260406.mbx

260406.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 6, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 68 Headlines ABIOMED INC: Court OKs Bid to Strike "Lester" Class Bid ACRISURE LLC: Sciacca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AMAZON.COM INC: Surreply Bid in Wilson Class Suit Partly OK'd AMS MOVING INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ANGARA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bordeaux Due Sept. 4 APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kempf Suit AURATE NEW YORK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says BAIN CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Data Breach Suit BENELUX CORP: Mertens Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd BLUE CROSS: Wesco Inc. Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan BRAINSTORM CELL: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed BRAINSTORM CELL: Continues to Defend Sporn Securities Class Suit BRANDT EQUITIES LP: Behrens Files Suit in D. North Dakota CAROLYN SCRAGGS: Aquino Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice CERNER CORPORATION: Strength Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHARLES SCHWAB & CO: Rivera Suit Removed to S.D. California COME READY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vaughn Says COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Filing in Castillo Amended to July 2 DETMAR LOGISTICS: Stears Seeks to Correct Class Members Number DIETZ & WATSON: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Veasley Due August 31 DOXIMITY INC: $31MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 10 DYNAMIC DUO TRAINING: Garcia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ENVISION VTA FD AUTO: Elwany Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FABIAN MORALES: Fernandez Balks at Unpaid OT, Breach of Contract FABULA HOLDINGS: Licea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FANROCK LLC: Harris Suit Removed to C.D. California FERMI INC: Continues to Defend Lupia Securities Class Suit in N.Y. FINANCE OF AMERICA: Shaffer Files Suit in E.D. Texas GREEN 70: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ruiz Extended to May 25 GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend EHI Antitrust Class Suit GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend RRI Antitrust Class Suit GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend S.K. Antitrust Class Suit GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend SISL Antitrust Class Suit HARTFORD, CN: Settlement Class in Wright Gets Conditional Status HAWORTH INC: Robetoy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation HAYMAKER ACQUISITION: Continues to Defend Exchange Act-Related Suit HEALTH GORILLA: Fails to Protect Patients' Records, Hughes Says HERITAGE BANK: Frey Sues Over Compromised Personal Info HOSPICE OF FLORIDA: Underpays Registered Nurses, Garofalo Says HUTTIG INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due June 1 ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Wins Class Certification Bid IQVIA INC: Must Pay $2,000 in "Lyngaas" Unsolicited Fax Ad Suit J. CREW GROUP: Sanchez-Gomez Balks at Junk Fees Charges JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Responses to Amended Complaint Due April 20 JIMCO MAINTENANCE: Frisby Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KALSHIEX LLC: Golan Sues Over Misleading Kalshi Prediction Market KARTOON STUDIOS: Continues to Defend Cohen Derivative Suit KARTOON STUDIOS: Genius Brands Stockholder Derivative Suit Pending KARTOON STUDIOS: Ly Derivative Suit Stayed KARTOON STUDIOS: Miceli Derivative Suit Stayed KIA MOTORS: Kondash Amended Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice KLARNA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Browser Extension Suit KRISTI NOEM: Guadalupe Files Suit in S.D. Florida KROGER CO: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibit Under Seal KROGER CO: Seeks to Exclude Experts' Class Cert Opinions KROGER CO: Seeks to Exclude Sukumar's Class Cert Opinions LAVAPOD LLC: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEAD ELITE LLC: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES: Kwiatkowski Suit Seeks to Certify Class LUCK GROVE: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Gutierrez MARYLAND: Bangura Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule MATTOS HOSPITALITY: Fitzhenry Sues Over Unpaid Wages MCCORMICK & PRIORE: Settlement Deal in Mench Gets Initial Nod MEDICARE HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hoy Due Sept. 15 MERCK SHARP: Plaintiff Wins Bid to Seal Reply Memorandum NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Suit Still Not Set NEXTPLAT CORP: Bid to Dismiss RXMD Class Suit Pending NIKE INC: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info NORTH AMERICAN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Buescher Suit NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Finn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct NURETTIN OGUTOGULLARI: Fuentes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ORIGIN MATERIALS: Settlement in Kaspar Derivative Suit Gets Fina OK ORIGIN MATERIALS: Settlement in Securities Suit Wins Prelim OK ORIGIN MATERIALS: Settlement in Tanasse Suit Gets Final OK PEPSICO INC: Plaintiffs Can File Consolidated Amended Complaints PERPETUA RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Barnes Securities Suit PNC BANK: Wins Bid to Deny Class Certification in Melian PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barton Due May 13 PROJECT RENEWAL: Collective Certification Bid in Colon Due July 15 QC FRANCHISE: Estrada Balks at Deceptive Stem Cell Treatment Ad REPUBLIC SERVICES: Sanchez Seeks OK of FLSA Collective Notice RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES: Matelski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAINT THOMAS MEDICAL: Whitson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SERITAGE GROWTH: Cheroti Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Securities Suit SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mathis Due July 1 SKLAR LAW: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Green due April 13 SODEXO SA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Platt Extended to May 29 SODEXO SA: Parties Seek for More Time to File Class Cert Bid SOPHI15 INC: Banos Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. SPORTIF USA INC: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL: Court Remands Data Breach Suit to State Court STRATEGY INC: Dodge Class Action Dismissed as Moot STRICKLAND'S STEAKHOUSE: Lighten Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage SYNGENTA CROP: Calanni Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Causes Parkinson's Disease, Cully Claims SYNGENTA CROP: Latham Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Toney Sues Over Defective Herbicide Products TAP REAL: Armstrong Derivative Suit Stayed TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Hernandez Set for Oct. 22 TOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Court Certifies Carpenters Wage Suit TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Loses Bid to Decertify Wage Class TU TIPICO DOMINICANO: Mena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Elkhodari Class Suit UNIQLO USA LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL: Carter Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. UNITED PARKS: Eastman Seeks to Seal Unredacted Class Cert Exhibits USA HOME IMPROVEMENT: Milton Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida VANILLA CHIP: Gonzalez Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Supplements VIRGIN GALACTIC: $2.3MM Associated in Settlement Proposal VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Abughazaleh Derivative Suit VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Espinosa Derivative Suit VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Molnar, Tubbs Derivative Suit VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit WASTE MANAGEMENT: Jennings Sues Over Emission of Noxious Odors WEST SHORE: Seawood Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ********* ABIOMED INC: Court OKs Bid to Strike "Lester" Class Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rebecca L. Lester, and all others similarly situated, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Deceased Garry D. Lester, Plaintiff, v. Abiomed, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25 CV 1081 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted defendants' partial motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint and granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's amended class allegations in this product liability case. The case will no longer proceed as a class action. Defendant Abiomed, Inc., acquired by defendant Johnson & Johnson in 2022, manufactures assistive medical devices known as Impella blood pumps. The devices are Class III medical devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to assist the circulation of blood during coronary procedures. On December 5, 2016, the FDA granted premarket approval for the devices, expanding the indications to include high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiogenic shock. As early as 2018, defendants were aware that the devices were perforating the ventricles of persons' hearts and surrounding vessels and cardiovascular tissue. Defendants allegedly concealed some 1,793 deaths and 6,573 serious injury adverse event reports between December 2016 and September 2021. On or about May 27, 2021, Garry D. Lester had a device placed into his left ventricle. Shortly after placement, he became hypotensive, and it was later determined that his ventricle had been perforated, resulting in several significant complications that led to his death on May 30, 2021. On September 16, 2024, plaintiff Rebecca Lester was informed by a competent licensed medical physician that a defective device used in the decedent's procedure most likely caused the left ventricle perforation that led to his death. Plaintiff filed suit individually and as administrator of the estate of Garry Lester, on behalf of herself, the estate, next of kin, and all others similarly situated. Partial Motion to Dismiss Defendants moved to dismiss Count V (Fraudulent Concealment), Count VI (Fraudulent Misrepresentation), and Count VII (Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act), contending that all three claims are abrogated by the Ohio Product Liability Act, codified at Ohio Revised Code Sections 2307.71 to 2307.80, which explicitly eliminates all common law product liability claims or causes of action. The court agreed. Upon careful examination, the court found that Counts V and VI rest on allegations that defendants knew about defects concerning the devices but concealed and misrepresented their safety. The court held that these allegations are not framed as claims grounded in the general duty not to deceive but are intrinsically intertwined with those of the product liability claims. Counts V and VI, no matter how they are labeled, read as claims for failure to warn. Similarly, Count VII focuses on representations concerning the safety of the devices given a specific defect concerning cardiac perforation and is likewise intrinsically intertwined with the product liability claims. Counts V, VI, and VII were therefore dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff proposed a nationwide class of individuals who had a device inserted into their heart and suffered a ventricular perforation or cardiovascular injuries resulting in serious injury or death between January 1, 2018 and March 21, 2024. The court found that plaintiff could not establish Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. The court noted that plaintiff alleged three different types of defects: manufacturing defects, software defects, and warning defects. Even if every device were affected by the same defect, liability as to each class member would still involve highly individualized inquiries into each member's medical history, conditions, procedures, and other potentially relevant contributory factors. Further, because plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class, these individualized issues became more pronounced depending on which state law applies to various class members' claims. The individual issues, requiring individualized proof, overwhelmingly outweigh any common issues subject to generalized proof applicable to the whole class. Accordingly, the motion to strike class allegations was granted. The case will proceed on Counts I through IV and VIII through X with plaintiff Rebecca Lester individually and as administrator of the Estate of Garry Lester. Defendants Abiomed, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson are represented by: Joel T. Larson, Jr., Esq. Samantha Pugh, Esq. Erin M. Pauley, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG Email: jt.larson@btlaw.com; spugh@btlaw.com; erin.pauley@btlaw.com Plaintiff Rebecca L. Lester is represented by: Jonathan A. Good, Esq. Alexandra C. Eckrich, Esq. WESTON HURD Email: jgood@westonhurd.com; aeckrich@westonhurd.com ACRISURE LLC: Sciacca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Nicole Sciacca, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ACRISURE, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00987 (W.D. Mich., March 25, 2026), is brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant who were subject to the Defendant's common policy and practice of misclassifying employees as exempt from overtime, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendant maintains a common policy and practice of classifying Plaintiff and similarly situated Account Managers as exempt from overtime and failing to pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Defendant also fails to comply with New York Labor Law requirements concerning wage notices, wage statements, and spread-of-hours pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Account Manager from May 2024 to March 5, 2026. The Defendant operates as an insurance brokerage and risk management company, providing insurance-related services to clients nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com AMAZON.COM INC: Surreply Bid in Wilson Class Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON ET AL., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order as follows: (1) Granting in part and denies in part the Defendant's Surreply Motion; (2) Granting in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike; (3) Granting the Plaintiffs leave to respond to Defendant's motion to exclude testimony of David Sunding, Ph.D; and (4) Striking the remaining, i.e. non-stricken portions of the February 6 filings. The Defendant's request to strike is denied. The Defendant's request for leave to respond in the alternative is granted as to Dr. Pathak's "new" analyses, Plaintiffs' "new" class definition, and Prof. Ostrovsky's deposition testimony. The Defendant's surreply motion is otherwise denied. The Plaintiffs' request to strike is granted as to the unexplained deposition transcripts, the portions of the February 6 Filings that purport to respond to Dr. Sunding's Expert Report, and the portions of the February 6 Filings that purport to respond to Plaintiffs' newly cited factual material. The Plaintiffs' request to strike is denied as to Prof. Ostrovsky's deposition testimony, the Defendant's motion to exclude testimony of David Sunding, Ph.D., and the portions of the February 6 Filings that purport to respond to Dr. Pathak's "new" analyses and the Plaintiffs' "new" class definition. The parties are directed to meet and confer within the next five court days to set a briefing schedule and new noting date. The Defendant is directed to refile any surreply materials authorized by this Order as a single docket entry by April 1, 2026. As the class definition is fundamental to the parties' arguments on class certification, the Plaintiffs' new class definition can fairly be characterized as a new argument that was improperly raised for the first time on reply. Accordingly, striking the new definition or granting the Defendant leave to respond is an appropriate course of action, even if the Defendant has not shown prejudice. Amazon.com is a global technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5oaJdw at no extra charge.[CC] AMS MOVING INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMS Moving Inc. