 246; Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Rebecca Kim, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Rebecca.Kim@jacksonlewis.com - and - Huy M. Tran, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618-5005 Phone: (949) 885-1376 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Huy.Tran@jacksonlewis.com THIRDLOVE INC: Johnston Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thirdlove Inc. The case is styled as Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Thirdlove Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02405 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ThirdLove -- https://www.thirdlove.com/ -- is a women's lifestyle brand that offers a range of lingerie and underwear to every woman.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com TRACTOR SUPPLY: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $750,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- BAMLawCA reports that Rebecca Day filed a class action against Tractor Supply Co. alleging the company failed to pay certain New York workers on a weekly basis in violation of New York labor law. While the case did not end with a merits ruling, the defendant agreed to a $750,000 settlement to resolve the dispute. Case: Day v. Tractor Supply Co. Court: New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County Case No. 6128331/2023 Who Is the Named Plaintiff in the Class Action? Rebecca Day is the named plaintiff in the lawsuit and served as the proposed representative for other workers with similar claims. According to the court-approved notice, she alleged that Tractor Supply failed to pay her and other non-exempt, hourly-paid manual workers on a weekly basis. While Day initiated the action and pursued wage-and-hour claims against Tractor Supply, she also sought relief on behalf of a broader class of employees who allegedly experienced the same pay schedule. Who Is the Defendant in the Case? Tractor Supply Company, the defendant, is a large retail business that sells products tied to rural living, including farm, pet, tool, garden, and outdoor merchandise, with a workforce of more than 52,000 team members. Tractor Supply denied the allegations made in Day's complaint and maintained that its non-exempt hourly employees were lawfully compensated and paid all wages in a timely manner. Despite denying the allegations, the company agreed to settle the lawsuit rather than continue litigation. The Plaintiff's Allegations: Day v. Tractor Supply Co. According to the lawsuit, Tractor Supply allegedly paid certain hourly manual workers in New York on a biweekly schedule when, under New York law, qualifying manual workers were supposed to be paid weekly. The settlement notice states that the case covered non-exempt, hourly-paid workers employed in New York stores between June 24, 2016, and February 24, 2019, who did not continue working for the company beyond February 24, 2019. Tractor Supply denied wrongdoing, and the court did not rule on the merits before the parties reached a settlement. What Is a Non-Exempt Employee? A non-exempt employee is a worker who is generally entitled to wage and hour protections such as minimum wage and overtime pay. What Is a Manual Worker? In this case, the term manual worker refers to employees whose job duties were sufficiently physical or hands-on that New York's weekly pay rule allegedly applied to them. What Is the Main Question in the Case? At the center of the case was whether Tractor Supply's hourly workers in New York qualified as "manual workers" under state labor law. If they did, the next question was whether paying them biweekly rather than weekly violated the statute governing the frequency of pay. The dispute also raised the practical issue of what damages or statutory relief might be available when workers are paid in full but not on the schedule required by law. More broadly, the case reflects a recurring wage-and-hour question employers face: whether their payroll practices match the legal rules that apply to a specific category of non-exempt employees. FAQ: Day v. Tractor Supply Co. Q: What Is the Case Name and Number? A: The case is Rebecca Day v. Tractor Supply Co., Case No. 6128331/2023, filed in New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County. Q: Did the Court Find That Tractor Supply Violated the Law? A: No. The case was resolved through settlement, and the court did not issue a final ruling that Tractor Supply violated the law. Tractor Supply denied the allegations and agreed to settle the dispute rather than continue litigating it. Q: How Much Was the Tractor Supply Class Action Settlement? A: The settlement was valued at up to $750,000. That amount was intended to cover payments to eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, administration expenses, and a service award for the named plaintiff. Q: Who Was Included in the Settlement Class? A: The settlement covered certain non-exempt, hourly-paid Tractor Supply employees who worked in New York during the relevant class period and who were allegedly paid on a biweekly schedule instead of weekly. The class definition in the settlement materials was tied to employees working in New York stores during the dates identified in the notice. Q: Why Does This Case Matter in Wage and Hour Law? A: This case shows that wage and hour disputes are not always about whether workers were paid at all. Sometimes, the legal issue is whether employees were paid in accordance with the timing and method required by law. That kind of payroll practice can affect a large group of workers at once and lead to class action litigation. Q: Why Does a New York Pay-Frequency Case Matter to California Workers? A: Even though this case arose under New York law, it reflects a broader employment law principle that also matters in California: employers must follow the wage rules that apply to their workforce with precision. Cases involving payroll timing, unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, and wage statement compliance all turn on that same core idea. [GN] TYREE OIL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Swezey Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DWAYNE SWEZEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TYREE OIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:26- cv-00517-MTK (D. Or., March 17, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized access to the Defendant's information