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMS Moving Inc., Case No. 9:26-cv-80334-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. AMS provides reliable commercial and residential moving services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com ANGARA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bordeaux Due Sept. 4 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ayreanne Bordeaux v. Angara, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02848-SSS-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order regarding the Parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings Apr. 3, 2026 or Add Parties Deadline Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion Sept. 4, 2026 for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition Oct. 30, 2026 to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply Nov. 20, 2026 in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report: Class Certification Hearing Dec. 11, 2026 The Defendant is a family-started and family-run D2C fine jewelry e-tailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JtvxV7 at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kempf Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM KEMPF, et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-05244-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting in part and denying in part Apple's motion to dismiss as follows: -- All of the Plaintiffs' class claims are time-barred under the relevant statutes of limitations and were not tolled by the Orshan litigation. The Court strikes these claims from the Complaint. Likewise, Plaintiff Maxwell's individual claim under Washington law expired under the relevant statute of limitations, and no tolling is available under Washington's equitable tolling rules. The Court strikes this individual claim as well. Apple's motion is otherwise denied. Should the Plaintiffs wish to proceed with their remaining individual claims under Illinois, New Jersey, and Michigan law, the Court orders the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Order. The Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint within 21 days of the Order. Apple makes much of the fact that Orshan was non-precedential and thus does not bind the Court. While that may be true, Orshan is still highly persuasive and instructive, especially given that Orshan dealt with nearly identical allegations. Bodenburg, on the other hand, cannot bear the weight Apple places on it. That case dealt with different facts and did not purport to change the applicable Rule 9(b) standard. This Court sees no reason to contradict the circuit court’s holding. The Plaintiffs Kim Kempf, Gail Walliser, Jeremy Morgan, Delettra Ransom, Xavier Bennett, and Cassaundra Maxwell bring this putative class action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendant Apple Inc. misled consumers about the available storage capacity of certain smartphone and tablet devices running Apple's iOS 8 operating system. Plaintiffs claim that Apple made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of four state consumer protection statutes. The Plaintiffs bring their claims in their individual capacities and on behalf of four putative classes of purchasers from their respective states. Specifically, they propose state classes of "All persons who purchased new 16GB iPhones or iPads in [Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, and Washington] with iOS 8 preinstalled, between Sept. 17, 2014, and Sept. 30, 2016, for purposes other than resale or distribution." Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sHvdUe at no extra charge.[CC] AURATE NEW YORK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aurate New York, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02022-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., March 24, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.auratenewyork.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Defendant has further violated Title III by, without limitation, utilizing administrative methods, practices, and policies that allow its website to be made available without consideration of consumers who can only access the company's online goods, content, and services with screen reader programs, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. Aurate New York operates the website that offers jewelry for sale including, but not limited to, bracelets, rings, necklaces, earrings, engagement jewelry, anklets, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BAIN CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:25-md-03149-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Benitez entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant Bain capital's motion to dismiss: 1. Bain's motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing is denied. 2. Bain's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. 3. Bain's motion to dismiss on agency, direct liability, and aiding and abetting theories is denied. 4. Bain's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligence claim is denied. 5. Bain's motion to dismiss negligence per se claim is denied. 6. Bain's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligent training and supervision claim is granted. 7. Bain's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' CCPA claim is granted. 8. Bain's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL claim is denied. 9. Bain's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is denied. 10. Bain's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is denied. 11. Bain's motion to dismiss on shotgun-pleading grounds is denied. The Plaintiffs allege that all their data was subject to the Data Breach—a direct connection between Bain's alleged conduct and the resulting harm. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged damages to survive a motion to dismiss their negligence claims. The motion to dismiss the negligence claim is denied. The Plaintiffs allege that Bain implemented data management changes that compromised cybersecurity protections, contributing to a breach that exposed the personal information of approximately 50 million individuals. PowerSchool provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9XUPtE at no extra charge.[CC] BENELUX CORP: Mertens Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mertens et al v. Benelux Corporation et al., MAGGIE MONTES and BREONA HORNE, v. BENELUX CORPORATION, d/b/a PALAZIO MEN’S CLUB, ANTHANASES STAMATOPOULOUS, and MICHAEL MEALEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00276-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Pitman entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary Judgment such that: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their 26 U.S.C. section 7434 claim is denied; -- The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Palazio's affirmative defense that Plaintiffs' claims under 26 U.S.C. section 7434 are barred because of the statute of limitation is granted; -- The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Palazio's affirmative defense that the Plaintiffs did not comply with 26 U.S.C. section 7434(d)'s requirement to "provide a copy of the complaint to the Internal Revenue Service" is granted; -- The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Defendants' other affirmative defenses is denied; and -- The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Palazio's status as an "employer" and "enterprise" under the FLSA and the Plaintiffs status as "employees" is granted. The Court further entered an order that: -- Palazio's motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiffs' 26 U.S.C. section 7434 Claim, is denied. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, is granted in part, such that the following class is certified pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(1)(B): "All current and former waitstaff who were employed by the Defendant Palazio at any time six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the present, who did not sign a valid class action waiver, and for whom the Defendant Palazio furnished an information return." The class is certified solely for Plaintiffs' claim under 26 U.S.C. section 7434 for fraudulent filing of information returns by Palazio. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Breona Horne and Maggie Montes as class representatives. The Court appoints Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC, as class counsel, finding that they are adequate after considering the factors provided in Rule 23(g). The Court finds that the class representatives and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Accordingly, on or before April 17, 2026, Plaintiffs and Defendants shall confer and submit a joint advisory outlining a proposed plan to provide notice to the class members, as explained by the Court in Section III(C)(3), supra. Benelux operates in the real estate industry. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qKXQE0 at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE CROSS: Wesco Inc. Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wesco, Inc., Wesco, Inc. Cafeteria Plan and Employee Benefit Plan, Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn, Inc., Opus Packaging Group Health Insurance Plan, Opus Packaging Group Inc., on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:25-cv-11712 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00895-RJJ-RSK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan -- https://www.bcbsm.com/ -- is a nonprofit mutual insurance company, provides and administers health benefits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Herman D. Hofman, Esq. VARNUM ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Phone: (616) 336-6375 Fax: (616) 336-7000 - and - Justin M. Wolber, Esq. VARNUM LLP (GR) P.O. Box 0352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Phone: (616) 336-6952 Email: jmwolber@varnumlaw.com - and - Perrin Rynders, Esq. Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. VARNUM RIDDERING SCHMIDT & HOWLETT LLP (GRAND RAPIDS) 333 Bridge St., NW P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Phone: (616) 336-6734 Fax: (616) 336-7000 Email: prynders@varnumlaw.com amphelps@varnumlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Craig Lewis, Esq. Jeffrey D. Hoschander, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP (NY) 599 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 848-7181 Email: daniel.lewis@aoshearman.com jeff.hoschander@aoshearman.com - and - Jason Michael Schneider, Esq. Mark J. Zausmer, Esq. Nathan S. Scherbarth, Esq. ZAUSMER, PC 32255 Northwestern Hwy., Ste 225 Farmington Hills, MI 48152 Phone: (248) 851-4111 Email: mzausmer@zausmer.com - and - Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. CARSON FISCHER, PLC 300 E Maple Rd., 3rd Fl Birmingham, MI 48009-6317 Phone: (248) 644-4840 - and - Todd M. Stenerson, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 1101 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 508-8093 Email: todd.stenerson@aoshearman.com BRAINSTORM CELL: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed a consolidated derivative suit pending further developments in the securities litigation. Between November 2023 and April 2024, four derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as nominal defendant and certain of its officers, current and former directors, and members of its scientific advisory board, captioned Porteous v. Lebovits, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01095; Andrev v. Lebovits, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-1101; Holtzman v. Lebovits, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02139; and Hamby v. Lebovits, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02811 (the Derivative Complaints) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Derivative Actions). On April 25, 2024, the Court consolidated the Derivative Actions into a consolidated action captioned In Re Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01095-DEH (the Consolidated Derivative Action), and appointed Co-Lead Counsel. Following the filing of Defendants' Answer to the Amended Complaint in the securities class action on November 26, 2025, the stay of the Consolidated Derivative Action was lifted; however, the parties subsequently agreed to continue the stay of the Consolidated Derivative Action for 90 days, through April 13, 2026. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a consolidated complaint; the Derivative Actions, brought on behalf of the Company, each assert state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants, and the complaints in Holtzman and Hamby also assert state law claims against the individual defendants for abuse of control. The derivative actions, which allege breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, are currently stayed pending further developments in the securities litigation. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The companys lead product candidate, NurOwn, is designed to use patient-derived cells to deliver neurotrophic factors directly to the site of neuronal damage. BRAINSTORM CELL: Continues to Defend Sporn Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sporn securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Between November 2023 and April 2024, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09630 (the Securities Action). The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 1, 2024, which added a former officer as an individual defendant. The Amended Complaint in the Securities Action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants and control person violations of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants, relating to NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, the Company's submissions to and communications with the FDA in support of the approval of NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, and the prospects of future approval of NurOwn by the FDA. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February 18, 2020 and September 27, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 31, 2024; plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2024; and the Company and individual defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on September 17, 2024. On September 15, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss, removing claims related to biomarker data and insider trading while allowing claims regarding specific FDA communications and trial design to proceed. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The companys lead product candidate, NurOwn, is designed to use patient-derived cells to deliver neurotrophic factors directly to the site of neuronal damage. BRANDT EQUITIES LP: Behrens Files Suit in D. North Dakota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brandt Equities, LP, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Behrens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brandt Equities, LP, Does 1 through 20, Case No. 3:26-cv-00081-ARS (D.N.D., March 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Brandt Holdings Company -- https://brandtholdings.com/ -- operates five divisions: Agriculture, Entertainment, Hospitality, Industrial, and Real Estate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com CAROLYN SCRAGGS: Aquino Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEYLEEN LILITH AQUINO, v. CAROLYN J. SCRAGGS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03585-PX (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Paula Xinis entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff Leyleen Lilith Aquino's motion to appoint counsel and motion to certify class are denied without prejudice; 2. Aquino's motions for extension of time are granted and Aquino's time to respond to the State Defendants' dispositive motion is extended to and including April 1, 2026; 3. State Defendants' motions for leave to exceed page limit and motion to seal are granted; 4. Counsel for State Defendants shall file a response within 28 days of the date of this Order (1) providing the name and last known home or business address for the ECI School Principal UNDER SEAL and (2) stating what efforts were made to properly identify Correction Officer Batilla, and if he or she can be identified but not represented by counsel, providing his or her name and last known home or business address under seal; and 5. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Aquino and to counsel. First, regarding Aquino's Motion Certify Class Action, the Fourth Circuit has consistently held that "this circuit does not certify a class where a pro se litigant will act as representative of that class." Thus, unless Aquino retains counsel, this case cannot under any circumstances proceed as a class action. The motion to certify is denied. As for Aquino's request for counsel, she asks this Court to appoint class counsel solely based on conclusory assertions that the elements for class certification are met. But, as the Court has already explained, Aquino is not indigent. Thus, the Court will not appoint counsel. This motion, too, is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AG5juf at no extra charge.[CC] CERNER CORPORATION: Strength Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brandi Strength, Christine Abbott, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00123 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00255-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Alison, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC 233 South Detroit Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: (918) 347-6169 Email: matthew@iaelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Timila S. Rother, Esq. Anthony J. Hendricks, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-7757 Fax: (405) 272-5226 Email: timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com Anthony.Hendricks@crowedunlevy.com - and - Amanda Nicole Harvey, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 1452 Hughes Road, Suite 200 Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (267) 930-1697 Email: aharvey@mullen.law - and - Kayleigh J. Watson, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19087 Phone: (267) 930-2306 Email: kwatson@mullen.law CHARLES SCHWAB & CO: Rivera Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Humberto Rivera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., a California corporation; TD AMERITRADE SERVICES COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CU009085C 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 25, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01909-H-JLB. The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Schwab: failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to pay wages of discharged employees – waiting time penalties; failure to provide and maintain accurate and compliant wage records; violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com - and - Megan Cooney, Esq. Jordan E. Johnson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com jjohnson@gibsondunn.com COME READY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vaughn Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KENDRICK VAUGHN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Come Ready Foods LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03207 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://teamready.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Vaughn and other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff Vaughn was searching online for sports nutrition products for his daily regimen. He decided to explore the Defendant's website with the intent to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader and keyboard, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Vaughn and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Come Ready Foods LLC operates the website that offers sports nutrition products, including protein bars, drinks, and powders, along with athletic equipment and accessories such as coolers, bottles, towels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Filing in Castillo Amended to July 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CASTILLO, MARK KNOWLES, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLAS JAMES THROLSON, R.S., KIMBERLY SCOTT, ROBIN WARBEY, DANIEL SMITH, MATT GROVES, VERN DEOCHOA, TYRONE WASHINGTON, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered a stipulated amended scheduling order as follows: Deadline to complete fact discovery on May 29, 2026 class certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion July 2, 2026 for Class Certification and any Plaintiff's Expert Reports, re: Class Certification: Deadline for the Defendant to File Opposition Aug. 27, 2026 to Motion for Class Certification, any Defendant's Expert Reports, re: Class Certification, and any Daubert motions re expert opinions offered in support of class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Reply Oct. 1, 2026 to Motion for Class Certification, any Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert Reports, re: Class Certification, and any Daubert motions re expert opinions offered in opposition of class certification: Costco is an American multinational corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KHj3xv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Heather Lopez, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin M. Asai, Esq. Ashley L. Shively, Esq. Rebecca G. Durham, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 243-2300 E-mail: kristin.asai@hklaw.com ashley.shively@hklaw.com rebecca.durham@hklaw.com DETMAR LOGISTICS: Stears Seeks to Correct Class Members Number -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY STEARS, AMANDA WILSON, and JOSEPH GREEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. DETMAR LOGISTICS LEASING, LLC and DETMAR LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00593-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to correct the number of Owner Operators who signed ICOAs and are excluded from the TILA Class definition from eleven to ten Owner Operators. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court granting motion for leave to correct the number of Company Drivers who signed ICOAs and are excluded from the Texas Class definition from three to six Company Drivers. The Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to amend the number of Company Drivers and Owner Operators identified as having signed Detmar Logistics Leasing, LLC's Independent Contractor Agreement (ICOA) in Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Counts 1, 2, and 3 as Rule 23(b)(3) Class Actions and Rebecca King's declaration filed in support. On March 16, 2026, while preparing to send Defendants a settlement demand in accordance with the parties' prior agreement, Plaintiffs realized that the Motion to Certify and King Declaration list an incorrect number of Company Drivers as having signed ICOAs and an incorrect number of Owner Operators as having signed ICOAs. Detmar is a leader in the proppant logistics and transportation industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LOeieE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca King, Esq. Whitney Flanagan, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 E-mail: rking@getmansweeney.com wflanagan@getmansweeney.com - and - Austin Kaplan, Esq. Caitlin Boehne, Esq. Andrew Eckhous, Esq. J. Bryan Wood, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2901 Bee Cave Road, Ste. G Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Facsimile: (512) 692-2788 E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com aeckhous@kaplanlawatx.com bwood@kaplanlawatx.com DIETZ & WATSON: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Veasley Due August 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASON VEASLEY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DIETZ & WATSON, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-07152-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John R. Padova entered pretrial scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery related to conditional collective and class certification shall be completed by Aug. 17, 2026. 2. Motions for conditional certification and/or class certification shall be filed no later than Aug. 31, 2026. Responses to said motions shall be filed not later than Sept. 30, 2026. Dietz & Watson is an American family-owned and operated preparer of delicatessen foods. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FkWMiW at no extra charge.[CC] DOXIMITY INC: $31MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE DOXIMITY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW Judge: Hon. Noël Wise Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Doximity, Inc. ("Doximity") common stock from June 24, 2021 through August 8, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, and Defendants Doximity, Inc. ("Doximity" or the "Company") and Jeffrey Tangney (together, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action on behalf of the Settlement Class for $31,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. In the Action, Lead Plaintiff asserts civil federal securities law claims against Doximity and its Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Tangney, arising from allegedly materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period regarding the percentage of doctors who were "active members" on the Doximity platform and record high levels of overall engagement in certain quarters of the Class Period. Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' alleged misstatements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that Tangney controlled Doximity when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants expressly deny that Lead Plaintiff has asserted any valid claims as to either of them, and expressly deny any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever in connection with the Action, including, but not limited to, any allegations that Defendants have committed any violations of the federal securities laws or any other law, that Defendants have acted improperly in any way, and/or that Defendants have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to Lead Plaintiff and/or the Settlement Class. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included, among others, (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused Settlement Class Members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time, before the Honorable Noël Wise, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, either in person at Courtroom 3, 5th Floor of the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things: (i) whether, for purposes of settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be appointed as the class representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class; (ii) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $850,000 (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website for the Settlement, www.DoximitySecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, by: (i) contacting the Claims Administrator at Doximity Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173117, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-800-254-2939, info@DoximitySecuritiesLitigation.com; or (ii) downloading them from the website for the Settlement, www.DoximitySecuritiesLitigation.com. To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than July 16, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Settlement proceeds, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than May 20, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be submitted to the Court. Objections must be filed or postmarked (if mailed) no later than May 20, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: Doximity Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173117 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-800-254-2939 info@DoximitySecuritiesLitigation.com www.DoximitySecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Jonathan D. Uslaner 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Northern District of California DYNAMIC DUO TRAINING: Garcia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Duo Training Inc. The case is styled as Diego Garcia, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Dynamic Duo Training Inc. doing business as: Dynamic Fit Pros, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01890-TWR-MMP (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Dynamic Duo Training Inc. doing business as Dynamic Duo Training -- https://dynamicduotraining.com/ -- offers online exercise, nutrition and lifestyle consulting with ethical, scientific and healthy approaches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 ext. 8 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3240 E. Union Hills Drive, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85050 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: david@kazlg.com ENVISION VTA FD AUTO: Elwany Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Envision VTA FD Auto, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ahmed Mohamed Elwany, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Envision VTA FD Auto, LLC, Case No. 26STCV09809 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Envision Ford -- https://www.envisionfordoxnard.com/ -- offers a variety of new and used cars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Hyun, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3601 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com - and - Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com FABIAN MORALES: Fernandez Balks at Unpaid OT, Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK DE JESUS INIGUEZ FERNANDEZ, JUAN CARLOS RENTERIA-BRIONES, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FABIAN MORALES TRUCKING, LLC and FABIAN MORALES, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00059-Z (N.D. Tex., March 23, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants to secure and vindicate rights afforded them by the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated workers. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, who are Mexican citizens, were employed by the Defendants under the federal H-2A visa guestworker program. They worked for Defendants as heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers primarily hauling grain crops from farms to storage facilities, dairies, and feedlots. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were regularly employed for more than 40 hours during each workweek, but Defendants never paid Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers overtime wages, asserts the complaint. Undeterred, the Defendants have continued paying their H-2A employees, including Plaintiffs, only the regular hourly rate for all the hours their H-2A employees worked, and Defendants continue to obtain approval to employ H-2A visa workers by representing falsely that they would be employed as agricultural workers, alleges the suit. Fabian Morales Trucking, LLC is a Texas-based trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Esq. TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 308 E. Harrison Ave. Harlingen, TX 78550 Telephone: (956) 447-4850 Facsimile: (956) 591-8752 E-mail: lramakrishnan@trla.org - and - Channy F. Wood, Esq. Leslie Owens, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLP 610 S.W. 11th Avenue Amarillo, TX 79105-1439 Telephone: (806) 372-9663 Facsimile: (806) 372-9664 E-mail: cwood@woodlawfirm-tx.com lowens@woodlawfirm-tx.com FABULA HOLDINGS: Licea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fabula Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Jesus Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fabula Holdings, Inc. d/b/a WWW.FABULACOFFEE.COM, Case No. 26CU016756C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March 25, 2026). Fabula Holdings, Inc. doing business as Fabula Coffee -- https://fabulacoffee.com/ -- is a brand specializing in certified organic, low-acid, single-origin, and mold-free coffee.[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 FANROCK LLC: Harris Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nina Harris, Marlene Amezcua, Kelli Hillyer, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Fanrock, LLC d/b/a Mint & Lily, Case No. 2025CUNP054837 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03188 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Fanrock, LLC doing business as Mint & Lily -- https://mintandlily.com/ -- offers a variety of personalized jewelry, including engraved cuffs & name necklaces.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY AND BACON LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 Email: mmallow@shb.com FERMI INC: Continues to Defend Lupia Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fermi Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lupia securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 5, 2026, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Lupia v. Fermi Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00050, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and certain underwriters of its initial public offering as defendants. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the IPO and in other public statements during the period from October 1, 2025 through December 11, 2025, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO registration statement and/or during the alleged class period. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the action. As of December 31, 2025, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. Fermi Inc. is a technology company focused on developing advanced solutions in its sector, offering products and services designed to address complex customer and industry challenges. The company operates in competitive markets and relies on innovation and capital markets access to support its growth strategy. FINANCE OF AMERICA: Shaffer Files Suit in E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance of America Companies Inc. The case is styled as Kent Shaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Finance of America Companies Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00289-RWS (E.D. Tex., March 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Finance of America Companies -- https://www.financeofamerica.com/ -- provides a diverse selection of lending products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Michael Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com GREEN 70: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ruiz Extended to May 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ruiz v. Green 70 LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05777-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order granting request for an extension of time to file the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules section 2(D): The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification no later than May 25, 2026. The Defendants shall file any opposition no later than June 15, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than June 22, 2026. Further extensions are unlikely to be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Green 70 is a casual American restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FcqRJQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend EHI Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Earth is Healing antitrust class suit in California. On Feb. 11, 2025, Earth is Healing, Inc. brought a purchaser class action antitrust action against four U.S. distributors of CCELL products, including Greenlane Holdings, Inc. The lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in connection with the distribution of CCELL products. The Company believes these cases are baseless and without merit and is jointly defending these matters with co-defendants. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. is a distributor of premium vaporization products and consumption accessories, supplying cannabis retailers and smoke shops with devices, packaging, and related merchandise across the United States and select international markets. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend RRI Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Redbud Roots purchaser antitrust class suit in California. On April 10, 2025, Redbud Roots Inc. (RRI) brought a purchaser class action antitrust action against four U.S. distributors of CCELL products, including Greenlane Holdings, Inc. The lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in connection with the distribution of CCELL products. The Company believes these cases are baseless and without merit and is jointly defending these matters with co-defendants. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. is a distributor of premium vaporization products and consumption accessories, supplying cannabis retailers and smoke shops with devices, packaging, and related merchandise across the United States and select international markets. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend S.K. Antitrust Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the S.K. purchaser antitrust class suit in California. On Dec. 16, 2024, S.K. et al brought a consumer class action antitrust action against four U.S. distributors of CCELL products, including Greenlane Holdings, Inc. The lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in connection with the distribution of CCELL products. The Company believes these cases are baseless and without merit and is jointly defending these matters with co-defendants. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. is a distributor of premium vaporization products and consumption accessories, supplying cannabis retailers and smoke shops with devices, packaging, and related merchandise across the United States and select international markets. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend SISL Antitrust Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Greenlane Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Summit Industrial purchaser antitrust class suit in California. On April 17, 2025, Summit Industrial Solutions LLC (SISL) brought a purchaser class action antitrust action against four U.S. distributors of CCELL products, including Greenlane Holdings, Inc. The lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in connection with the distribution of CCELL products. The Company believes these cases are baseless and without merit and is jointly defending these matters with co-defendants. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. is a distributor of premium vaporization products and consumption accessories, supplying cannabis retailers and smoke shops with devices, packaging, and related merchandise across the United States and select international markets. HARTFORD, CN: Settlement Class in Wright Gets Conditional Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WRIGHT, JOHNESHA HARRISON, and JUDITH TIRADO TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, and ANNETTE SANDERSON, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, Case No. 3:23-cv-01285-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan Underhill entered an order: -- Conditionally certifying a Settlement Class defined as: "Current and former Tenant Families of HACH-owned, operated, or controlled low-income public housing units, who, during the Class Period consisting of July 20, 2020 through July 8, 2024: (i) had rent calculated in whole or in part by HACH on the HACH Zero Income Form (the "Zero Income Subclass"); (ii) had rent calculated in whole or in part by HACH based on non-wage Cash Deposits (the "Cash Deposit Subclass"); and/or (iii) were evicted and/or were served with a notice to quit by HACH without being afforded an opportunity for a grievance hearing (except for those to whom the HACH administrative grievance procedures do not apply pursuant to the then controlling law or regulation) (the "Eviction Subclass")." Excluded from the Settlement Class and each Subclass are: (1) any judge or magistrate judge of the United States or their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them; (2) HACH, as well as any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or control person of HACH, and the officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees of HACH; (3) any of the Released Parties; (4) Class Counsel and their employees; and (5) the immediate family of any such person(s) in (1)-(4). -- Appointing the Plaintiffs William Wright, Johnesha Harrison and Judith Tirado Torres as class representatives for the Settlement Class. -- Appointing Greater Hartford Legal Aid, 999 Asylum Avenue, 3rd Floor, Hartford CT 06105 and Day Pitney LLP, Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum Street, Hartford CT 06103 as Class Counsel. -- Setting a final approval hearing to be held before the undersigned on June 26, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., Housing Authority provides public housing. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PZNe9D at no extra charge.[CC] HAWORTH INC: Robetoy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Robetoy, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HAWORTH INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-00986 (W.D. Mich., March 25, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned this Bonus Pay, as well as other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from December 2024 to July 2025 with the job title of production coordinator. The Defendant is "a leading global furniture maker that builds innovative products for optimal workplace performance."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4055 Email: pkennedy@sommerspc.com HAYMAKER ACQUISITION: Continues to Defend Exchange Act-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Haymaker Acquisition Corp. 4 disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated Exchange Act-related class sit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company disclosed that Mr. Heyer was named as a defendant in three class action derivative stockholder actions, which were consolidated into one action, in connection with Hain Celestial Group filed in the Eastern District Court of New York in 2017, alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings. In November 2022, the assigned Magistrate issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal with prejudice, to which plaintiffs filed objections and defendants countered. The case remains pending. Haymaker Acquisition Corp. 4 is a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) formed to effect a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. HEALTH GORILLA: Fails to Protect Patients' Records, Hughes Says --------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH GORILLA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21952 (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2026) is a class action lawsuit seeking to hold Defendant accountable for granting access and failing to prevent multiple fraudulent actors from gaining access to the patient records of millions of healthcare patients, including Plaintiff, through the networks used by healthcare providers to share information with other healthcare providers for treatment purposes. The Defendant does business as an "Implementer," in the Carequality framework, and a Qualified Health Information Network in the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement. The Carequality framework and TEFCA are two national frameworks responsible for more than a billion patient-record exchanges between healthcare industry participants every month. According to the complaint, as an Implementer/QHIN providing access to these bad actors, the Defendant was contractually, ethically, and legally responsible for vetting their qualifications to access the system prior to granting them access, including conducting adequate and robust due diligence prior to approving their applications, and monitoring and verifying that their activity over the network was consistent with legitimate uses. The Defendant's failures to safeguard and protect patient records of Plaintiff and Class members and to maintain the integrity of the vast interoperability framework on which principles of continuity of care rely constitute moral, ethical, and legal violations of the highest order, says the suit. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff's electronic health records were accessed for unauthorized purposes by one or more of the fraudulent actors identified in the January 13, 2026, Epic lawsuit. The bad actors identified in the breach were RavillaMed, Mammoth Path Solutions and MammothDx, SelfRx, and GuardDog Telehealth. The Plaintiff never sought treatment from any of these companies. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class members' complete medical records were shared without authorization and without lawful purpose, by and through Defendant, to the bad actors, the suit asserts. Health Gorilla, Inc. designs and develops health care software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Andrew Hausdorff, 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 hausdorff@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com HERITAGE BANK: Frey Sues Over Compromised Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------- GARY FREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE BANK and HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05293 (W.D. Wash., March 24, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all other individuals who had their sensitive personally identifying information, including but not limited to names and Social Security numbers disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach experienced by Heritage on March 1, 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendants' failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of its obligations and Plaintiff's and Class Members' reasonable expectations for data privacy, jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their personal information is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered fraud or identity theft or face the substantial and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, says the suit. Heritage Bank maintains 50 branch locations across the Pacific Northwest of the U.S., 43 of which are located in Washington State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com HOSPICE OF FLORIDA: Underpays Registered Nurses, Garofalo Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Misty Garofalo, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees of Defendants, Plaintiff v. Hospice of Florida, LLC and Hospice of Florida, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00626 (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2026) alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all overtime pay owed, in violation of the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees frequently worked over 40 hours per workweek but were not paid all overtime pay to which they were entitled under the FLSA: one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all time over 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff Garofalo and all similarly situated employees were employed by Defendants as registered nurses engaged in hospice care or other health care, at various times from March 23, 2023 through the present. Hospice of Florida, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that provides hospice care and other health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven F. Grover, Esq. STEVEN F. GROVER, P.A. 5075 Regency Isles Way Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 290-8826 E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com HUTTIG INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huttig, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paul Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Huttig, Inc., Huttig Building Products, Inc., Woodgrain Inc., Woodgrain Transportation LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV007594 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Huttig Inc. distributes millwork, building materials, and wood products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due June 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order granting stipulation to extend expert disclosure and motion for class certification filing deadlines: Event Date Deadline to Designate Experts Related to April 22, 2026 Class Certification: Deadline for Supplemental Expert May 22, 2026 Designation Related to Class Certification: Deadline to File Motion for Class June 1, 2026 Certification: Hyatt is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xAUDI0 at no extra charge.[CC] ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA NIZEUL, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01393-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court appoints the named plaintiff Shana Nizeul as class representative and appoints her attorneys as class counsel. Accordingly, the application of the "ABC" test is capable of adjudication through common evidence and that common issues predominate with respect to Nizeul’s misclassification claim, Judge Nizeul says. Nizeul's wage and gratuity claims are capable of resolution through common evidence, and individualized issues concerning damages do not predominate over common questions of liability, Judge Nizeul adds. Nizeul has sued, alleging that Defendants misclassify her and other Performers as independent contractors and thereby deny her wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"). The proposed class includes: "Individuals who (1) worked for the Defendants in Connecticut, (2) under a Performer Agreement classifying them as independent contractors, (3) between Aug. 29, 2021, and the entry of judgment." ICF operates Streamate, a website that hosts live adult entertainment for customers. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XJ52W6 at no extra charge.[CC] IQVIA INC: Must Pay $2,000 in "Lyngaas" Unsolicited Fax Ad Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. IQVIA, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-2370 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's individual claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court entered judgment against Defendant in the amount of $2,000. Plaintiff is a Michigan dental practice owned by Dr. Brian Lyngaas, a practicing dentist. In 2017, Plaintiff received four faxes from Defendant inviting it to register and participate in Defendant's National Healthcare Census survey in exchange for a monetary payment of $30 or $35. Defendant, a global provider of information and technology solutions previously known as IMS Health, does not dispute it sent the faxes. Defendant obtained survey data by sending faxes to healthcare providers and relied on a third-party vendor, Odyssey Services, Inc., to transmit the faxes using numbers extracted from Defendant's database. Defendant's database was derived from varied sources, including data acquired from SK&A, Inc., a company that maintained a telephone-verified database. Certain SK&A documents indicate that it did not obtain affirmative consent from all individuals in its database. Defendant licensed the SK&A data believing it could be used to send faxes and integrated it into its own database in 2016 without a document trail. No evidence produced in this litigation shows how Plaintiff's fax number was obtained by Defendant. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the TCPA prohibits the use of any telephone facsimile machine to send unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine. A claim under that provision requires proof that a device was used to send a fax to a telephone facsimile machine, that the fax was an unsolicited advertisement, and that no established business relationship, permission, or invitation existed. On the first element, the Court found that Plaintiff received the four NHC faxes on a traditional, stand-alone fax machine connected to an analog telephone line, satisfying the TCPA's definition of a telephone facsimile machine. Defendant's argument that Plaintiff may have received the faxes through its Voice Over IP service was rejected, as Dr. Lyngaas testified that the analog line was maintained separately and used exclusively for faxing until 2018. On the consent element, the Court found that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff provided consent to receive the NHC faxes. Dr. Lyngaas testified that he never provided his fax number to Defendant and never gave consent to receive faxes. Plaintiff's practice manager similarly testified that she never provided the fax number to any third-party company other than insurance companies, and that Plaintiff maintained a policy against doing so, which was communicated to all employees. The Court found Defendant's circumstantial evidence of a general consent practice, absent any direct evidence tying Plaintiff to that process, insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact. On the advertisement element, the Court found that the NHC faxes constitute advertisements under the TCPA. Applying Third Circuit precedent from Fischbein v. Olson Research Group, Inc., the Court held that a fax seeking survey responses and offering payment for those responses is an advertisement. The fact that not all recipients ultimately qualified to complete the survey and receive compensation did not alter that conclusion. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its individual TCPA claim was granted. Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction was denied because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or the inadequacy of remedies available at law. On damages, the Court declined to award treble the statutory damages. The Court found no evidence that Defendant intentionally, knowingly, or voluntarily violated the TCPA. The Court noted that Defendant believed its database contained consensually obtained fax numbers, and that the binding Third Circuit precedent under which the NHC faxes were found to be advertisements postdated the period during which the faxes were sent. Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiff had proved Defendant liable for statutory damages in the amount of $500 for each of the four unsolicited NHC faxes received, for a total judgment of $2,000. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W7jJqV from PacerMonitor.com J. CREW GROUP: Sanchez-Gomez Balks at Junk Fees Charges ------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SANCHEZ-GOMEZ and ALYSSA WELLING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J. CREW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02577 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2026) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant J. Crew Group arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to Plaintiffs and other consumers' shopping carts. According to the complaint, when consumers browse products on the website, J. Crew advertises the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because J. Crew surreptitiously adds junk fees to consumer purchases, including a so-called "Shipping Protection" fee. The assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, because: (a) J. Crew sneaks these fees into consumers' shopping carts using a prechecked box; (b) the fees are nothing more than an additional cost for shipping, rendering J. Crew's promise for "free" shipping false; (c) the fees themselves are deceptively named and described; and (d) the fees provide no added value to consumers and reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, would not knowingly choose to pay them, absent Defendant's deception. Thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to J. Crew's deceptive tactics, the suit alleges. J. Crew Group, LLC is headquartered in New York, New York. J. Crew is engaged in the business of providing retail women's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the consolidated shareholder derivative suit. On Nov. 5, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Bardauskas v. Martell, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Dec. 22, 2025, another shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the same court and captioned Walsh v. Martell, et al. The derivative complaints name as defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and allege claims related to the allegations raised in the shareholder class action complaint. On Jan. 21, 2026, a stipulated order was entered, among other things, consolidating and staying the derivative actions. The Company believes the claims raised in these lawsuits are without merit, and intends to defend these matters vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss ultimately will occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued in the Company's financial statements as of and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2025. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company due to costs involved, diversion of management resources, negative publicity, reputational harm, and other factors. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel therapies, including its lead product candidate briquilimab, for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, autoimmune disorders and other serious diseases. The company is based in Redwood City, California. JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Responses to Amended Complaint Due April 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the responses of defendants to the Grant amended complaint are due on or about April 20, 2026. On Sept. 19, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint captioned Grant v. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers. The complaint alleges that certain material misstatements or omissions related to the ongoing clinical studies and clinical trials of briquilimab were made in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and other costs. On Dec. 3, 2025, a stipulated order was entered appointing co-lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of co-lead counsel, and on Dec. 16, 2025, a stipulated order was entered setting a schedule for the filing and responses to an amended complaint. Per the terms of the Dec. 16, 2025 stipulated order, an amended complaint captioned Allard, et al. v. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., et al. was filed, and defendants responses to that amended complaint are due on or about April 20, 2026. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel therapies, including its lead product candidate briquilimab, for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, autoimmune disorders and other serious diseases. The company is based in Redwood City, California. JIMCO MAINTENANCE: Frisby Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- TASHAWN FRISBY, on his own behalf and those Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JIMCO MAINTENANCE INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and LYNN FIELD, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00784 (M.D. Fla., March 24, 2026) is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs from Defendants for their willful violations of the FLSA. According to the complaint, the Defendants have systematically and unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA under the Motor Carrier Exemption, in order to avoid paying any overtime compensation to these employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance technician from approximately September 19, 2024, through May 2025. Jimco Maintenance Inc. is a rolling cart maintenance company that provides maintenance, repair, and refurbishment services for shopping carts and related equipment to major grocery store chains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com KALSHIEX LLC: Golan Sues Over Misleading Kalshi Prediction Market ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITAY GOLAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALSHIEX LLC, KALSHI INC., KALSHI KLEAR LLC, KALSHI KLEAR INC., and KALSHI TRADING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02394 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2026) is a class action for damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief arising out of Defendants' operation, marketing, and settlement of a Kalshi prediction market titled "Ali Khamenei out as Supreme Leader?" Kalshiex LLC is a regulated exchange and prediction market with its principal place of business in New York. According to the complaint, Kalshi marketed contracts to retail users as a straightforward event contract: if Ali Khamenei left office before a specified deadline, the market would resolve to "Yes." Users who purchased "Yes" contracts reasonably understood that if Khamenei ceased serving as Supreme Leader before the contract deadline, those contracts would pay out as winning "Yes" contracts. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff purchased 1,436 "Yes" contracts in the "before April 1, 2026" Khamenei market at a total cost of approximately $589.59, or approximately $609.98 including fees, according to Kalshi's own communications. After reports that Khamenei had died, Kalshi did not settle the market as a standard binary "Yes" outcome. Instead, Kalshi invoked what it described as a "death carveout," "scalar settlement," and/or "last-traded fair price" methodology and settled Plaintiff's position at $0.29 per contract, for a total payout of approximately $416.44, substantially less than the full payout Plaintiff reasonably expected. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of similarly situated market participants who were injured by Defendants' deceptive, misleading, unfair, and unlawful conduct in connection with the marketing, sale, and settlement of the subject Kalshi market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Daniella Levi, Esq. DANIELLA LEVI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 159-16 Union Turnpike, Suite 200 Fresh Meadows, NY 11366 Telephone: (718) 380-1010 E-mail: daniellalevi@levilawny.com KARTOON STUDIOS: Continues to Defend Cohen Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cohen shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. On October 2, 2025, a new shareholder derivative action, Cohen v. Heyward, et al., Case No. A-25-929617-C, was filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, making substantially similar allegations to the derivative actions already pending and expected to be similarly stayed pending the outcome of the securities class action, that as the Company cannot predict the outcome of the securities class action it likewise is unable to predict the outcome of the shareholder derivative lawsuits, and that in all of the above-mentioned active proceedings the Company has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing and intends to defend the claims vigorously, while maintaining a program of directors and officers liability insurance that, subject to insurers reservations of rights, has offset a portion of the costs of defending the securities class action litigation and is expected to afford coverage for some costs of the other shareholder litigation should any of those cases proceed. Kartoon Studios, Inc. (formerly Genius Brands International, Inc.) is a content and brand management company focused on developing, producing, and licensing multimedia entertainment properties for children and families. The company distributes animated and live-action programming and related consumer products across broadcast, streaming, and digital platforms worldwide. KARTOON STUDIOS: Genius Brands Stockholder Derivative Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Genius Brands stockholder derivative suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A consolidated proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California styled In re Genius Brands Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:20-cv-08277 DSF (RAOx), that the plaintiffs in the derivative action, alleged stockholders of the Company, purport to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, seek no recovery from the Company, and name the Company only as a nominal defendant, that pursuant to agreements among the parties the courts in all of the derivative lawsuits have stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the securities litigation, that since the Company's last quarterly report there have been no developments in the previously disclosed shareholder derivative actions. Kartoon Studios, Inc. (formerly Genius Brands International, Inc.) is a content and brand management company focused on developing, producing, and licensing multimedia entertainment properties for children and families. The company distributes animated and live-action programming and related consumer products across broadcast, streaming, and digital platforms worldwide. KARTOON STUDIOS: Ly Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------ Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Los Angeles County Superior Court stayed the Ly derivative suit pending the outcome of the securities litigation. The Company's directors (other than Dr. Cynthia Turner-Graham and Michael Hirsh), together with Messrs. Heyward and Denton and former director Michael Klein, have been named as defendants in a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit generally alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, an action filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court captioned Ly, etc. v. Heyward, et al., Case No. 20STCV44611, that the plaintiffs in the derivative action, alleged stockholders of the Company, purport to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, seek no recovery from the Company, and name the Company only as a nominal defendant, that pursuant to agreements among the parties the courts in the derivative lawsuit have stayed proceeding pending the outcome of the securities litigation, that since the Company's last quarterly report there have been no developments in the previously disclosed shareholder derivative action. Kartoon Studios, Inc. (formerly Genius Brands International, Inc.) is a content and brand management company focused on developing, producing, and licensing multimedia entertainment properties for children and families. The company distributes animated and live-action programming and related consumer products across broadcast, streaming, and digital platforms worldwide. KARTOON STUDIOS: Miceli Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada stayed the Miceli derivative suit pending the outcome of the securities litigation. The Company's directors (other than Dr. Cynthia Turner-Graham and Michael Hirsh), together with Messrs. Heyward and Denton and former director Michael Klein, have been named as defendants in a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit generally alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, that the derivative is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada styled Miceli, etc. v. Heyward, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00132-MMD-WGC, that the plaintiffs in the derivative action, alleged stockholders of the Company, purport to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, seek no recovery from the Company, and name the Company only as a nominal defendant, that pursuant to agreements among the parties the courts in all of the derivative lawsuit have stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the securities litigation, that since the Company's last quarterly report there have been no developments in the previously disclosed shareholder derivative actions. Kartoon Studios, Inc. (formerly Genius Brands International, Inc.) is a content and brand management company focused on developing, producing, and licensing multimedia entertainment properties for children and families. The company distributes animated and live-action programming and related consumer products across broadcast, streaming, and digital platforms worldwide. KIA MOTORS: Kondash Amended Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM KONDASH, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. AND KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Hopkins entered an order: -- Granting the Motion for Summary Judgment of Kia, and -- Dismissing Kondash's Amended Complaint with prejudice. As plaintiff Tom Kondash was driving on a highway with his wife, the panoramic sunroof on his Kia Optima shattered. Even though Kondash's car was out of warranty, Kia's local dealership where the car had been purchased replaced the sunroof. Nevertheless, Kondash alleges that the panoramic sunroof has a design defect, which has decreased the value of his vehicle. Kia is the U.S.-based marketing, sales, and distribution arm of Kia Corporation. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=840INZ at no extra charge.[CC] KLARNA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Browser Extension Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ahntourage Media LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Klarna, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-124 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael H. Watson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action brought by affiliate marketers alleging that Defendant was stealing their commissions earned from promoting online products. Named Plaintiffs -- Ahntourage Media LLC, Daniel Perez, Dan Becker LLC, and James Gatlin LLC -- are online content creators who entered into contractual agreements with merchants such as Walmart, Target, FlexiSpot, and REI, entitling them to commissions for sales generated through their unique affiliate marketing links. Each link contains an alphanumeric identifier (Affiliate ID); merchants rely on the last Affiliate ID in the consumer's browser at the time of purchase -- a process known as last-click attribution -- to determine which marketer earned the commission. Named Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant's Klarna Browser Extension, launched in December 2021, overwrites their Affiliate IDs with Defendant's own when consumers activate the extension before completing a purchase, thereby causing merchants to pay Defendant commissions that Named Plaintiffs rightfully earned. Named Plaintiffs submitted a test example via screenshots showing how Ahntourage Media's Affiliate ID was replaced by Defendant's when a consumer activated the Klarna Browser Extension on a FlexiSpot product page. Named Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting one federal claim on behalf of a putative Nationwide Class for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and three state-law claims on behalf of the Nationwide Class or putative state Subclasses: (1) tortious interference with business relationships; (2) tortious interference with contractual relations; and (3) unjust enrichment. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Named Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and failed to state a claim. The court denied the standing challenge, finding that Named Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an injury traceable to Defendant's conduct. On the CFAA claim, the court found that Named Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a qualifying loss in excess of $5,000 caused by disruption of the commission attribution process, and that Defendant exceeded the access consumers authorized when it overwrote Named Plaintiffs' Affiliate IDs. The motion to dismiss the CFAA claim was therefore denied. On tortious interference with business relationships, the court granted dismissal. Named Plaintiffs failed to allege that any merchant terminated, refused to renew, or decided not to enter into a business relationship with them because of Defendant's conduct; Named Plaintiffs themselves pleaded that their relationships were ongoing and that they expected to continue earning commissions. On tortious interference with contract, the court denied dismissal. Named Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Defendant, knowing of their affiliate marketing contracts, intentionally caused merchants to breach those contracts by replacing Named Plaintiffs' Affiliate IDs with its own, and that Defendant's conduct was wrongful, improper, and without justification. On unjust enrichment, the court denied dismissal. Named Plaintiffs adequately alleged that they conferred a benefit on Defendant by driving consumers to merchant websites, that Defendant knowingly diverted that benefit by overwriting Named Plaintiffs' Affiliate IDs, and that it would be unjust for Defendant to retain the commissions without payment. Accordingly, the court dismissed the tortious interference with business relationships claim without prejudice. The CFAA and state-law claims for tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment survive. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 31, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTTCdq from PacerMonitor.com KRISTI NOEM: Guadalupe Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kristi Noem, et al. The case is styled as Jose Martinez Guadalupe, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kristi Noem, in Official Capacity, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Pam Bondi, in official capacity as US Attorney General; Todd M. Lyons in official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Warden Broward Transitional Center, in his or her official capacity; Case No. 0:26-cv-60862-AHS (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Kristi Noem was sworn in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rogell Xavier Levers, Esq. THE LEVERS LAW FIRM 1840 Forest Hill Blvd., Ste. 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 721-6200 Fax: (561) 721-6202 Email: rxl@leverslaw.com KROGER CO: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibit Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal Exhibit 7 to Kroger's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. Exhibit 7 contains "old" and "rebranded" labels for certain Kroger brand coffee products, labeled as Kroger 42 and Kroger 539 (Colombian 24 oz); Kroger 36 and Kroger 535-36 (French Roast 24 oz); Kroger 44 and Kroger 546 (Donut Shop 24 oz); and Kroger 45 and Kroger 545 (Special Roast). These documents have been produced and marked as Confidential. Kroger is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yc97dJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Bruce A. McMullen, Esq. Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, AND BERKOWITZ, PC 165 Madison Ave., Suite. 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com mtullis@bakerdonelson.com KROGER CO: Seeks to Exclude Experts' Class Cert Opinions -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to exclude the opinions of Tony L. Schmitz, Christopher H. Hendon, and Mr. Justin Blok, purported experts that Plaintiff uses in support of his Motion for Class Certification. Kroger does not concede that any of these experts' reports are critical to class certification -- they are not, nor should they be given any weight whatsoever as they do not assist Plaintiff in even remotely establishing any of the Rule 23 requirements. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action, alleging that select Kroger-brand coffee labels misrepresent the number of cups of coffee that can be brewed from select Kroger-brand ground coffee products. Schmitz has never been qualified as an expert in food science, nor does his background reflect any expert experience in measuring food items. Instead, Schmitz is a metrologist who has focused on “machine tool metrology, instrument design, and the measurement of dynamic machine tool error motions using laser interferometry.” Schmitz has never been qualified as an expert in food science, nor does his background reflect any expert experience in measuring food items. Instead, Schmitz is a metrologist who has focused on "machine tool metrology, instrument design, and the measurement of dynamic machine tool error motions using laser interferometry." Hendon is an Associate Professor of Chemistry. Hendon purportedly specializes in coffee science, but not coffee measurement. Hendon is not a metrologist and has no expertise in measurement science whatsoever. Hendon has never been qualified as an expert in any class action and has not testified as an expert in any case in the last four years. Kroger is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dsa6aI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Bruce A. McMullen, Esq. Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, AND BERKOWITZ, PC 165 Madison Ave., Suite. 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com mtullis@bakerdonelson.com KROGER CO: Seeks to Exclude Sukumar's Class Cert Opinions --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. R. Sukumar, the purported expert that Plaintiff uses in support of his Motion for Class Certification. Kroger does not concede that any of this expert's reports are critical to class certification -- they are not, nor should they be given any weight whatsoever as they do not assist Plaintiff in even remotely establishing any of the Rule 23 requirements. Nonetheless, Kroger objects to their admissibility under Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Sukumar opines that the conjoint analysis framework could be used to estimate the incremental amount consumers are willing to pay for each additional advertised cup. However, he does not calculate any actual price premium, market‑level willingness‑to‑pay figure, or overcharge amount. Instead, his damages report is limited to a description of a hypothetical methodology that he asserts could be used in the future, in conjunction with separate technical findings regarding alleged cup shortages, to calculate an overpayment per canister. The Plaintiff Anthony Womick filed this putative class action, alleging that select Kroger-brand coffee labels misrepresent the number of cups of coffee that can be brewed from select Kroger-brand ground coffee products. Kroger is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BHvhO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Bruce A. McMullen, Esq. Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, AND BERKOWITZ, PC 165 Madison Ave., Suite. 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com mtullis@bakerdonelson.com LAVAPOD LLC: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lavapod LLC. The case is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lavapod LLC d/b/a WWW.LAVAPODUSA.COM, Case No. 26CU016548C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March 25, 2026). Lavapod -- https://lavapodusa.com/ -- is a luxury, plant-based cleaning company that offers high quality cleaning at an affordable price.[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 LEAD ELITE LLC: Connor Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lead Elite LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jay Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lead Elite LLC, NRT Carolinas LLC doing business as: Coldwell Banker Realty, Case No. 2:26-cv-01288-DCN (D.S.C., March 25, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lead Elite LLC is a real estate consultant in Reno, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES: Kwiatkowski Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ KWIATKOWSKI, et al., v. LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00098-SCR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class, either on a regular or provisional basis, defined as: "All current and future people in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction who have or will have gender dysphoria, and have been prescribed or will require hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgery to treat their gender dysphoria." In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) to certify, on a regular or provisional basis, two classes, defined as: (1) All current and future people in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction who have or will have gender dysphoria and have been prescribed or may require cross-sex hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria (the Hormone Class); and (2) All current and future people in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction who have or will have gender dysphoria and have been prescribed or may require gender-affirming surgery to treat gender dysphoria (the Surgery Class). Leslie Cooley Dismukes is an American lawyer and politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=62pn67 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jaclyn A. Maffetore, Esq. Daniel K. Siegel, Esq. Ivy A. Johnson, Esq. ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 354-5070 E-mail: jmaffetore@acluofnc.org dsiegel@acluofnc.org ijohnson@acluofnc.org - and - Elizabeth G. Simpson, Esq. EMANCIPATE NC Durham, NC 27702 E-mail: elizabeth@emancipatenc.org Telephone: (919) 682-1149 LUCK GROVE: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Gutierrez -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GUTIERREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LUCK GROVE CONSTRUCTION INC. and LUCK GROVE TELECOM INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00552-ECC-CBF (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Coombe entered an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the class allegations. To the extent that Plaintiff has alleged facts that bear on class certification, at this stage of the litigation, nothing suggests that they are "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous." The motion to strike the class allegations is therefore denied. In addition, as Plaintiff points out, Defendants cannot rely on facts that are neither in the Amended Complaint nor subject to judicial notice to argue that a well-pled allegation in the Amended Complaint is not true. Moreover, even if Defendants' factual assertion could be considered, their motion to dismiss Telecom is denied. Accordingly, the NYLL class allegations are not dismissed or struck, and Defendants’ motion is denied in its entirety. The Plaintiff Brian Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated coworkers, began this action on May 2, 2025. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff was employed "as a top hand tower technician from approximately January 9, 2023, to September 12, 2023," working "in and around the Syracuse, New York area." Luck Grove is a company specializing in telecommunications infrastructure. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNcRI3 at no extra charge.[CC] MARYLAND: Bangura Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 30, 2026 Certification: The Defendant's Opposition to Motion June 18, 2026 for Class Certification: The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of July 6, 2026 Class Certification: The Defendant protects the public, its employees, and detainees and offenders under its supervision. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BxyHUM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edith K. Thomas, Esq. Jeremy P. Monteiro, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 (ph) E-mail: ethomas@zagfirm.com jmonteiro@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com MATTOS HOSPITALITY: Fitzhenry Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Hollie Fitzhenry, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MATTOS HOSPITALITY LLC, TOURBILLON1 LLC (d/b/a LODI),TOURBILLON47 LLC (d/b/a ESTELA), TOURBILLON45 LLC (d/b/a ALTRO PARADISO), TOURBILLON75 LLC (f/d/b/a FLORA BAR),TOURBILLON9 LLC (f/d/b/a CORNER BAR and SWAN ROOM), and IGNACIO MATTOS NOYA (a/k/a IGNACIO MATTOS), Case No. 1:26-cv-02453 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages and overtime premiums due to time shaving; unpaid wages and overtime premiums due to invalid tip credit deductions; unpaid tips due to an illegal gratuity retention policy; unpaid wages due to invalid meal credit deductions; unpaid spread of hours premiums, unpaid call-in pay premiums; liquidated damages for unpaid wages, overtime, and gratuities; unpaid spread of hours premiums; unpaid call-in pay premiums; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs their properly owed wages, overtime premiums at one and a half times their regular rates for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and tips due to Defendants' invalid tip credit policy, invalid gratuity retention policy, and invalid meal credit policy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a Bartender at Defendants' Estela location. MATTOS HOSPITALITY LLC is a domestic limited liability company which operates "Mattos Hospitality."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 MCCORMICK & PRIORE: Settlement Deal in Mench Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY MENCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MCCORMICK & PRIORE P.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-02973-KBH (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Hodge entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "The persons who are identified on the Settlement Class List, which includes all individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident discovered by Defendant in December 2024, including all those individuals who received notice of the Data Incident." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. The Court finds that Plaintiff will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds that Raina C. Borrelli of the law firm Strauss Borrelli PLLC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Aug. 18, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m8Zfdm at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICARE HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hoy Due Sept. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY HOY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. MEDICARE HEALTH ADVISORS LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00207-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Adams entered a scheduling and trial setting order as follows: A scheduling conference was conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 on March 18, 2026. Based on the discussions during the conference and the parties’ proposed schedule, it is ordered: A Jury Trial shall begin on Monday, Aug. 16, 2027, at 9:00 AM before United States District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa. Trial is estimated to take 5 days. A Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on July 7, 2027, at 9:00 AM at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa, before Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger. Discovery allowed during the bifurcation period shall be completed by April 14, 2026. Discovery period for class and merits discovery, beyond that allowed in the bifurcations period, opens on April 15, 2026. Dispositive motions related to the individual claim of the named plaintiff shall be filed by April 28, 2026. Motions to add parties shall be filed by June 18, 2026. Motions for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed by June 18, 2026. Motion for class certification shall be filed by Sept. 15, 2026. All discovery shall be completed by Feb. 1, 2027, including class discovery and any merits discovery. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRH6FZ at no extra charge.