systems that the Defendant discovered on or about June 28, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. As a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members was stolen, including their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers ID numbers, health insurance information, and health information. The Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information has harmed and will continue to harm Plaintiff and Class Members, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis. Tyree Oil, Inc. distributes petroleum products. The Company offers fuels, lubricants, heating oil, cardlocks, and fuel and lubricant equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-9332 Email: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com UBS FINANCIAL: Sweep Accounts Class Action Suit Moves Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- CU Today reports that a federal judge in New York has allowed key contract claims to move forward in a proposed class action accusing UBS Financial Services Inc. of steering customers' uninvested cash into low-yield "cash sweep" accounts, while dismissing only one duplicative unjust-enrichment claim, according to Bloomberg Law. According to Bloomberg Law, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged UBS may have breached its agreements by failing to set sweep-account interest rates in line with prevailing business and economic conditions. Bloomberg Law reported the judge said the "exceedingly broad" definition of "agreement" in UBS' customer documents could encompass all materials made available to the plaintiffs, strengthening the contract-based allegations. The court did, however, trim the suit by throwing out a single unjust-enrichment claim as duplicative of the contract allegations, while otherwise allowing the core breach-of-contract theories to proceed, Law360 reported. The case is the latest in a broader wave of litigation targeting brokerage and wealth-management firms over "cash sweep" programs that automatically move idle client cash into affiliated deposit accounts paying lower yields than some competing alternatives. The ruling stands in contrast to some recent defense wins in similar litigation, including a February dismissal of a cash-sweep case against U.S. Bank, underscoring that outcomes are turning heavily on the precise wording of customer agreements and disclosures, according to Financial Planning and industry legal coverage. For wealth managers and banks, the UBS decision suggests contract language around sweep-rate setting remains a key litigation vulnerability even as some courts have rejected broader "reasonable rate" theories. [GN] ULTA SALON: Asercion Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arny Asercion, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26-CIV- 00756 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02442. The Complaint asserts five causes of action: violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; violation of the Wiretap Act, Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; violation of California Penal Code Section 502; invasion of privacy under Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution; and violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eileen R. Ridley, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP One Market Plaza 55 Spear Street Tower, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.434.4484 Facsimile: 415.434.4507 Email: eridley@foley.com - and - Peter Z. Stockburger, Esq. Anum Amin, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858.847.6700 Facsimile: 858.792.6773 Email: peter.stockburger@foley.com aamin@foley.com UNITED HEALTH GRP: Odom Health Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Odom Health and Wellness, Lake Acupuncture LLC, Kai Shin Clinic, Twin Cities Counseling, Duluth Chiropractic Clinic, P.A., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Health Group Inc., Change Healthcare, Inc., et. al., Case No. 27-CV-26-4480 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., March 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5999 Email: emdrake@bergermontague.com UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO in U.H.A. Class Suit to 8th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled U.H.A., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-00417-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on behalf of Minnesota residents who are refugees and have not yet been adjusted to lawful permanent resident status and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO). On Jan. 28, 2026, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and enjoined the Defendants from arresting or detaining any member of the putative class in Minnesota on the basis that they are a refugee who has not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status; and ordered the immediate return and release of the members of a putative subclass consisting of those refugees who are presently detained under the policy. The next day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to clarify (1) whether the Court intended to grant U.H.A.'s petition for writ of habeas corpus, in addition to granting the TRO, and (2) whether good cause exists to extend the default, 14-day TRO time limit. After careful consideration, the Court finds that good cause exists to extend the TRO beyond the 14-day limit set forth in Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because U.H.A. is a member of the Detained Subclass and has therefore been ordered to be released, the Court need not rule on the merits of U.H.A.'s habeas petition at this stage of the proceedings. The appellate case is styled as U.H.A., et al. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., Case No. 26-1482, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on April 27, 2026; -- Appendix is due May 7, 2026; -- Appellant's brief is due May 7, 2026; and -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Petitioners-Appellees U.H.A., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: John G. Albanese, Esq. Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph Hashmall, Esq. Jordan C. Hughes, Esq. Ariana Kiener, Esq. Hans W. Lodge, Esq. Bryan Plaster, Esq. Katherine Raths, Esq. Soledad Slowing Romero, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE 1229 Tyler Street, N.E., Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5997 (612) 594-5933 (612) 594-5999 (763) 340-0285 (612) 666-3066 (612) 607-7794 (651) 728-5423 (612) 564-1115 (612) 474-4230 Respondents-Appellants PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al. are represented by: Brantley Mayers, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 890-9874 UNITED STATES: Elhassan Seeks Writ of Habeas Corpus --------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in her capacity as the head of the U.S. Department of Justice. The case is captioned ELHASSAN v. Bondi et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00753-XR (W.D. Tex., February 5, 2026). The case is brought over Plaintiff's request for writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Department of Justice is a cabinet-level executive department responsible for enforcing federal laws, protecting public safety, and ensuring justice. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Georgia Santos Laurent, Esq. SANLAURENT LAW GROUP PLLC 3785 Research Blvd., Suite 125 Austin, TX 78641 Telephone: (786) 781-0781 E-mail: georgia@sanlaurentlaw.com UNITED STATES: Faces Sumba Suit Over Unlawful Detention ------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi and others. The case is captioned TENEZACA SUMBA v. BONDI et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01153-MCA (D.N.J., February 5, 2026). The case is brought over a Plaintiff's request for writ of habeas corpus in connection with an alleged unlawful detention. Pamela Bondi heads the Department of Justice and acts as the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Regis Fernandez, Esq. 7 Federal Square NEWARK, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 297-0002 Facsimile: (973) 297-0003 E-mail: regisfernandez@aol.com UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must File Opposition Reply by April 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB, NEWSGUILD - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, ABIGAIL OLMEDA, individually; and SEAN BECKNER-CARMITCHEL, RYANNE MENA, LEXIS-OLIVIER RAY, CHARLES XU, BENJAMIN ADAM CLIMER, and MARIA-ALEJANDRA PAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05563-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting joint stipulation re: briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1. The Defendants will file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before Thursday, March 26. 2. The Plaintiffs will file their reply to the Defendants' opposition on or before Thursday, April 9. 3. This Court will hold a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Thursday, April 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. DHS is the US federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t6TWtX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Borden, Esq. J. Noah Hagey, Esq. Kory J. DeClark, Esq. Greg Washington, Esq. Lily (Haeun) Kim, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 747 Front Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 E-mail: borden@braunhagey.com hagey@braunhagey.com declark@braunhagey.com gwashington@braunhagey.com kim@braunhagey.com - and - Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq. Jonathan Markovitz, Esq. Adrienna Wong, Esq. Meredith Gallen, Esq. Summer Lacey, Esq. Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Los Angeles, CA 90081 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org jmarkovitz@aclusocal.org awong@aclusocal.org mgallen@aclusocal.org slacey@aclusocal.org mtajsar@aclusocal.org - and - Peter Bibring, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER BIBRING 2210 W Sunset Blvd # 203 Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (213) 471-2022 E-mail: peter@bibringlaw.com - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Weston Rowland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 2632 Wilshire Boulevard, #552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com rowland.weston@gmail.com - and - Paul Hoffman, Esq. Michael Seplow, Esq. John Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS, HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 200 Pier Avenue #226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com mseplow@sshhzlaw.com jwashington@sshhzlaw.com UNITED STATES: Smirk Suit Moved to Court of International Trade --------------------------------------------------------------- The case SMIRK & DAGGER GAMES, B. STUYVESANT CHAMPAGNE, LLC, and LEO D. BERNSTEIN & SONS INC. d/b/a/ BERNSTEIN DISPLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03857, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Court of International Trade on March 19, 2026. The Plaintiffs challenge President Trump's unlawful use of emergency power to impose a tariff on imports from virtually all of the United States' trading partners, and additional tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. The President ordered these tariffs in a series of Executive Orders he issued beginning on February 1, 2025. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kara M. Rollins, Esq. John J. Vecchione, Esq. Andrew J. Morris, Esq. Christian Clase, Esq. NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 4250 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (202) 869-5210 Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 Email: kara.rollins@ncla.legal john.vecchione@ncla.legal andrew.morris@ncla.legal christian.clase@ncla.legal UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ellis TCPA Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Terrace Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., Case No. 27-CV-26-2787 was removed from the Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota Fourth Judicial District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-01926-LMP-SGE to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5933 Fax: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com The Defendant is represented by: Anthony Ufkin, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (202) 230-8758 Email: tony.ufkin@hoganlovells.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fish Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nancy Fish, Jeannine Wooley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Case No. L-003074-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., March 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Tort-Other." UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 VAIL RESORTS: Mega Pass Bundling Drives Up Costs, Goloja Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LANDIN GOLOJA, TYLER MAYBEE, CAITLAN REYNOLDS, and DANIEL SHEINER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., and ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01191 (D. Colo., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their Mega Pass bundling scheme which has resulted in higher prices and reduced choice for consumers. Defendant Vail Resorts, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and/or operates several of the most visited and recognized Destination Ski Resorts in North America, including Vail, Breckenridge, Keystone, Beaver Creek, Park City, and Whistler Blackcomb. Defendant Alterra Mountain Company is a leading global mountain resort operator. Alterra Mountain Company was created when affiliates of KSL Capital Partners, owner of the Lake Tahoe ski resort now known as Palisades Tahoe, and Henry Crown and Company purchased Intrawest (the former owner or operator of Steamboat, Winter Park, Stratton, and other ski areas) Mammoth Resorts, and Deer Valley Resort in 2017 through a joint venture. Alterra is a privately held company. The complaint relates that the Defendants have engaged in conduct to raise the costs of Lift Tickets and Mega Passes to the detriment of Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Specifically, through the Epic Pass and Ikon Pass, Defendants use the market power they have in the market for Destination Ski Resorts -- virtually every Destination Ski Resort is on either the Epic Pass or Ikon Pass -- to restrain competition in the market for Regional Ski Areas by bundling access to Destination Ski Resorts to access to Regional Ski Areas. These anticompetitive bundles have raised costs and reduced quality for all skiers and snowboarders regardless of whether they purchase a Lift Ticket or Mega Pass. This lack of competition has been to the detriment of Plaintiffs and members of the Class and has caused them to pay supracompetitive prices for Lift Tickets and Mega Passes during the Class Period. Skiers and snowboarders are led to believe they are making a cost-conscious decision in buying the Epic or Ikon Mega Pass, but in reality, and as a result of Vail Resorts' and Alterra's respective anticompetitive schemes involving bundling, they are in fact being forced into buying a Mega Pass, which is itself maximally (over)-priced up to the point where it looks like a good deal when compared to the over-priced Lift Ticket. In short, both the Lift Ticket and the Mega Pass are over-priced, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this class action Complaint against Defendants for violations of federal and state antitrust laws and common law and seek to recover damages for the overpayment of Lift Tickets and Mega Passes, as well as other relief. Plaintiff Landin Goloja purchased an Epic Pass product from Vail Resorts and an Ikon Pass product from Alterra. Plaintiff Tyler Maybee purchased an Ikon Pass product from Defendant Alterra. Plaintiff Caitlan Reynolds purchased an Ikon Pass product from Defendant Alterra. And Plaintiff Daniel Sheiner purchased Lift Tickets from Vail Resorts and an Ikon Pass product from Defendant Alterra.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 6645 S Cherry Way Centennial, CO 80121 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Carrie Syme, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com csyme@dicellolevitt.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael J. Kane, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19013 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ecramer@bergermontague.com mkane@bergermontague.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery St., Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 215-0962 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com - and - Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabañez, Esq. Taylor Applegate, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery St., 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2305 E-mail: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com taylora@salahilaw.com VOLHARD DOG: See Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLHARD DOG NUTRITION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00512-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., March 17, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.volharddognutrition.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. Volhard Dog Nutrition LLC offers natural raw-based dog diets, supplements, and dog treats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES: Walton Suit Transferred to D. Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Walton, Dionysios Tsirkas, Lyle Liberman, Graham Hulsey, Joseph Contois, Adrian Washington, Scott B. Johnson, Micah Mason, Vincent Bozaan, Justin Collins, Michael Barnett, Ian Schaaf, Wesley Ornick, A. Michael Kundu, Bianca Johnston, Jonathan Kelcourse, Justin Charron, Richard Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Case No. 1:25-cv-01948 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on March 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00318-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. W.L. Gore & Associates -- https://www.gore.com/ -- is a global materials science company headquartered in Newark, Delaware, best known for developing waterproof, breathable GORE-TEX fabrics.[BN] WALMART INC: Rehak Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathleen Rehak and Christopher Burney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-05974-8 KNT was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00949. The Plaintiffs seek $5,000 in statutory damages per putative class member, based on allegedly being restricted from having additional jobs, supplementing income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed, all in alleged violation of RCW 49.62.070.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com ashley.paynter@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com WAY.COM INC: Hogan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Way.com, Inc. The case is styled as Sean Hogan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Way.com, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02532 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Way.com, Inc. -- https://www.way.com/ -- provides software solutions. The Company offers platform for car owners to purchase car insurance, car wash, parking, and refinancing of cars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com WESTERN MANAGEMENT: Harris Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Management Consultants, LLC. The case is styled as Lee Kemp Harris, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Western Management Consultants, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-60817-DSL (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Western Management Consultants -- https://www.wmc.ca/ -- is one of the longest standing and most respected Canadian names in management consulting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com WILSHIRE LAW: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $5.975MM --------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Wilshire Law Firm has agreed to pay up to $5,975,000 to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the firm unlawfully sent prerecorded messages to prospective clients' cell phones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The $5.975 million Wilshire Law Firm class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 18, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States to whose cell phone Wilshire, or an agent acting on behalf of Wilshire, placed a call using a prerecorded message without prior express written consent at any point between October 10, 2020 and February 18, 2026. Court documents state that approximately 52,691 individuals are covered by the deal. The court-approved website for the Wilshire Law Firm TCPA settlement can be found at WLFTCPASettlement.com. According to the website, Wilshire settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of approximately $75 after the deduction of attorneys' fees and settlement administration expenses. Importantly, the settlement agreement states that class members may only file one claim form per cell phone number, regardless of the number of calls received. Class members will receive their settlement payout via check, and the agreement notes that all checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration. To file a Wilshire settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator found on the second page. All Wilshire Law Firm settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 19, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Wilshire Law Firm TCPA settlement following a hearing on June 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Wilshire Law Firm class action lawsuit argued that the California law firm attempted to generate leads by wrongfully sending prerecorded telemarketing calls and messages to prospective clients' cell phones without their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] WP COMPANY LLC: Kim Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jun Hee Kim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WP Company LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04229 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00690-ADA-DH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Personal Injury. WP Company LLC, doing business as The Washington Post -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/ -- operates as a publishing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane Manwarring MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey G. Landis ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M Street NW, Suite 250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 706-5203 Fax: (202) 706-5298 ZINOFF & COMPANY: Velez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Victor Velez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zinoff & Company, LLC d/b/a DeliverThat, Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV007206 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Zinoff & Company, LLC doing business as DeliverThat -- https://www.ideliverthat.com/ -- helps restaurants scale catering operations with professional drivers, powerful logistics technology, and people-first support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Andrew Markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway Fl 19 San Diego, CA 92101-5047 Phone: 619-325-0492 Fax: 619-325-0496 Email: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org ZONE SAFETY: Nock Seeks Unpaid OT for Traffic Control Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- PAIGE NOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZONE SAFETY LLC, d/b/a ZONE SAFETY 365, and JULIE COTTINGHAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00663-JPC (N.D. Ohio, March 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt traffic control employee from approximately March 21, 2025 to approximately December 31, 2025. Zone Safety LLC, doing business as Zone Safety 365, is a union traffic control company based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Lubow, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com [^] 10th Class Action Money & Ethics Conference -- 2026 Sponsors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This year's gathering is being sponsored by: * Class Action Money & Ethics 2026 Co-Chairs: Esquire Bank Succeed Boldly https://esquirebank.com/ EisnerAmper Smarter Safeguards. Stronger Outcomes. https://www.eisneramper.com/ * Major Sponsors: Labaton Keller Sucharow History of expertise. Reputation for excellence. https://www.labaton.com/ Covalynt The Bond Between Complex Litigation and Data Science. https://covalynt.com/ * Patron Sponsors: Duane Morris https://www.duanemorris.com/ Darrow Legal Intelligence that Drives Better Outcomes. https://www.darrow.ai/ Tremendous Send gift cards and money instantly https://www.tremendous.com/ Federated Hermes https://www.federatedhermes.com/ * Supporting Sponsors: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein https://www.lieffcabraser.com/ AB Data https://www.abdataclassaction.com/ Contingency Capital Global asset management business focused on credit oriented legal assets https://www.contingencycapital.com/ Morgan Stanley Navigate Volatility. Unlock Opportunity. Active Fixed Income https://www.morganstanley.com/im/en-pe/institutional-investor.html ATTICUS Administration Smart | Accountable | Better https://www.atticusadmin.com/ This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. For sponsorship and other information, contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. ********* 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 ***