[CC] MERCK SHARP: Plaintiff Wins Bid to Seal Reply Memorandum -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order granting as follows: -- The Plaintiff's unopposed interim motion to seal regarding Plaintiff's Reply memorandum of law in support of motion for class certification and related exhibits. -- The Plaintiff's unopposed interim motion to seal Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of professor Einer Elhauge pursuant to Federal Rule of evidence 702 and related exhibits. The Defendant operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3fKPod at no extra charge.[CC] NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Suit Still Not Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has not yet set a hearing date for the motion to dismiss a securities class suit. On February 6, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a lawsuit against the Company, certain of its executive officers, and certain underwriters in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01072), alleging violations of the Securities Act related to its initial public offering on September 15, 2023, and seeking compensatory damages, as well as fees and costs. The complaint claims that its offering documents contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the prospects of navacaprant. The Company does not believe these allegations have merit and have moved to dismiss. On November 19, 2025, the Court appointed Victor Otcheretko as Lead Plaintiff and on January 14, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Otcheretko filed an amended complaint. On March 11, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss is due April 22, 2026, and defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss is due May 22, 2026. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing precision medicines for brain diseases and neuropsychiatric disorders. The company leverages neuroscience, data science, and translational tools to advance a pipeline of targeted therapeutic candidates. NEXTPLAT CORP: Bid to Dismiss RXMD Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- NextPlat Corp. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the motion to dismiss the RXMD merger class suit is pending before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On Oct. 28, 2024, former Progressive Care Inc. (RXMD) Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Alan Jay Weisberg filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other former RXMD stockholders against NextPlat, Charles M. Fernandez, the former Chief Executive Officer and director of NextPlat, and Rodney Barreto, a director of NextPlat, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Alan Jay Weisberg v. Charles M. Fernandez, Rodney Barreto and Nextplat Corp., C.A. No. 2024-1097-MTZ, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by NextPlat and Messrs. Fernandez and Barreto in connection with the merger of RXMD with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of NextPlat completed on Oct. 1, 2024 following stockholder approval at meetings held on Sept. 13, 2024 by each of NextPlat and RXMD, asserting among other things that the consideration paid to Mr. Weisberg and the other RXMD stockholders in connection with the merger was insufficient and seeking compensatory and rescissory damages in an unspecified amount. In addition, the Company believes the claims asserted in the action are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Although the parties have engaged in discussions regarding a potential resolution of the matter, no agreement has been reached and there can be no assurance that the matter will be resolved on acceptable terms or at all. Based on currently available information and after consultation with legal counsel, management determined that a loss associated with this matter is probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with applicable accounting guidance. Accordingly, as of Dec. 31, 2025, the Company recorded an accrual of approximately $1.75 million, which represents management's current estimate of loss exposure and corresponds to the Company's applicable insurance retention under its directors' and officers' liability insurance coverage. The ultimate outcome of the matter remains uncertain, and the actual loss could differ materially from the amount accrued. Any such difference could have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows in the period in which the matter is resolved. NextPlat Corp is a technology and e-commerce company focused on building and operating online platforms and digital marketplaces for physical and digital assets. The company develops solutions to enable global e-commerce, cross-border transactions, and digital communications for businesses and consumers. NIKE INC: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00564-AP (D. Ore., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on January 21, 2026, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept there. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Nike, Inc. is an American athletic footwear and apparel corporation headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Hilliard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. HILLIARD 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (310) 709-9749 E-mail: mark.hilliard.esq@gmail.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com NORTH AMERICAN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Buescher Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES R. BUESCHER, individually, and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of Command Plus Plan and the North American Lighting, Inc. Group Health and Life Insurance Plan, v. NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02076-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order certifying for settlement purposes only the following Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who paid North American Lighting, Inc.'s tobacco surcharge in connection with the North American Lighting, Inc. Group Health and Insurance Plan (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) beginning April 10, 2018, and running through the date of preliminary approval"; or "All participants and beneficiaries of the North American Lighting, Inc. Command Plus Plan (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) beginning April 10, 2018, and running through the date of preliminary approval." The court certifies the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Class, and appoints the law firms of Walcheske & Luzi, LLC and Hassler Kondras Miller LLP, as Class Counsel, and appoints James R. Buescher, as Class Representative. The court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 27, 2026, at 10:45 A.M. North American is a producer of innovative automotive lighting system. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pucEo4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com The Defendants are represented by: Stacey C. Cerrone, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 208-1755 E-mail: Stacey.Cerrone@jacksonlewis.com NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Finn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North East Medical Services. The case is styled as Gina Finn, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. North East Medical Services, Case No. CGC26635218 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." North East Medical Services (NEMS) -- https://www.nems.org/ -- is a non-profit community health center serving the San Francisco Bay Area.[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 NURETTIN OGUTOGULLARI: Fuentes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Fuentes and Felix Artiga on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. NURETTIN OGUTOGULLARI and NORM INTERNATIONAL LLC d/b/a CHOP SHOP BAR and GRILL, Case No. 2:26-cv-01777 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that the Plaintiffs are entitled to, from Defendants: unpaid wages for overtime work performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiffs a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action. While Plaintiffs, and Collective and Class plaintiffs, worked in excess of forty hours a week, Defendants willfully failed to pay them overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked. Defendants never paid Plaintiffs, and Collective and Class plaintiffs, wages with a pay statement containing the following information: employer's name, address and phone number, employee's name, dates covered by payment, basis of payment, hours worked, regular rates of pay, overtime rates of pay, gross and net wages, itemized deductions, and/or itemized allowances. The Defendants failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage and overtime pay rights, and employee rights by the NYLL. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient records of those hours Plaintiffs worked and those wages paid to them. The Defendants knew that nonpayment of overtime would economically injure Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and violated State and Federal laws. The Defendants committed the following acts against Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and members of the Class knowingly, intentionally and willfully, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants ascooks. The Defendants operate a restaurant and bar located in Smithtown, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Phone: (516) 280.4600 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com ORIGIN MATERIALS: Settlement in Kaspar Derivative Suit Gets Fina OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin Materials, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated March 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final approval of the Kasper derivative class suit settlement. In March 2025, a shareholder filed a derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against certain of the Company's current and former directors, with the Company as a nominal defendant. The case is Thomas Kaspar v. John Bissell, et al., Case No. 2:25-at-00326 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2025). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and related state and federal claims in connection with the same August 9, 2023 announcement by the Company that is at issue in the In re Origin Materials, Inc. Sec. Litig. case, and, as relief purportedly on behalf of the Company, each plaintiff sought unspecified damages, fees and costs, and governance changes. In October 2025, the Company entered into binding agreements to settle the related derivative litigation, and on January 20, 2026, the Court granted final approval of the settlement of the derivative litigation. Origin Materials, Inc. is a carbon-negative materials company that uses renewable resources to produce sustainable materials and chemicals for applications in packaging, textiles, plastics, and other industrial products. The company partners with global brands to help decarbonize supply chains and reduce dependence on fossil-based feedstocks. ORIGIN MATERIALS: Settlement in Securities Suit Wins Prelim OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Origin Materials, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated March 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has given preliminary approval of the securities class suit settlement on January 7, 2026. Since August 2023, the Company has been litigating a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's announcement on August 9, 2023, that it expected the timeline for construction of its Origin 2 project to be delayed (In re Origin Materials, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.)). In October 2025, the Company entered into binding agreements to settle the putative shareholder class action lawsuit. On January 7, 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the securities class action. Origin Materials, Inc. is a carbon-negative materials company that uses renewable resources to produce sustainable materials and chemicals for applications in packaging, textiles, plastics, and other industrial products. The company partners with global brands to help decarbonize supply chains and reduce dependence on fossil-based feedstocks. ORIGIN MATERIALS: Settlement in Tanasse Suit Gets Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Origin Materials, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated March 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final approval of the Tanasse derivative class suit settlement. In March 2025, a shareholder filed a derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against certain of the Company's current and former directors, with the Company as a nominal defendant. The case is Travis Tanasse v. John Bissell, et al., Case No. 2:25-at-00331 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and related state and federal claims in connection with the same August 9, 2023 announcement by the Company that is at issue in the In re Origin Materials, Inc. Sec. Litig. case, and, as relief purportedly on behalf of the Company, each plaintiff sought unspecified damages, fees and costs, and governance changes. In October 2025, the Company entered into binding agreements to settle the related derivative litigation, and on January 20, 2026, the Court granted final approval of the settlement of the derivative litigation. Origin Materials, Inc. is a carbon-negative materials company that uses renewable resources to produce sustainable materials and chemicals for applications in packaging, textiles, plastics, and other industrial products. The company partners with global brands to help decarbonize supply chains and reduce dependence on fossil-based feedstocks. PEPSICO INC: Plaintiffs Can File Consolidated Amended Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated lawsuit captioned RE: BRANDED BEVERAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 7:26-cv-01922 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Seibel entered an Order on Motion to Modify Consolidation and to Appoint Interim Class Counsel, as follows: The case involves an alleged anticompetitive scheme by Walmart, Inc. and PepsiCo, Inc. to fix prices of Pepsi beverages to the detriment of consumers and competing retailers. Three plaintiff groups are at issue: direct consumer purchasers (Walmart customers who paid inflated retail prices), direct reseller purchasers (competing businesses that paid inflated wholesale prices), and indirect purchasers (customers who bought Pepsi at retailers other than Walmart). The Court appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP as Co-Interim Class Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, with Bursor & Fisher P.A. as Liaison Counsel and an Executive Committee consisting of Berger Montague P.C., Cera LLP, and Gustafson Gluek PLLC. For the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, the Court appointed Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Interim Class Counsel, selecting them over competing applicant Miller Law LLC based on Cohen Milstein's foundational legal work and broader support among IPP counsel. All plaintiff groups were granted leave to file Consolidated Amended Complaints in accordance with the briefing schedule established at the February 26, 2026 Status Conference. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mNiXfW at no extra charge.[CC] PERPETUA RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Barnes Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Perpetua Resources Corp. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Barnes federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Company is defending a putative federal securities class action captioned Barnes et al. v. Perpetua Resources Corp. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00160, filed on March 20, 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against the Company and certain of its current officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the Company's common shares during the period from April 17, 2024 to February 13, 2025, inclusive. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements during the period from April 17, 2024 to February 13, 2025 regarding the Company's expected capital expenditures for the Stibnite Gold Project. On June 6, 2025, two new plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs, which was granted by the District Court on June 16, 2025. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 15, 2025 seeking unspecified compensatory damages. The District Court issued a scheduling order requiring various procedural and substantive motions to be filed by the parties prior to the end of 2025. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint on September 30, 2025, and all briefs by all parties associated with that motion have been submitted. The District Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and the lawsuit remains pending. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself, but, in view of the uncertainties inherent in litigation, does not express a judgment as to the outcome. Perpetua Resources Corp. is a mineral exploration and development company focused on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project in central Idaho, a large gold-antimony-silver deposit. The company aims to responsibly develop domestic sources of strategic and critical minerals for U.S. supply chains. PNC BANK: Wins Bid to Deny Class Certification in Melian -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelly Melian et al v. PNC Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09034-MRA-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Almadani entered an order: -- Denying the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings -- Striking the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; -- Granting the Defendant motions to deny class certification; and -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. PNC Bank is a major U.S. financial institution. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hG7zc7 at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barton Due May 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chu entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadline for class certification motion and setting a briefing schedule as follows: Deadline Date Motion for class certification: May 13, 2026 Opposition to class certification: June 12, 2026 Ready to class certification: July 3, 2026 The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TJdjQ0 at no extra charge.[CC] PROJECT RENEWAL: Collective Certification Bid in Colon Due July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMELO COLON, v. PROJECT RENEWAL INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06695-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Netburn entered a civil case management plan & scheduling order as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed by Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for collective certification on or before Wednesday, July 15, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for Rule 23 class certification within 120 days of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's collective certification motion. Any party that wishes to file a motion for summary judgment shall file a pre-motion letter with the Hon. Analissa Torres by Monday, Dec. 14, 2026. The Defendant engages with people experiencing homelessness to help them prioritize their healthcare while concurrently supporting their most basic needs. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mMrZAk at no extra charge.[CC] QC FRANCHISE: Estrada Balks at Deceptive Stem Cell Treatment Ad --------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO ESTRADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QC FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, REGENCARE 1142, LLC d/b/a QC KINETIX DORAL, a Florida limited liability company, and MED-DEN FUNDING LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21895-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unfair and deceptive financing practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's Adult Protective Services Act. The suit arises from an alleged calculated and deceptive business model -- one that systematically prioritizes profits over patient care -- orchestrated by the Defendants. According to the complaint, QC Franchise markets a "turnkey" clinic system to non-medical investors, promising high returns driven by volume sales. To achieve those returns, the Defendants have standardized a predatory patient-intake process across Florida: they lure elderly and desperate consumers into clinics with deceptive advertisements promising both miracle cures and lucrative financing offers and then subject them to a high-velocity sales pitch designed to extract maximum payment before the patient can scrutinize the product or the price. The primary engine of this scheme is a uniform omission from all advertising by QC Corporate and its Florida franchisees of any disclosure regarding the legality or effectiveness of the treatment. The QC Defendants market "regenerative" and "stem cell" injections as proven, accessible alternatives to surgery and cures for chronic pain. In reality, the FDA has not approved these products for pain management. Recognizing this danger, the Florida Legislature enacted section 458.3245, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2025, which mandates that any advertisement for these therapies must disclose their lack of FDA approval. Plaintiff Sergio Estrada, an 87-year-old vulnerable adult, was lured in by advertisements that omitted mention that the treatment lacked FDA approval and promised both a non-surgical cure and 0% financing. The Plaintiff received neither. He brings this action to hold Defendants accountable for this calculated scheme. QC Franchise Group, LLC is a South Carolina limited liability company with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. It is the franchisor of the QC Kinetix system, a national regenerative medicine franchise, and conducts business throughout Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Rasheed K. Nader, Esq. Ofir Besharim, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com rnader@kttlaw.com obesharim@kttlaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Sanchez Seeks OK of FLSA Collective Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hector Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Republic Services Customer Resource Center West, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02499-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) Authorizing notice of this lawsuit to the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective, defined as: "All current and former hourly call center employees who worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years and required the use of a computer and programs and applications in order to perform their job duties." (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within 14 days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice (Exs. A-D) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of Plaintiff’s FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former hourly call center employees who worked for the Defendant at any time during the past three years and required the use of a computer and programs and applications in order to perform their job duties." (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. Specifically, Defendant requires its non exempt hourly call center employees (including Associates, Specialists 1, Specialists 2, Premier Agents, Inside Sales Residential, Inside Sales Business, Operation Excellence Advisors, and Franchise Specialists (CSRs) to perform substantial pre- and post shift work—booting/waking up computers, logging into required systems, and shutting down applications—before they clock in and after they are required to clock out. Mr. Sanchez worked remotely for the Defendant as a non-exempt CSR, with the job titles of Inside Sales Consultant Residential and Operational Excellence Senior Advisor, from approximately October 2021 through approximately August 2024, and was paid an hourly wage, most recently $24.50. The Defendant offers advanced recycling; solid waste, special waste and hazardous waste treatment and disposal; field and industrial services; 24/7 emergency response; and equipment rental and cleaning. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MpSPkC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com - and - Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Esq. BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC 401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205 Tempe, AZ 85283 Telephone: (480) 550-5165 E-mail: Jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com RESTAURANT TECHNOLOGIES: Matelski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restaurant Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Marcus Matelski, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002288 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Restaurant Technologies -- https://www.rti-inc.com/ -- is the leading provider of automated cooking oil management for over 45,000 commercial kitchens nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com SAINT THOMAS MEDICAL: Whitson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Geatano Whitson, individually and on behalf of and all other similarly situated persons v. SAINT THOMAS MEDICAL PARTNERS, Case No. 3:26-cv-00355 (M.D. Tenn., March 25, 2026), is brought the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff in accordance with the FLSA, overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. he Defendant deprived Plaintiff of sufficient overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty hours in at least some weeks although Plaintiff frequently worked more than forty hours. When Plaintiff worked over forty hours in a workweek, which happened frequently, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were eligible to receive overtime wages.However, Defendant typically required its employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. Plaintiff was required to perform "off-the-clock" duties after their shift had ended including performing work in Defendant's database, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a medical assistant employee of Defendant from January 2024 through February 2025. Saint Thomas Medical Center is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com SERITAGE GROWTH: Cheroti Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Seritage Growth Properties disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Cheroti shareholder derivative suit until resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. The Company is involved in multiple shareholder derivative actions that allege the same or similar claimed acts and omissions underlying the Securities Action. On or around May 8, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Derrick Cheroti v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No. 1:25-vc-00152 (the Cheroti Derivative Action). The derivative actions assert breach of fiduciary duty and other claims against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and current and former members of the Company's Board of Trustees, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. Each derivative complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial, an order directing the Company and the individual defendants to reform and improve the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution from the individual defendants, an award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff and reasonable attorneys and experts' fees, costs, and expenses, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The complaint in the Cheroti Derivative Action also seeks an award of punitive damages, an order directing the individual defendants to account for all damages caused by them and all profits and special benefits and unjust enrichment obtained, and the imposition of a constructive trust. On September 2, 2025, the court in the Cheroti Derivative Action stayed that action until resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in these derivative lawsuits, but there can be no assurance as to the outcomes of these proceedings, and an unfavorable outcome in these or other legal proceedings may have a material effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity of the Company. Seritage Growth Properties is a publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on owning, developing, and redeveloping retail and mixed-use properties across the United States. The Company seeks to create long-term value by repositioning former retail assets into diversified, income-producing real estate. SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Seritage Growth Properties disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend the Zhengxu He securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A purported shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit on July 1, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Zhengxu He, Trustee of the He & Fang 2005 Revocable Living Trust v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No. 1:24:CV:05007, alleging that the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated the federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's alleged lack of effective internal controls regarding the identification and review of impairment indicators for investments in real estate and the Company's value and projected gross proceeds of certain real estate assets. The complaint seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between July 7, 2022 and May 10, 2024 and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in this lawsuit, but there can be no assurance as to the outcome of this proceeding, and an unfavorable outcome may have a material effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity of the Company. Seritage Growth Properties is a publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on owning, developing, and redeveloping retail and mixed-use properties across the United States. The Company seeks to create long-term value by repositioning former retail assets into diversified, income-producing real estate. SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mathis Due July 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL MATHIS; JORDAN CHONG MOUA; YING SUSANNA VA; MAI NOU VANG, and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU; and JEREMIAH LARUE, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify scheduling order: Event Date Initial Expert Witness Disclosures: June 15, 2026 Last Day to File Motion for Class July 1, 2026 Certification: Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures: July 20, 2026 Close of Expert Discovery: Aug. 17, 2026 Last Date to File Dispositive Motions: Sept. 18, 2026 Pre-trial Conference TBD Siskiyou is a county located in the northwestern portion of the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVtWc6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Thomas H. Do, Esq. Grayce Zelphin, Esq. Emi Young, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 293-6333 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 E-mail: eyoung@aclunc.org jdo@aclunc.org gzelphin@aclunc.org - and - Megan Vees, Esq. ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702 E-mail: meganv@asianlawcaucus.org - and - Stanley Young, Esq. Hakeem S. Rizk, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: syoung@cov.com hrizk@cov.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Scott Donald, Esq. SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT, P.C. 300 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 448-7888 E-mail: scottd@sdnlaw.com - and - Jeffrey V. Dunn, Esq. Christopher M. Pisano, Esq. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 325-4000 E-mail: jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com SKLAR LAW: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Green due April 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITRA GREEN, v. SKLAR LAW, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04186-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal entered a revised amended scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete revisions and execute the settlement agreement. No later than March 25, 2026, the Plaintiff shall submit a letter to the Court confirming that this has been completed. 2. No later than April 13, 2026, the parties shall file a joint motion for class certification and preliminary approval of the settlement. 3. Any application for an extension of time beyond the deadlines set herein shall be made prior to expiration of the period sought to be extended and shall disclose in the application all such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel consent to the application. The scheduling deadlines set herein will not be extended unless good cause is shown. All applications regarding motions returnable before a District Judge shall be presented to the District Judge. Sklar is a full-service commercial law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GXAuzZ at no extra charge.[CC] SODEXO SA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Platt Extended to May 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SODEXO, S.A. and SODEXO, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02211-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carter entered an order granting stipulation for extension of time: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before May 29, 2026. Sodexo is a French multinational food services and facilities management company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bJ3KkF at no extra charge.[CC] SODEXO SA: Parties Seek for More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SODEXO, S.A. and SODEXO, INC. Case No. 8:22-cv-02211-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the stipulation for extension of time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff shall have a deadline of May 29, 2026, to file his motion for class certification. Sodexo is a French-based, multinational corporation founded in 1966 by Pierre Bellon. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EBUqan at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92010 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: Hartley@HartleyLLP.com Lindner@HartleyLLP.com Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 E-mail: Ryan@McClellandLawFirm.com - and - Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. George A. Hanson, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: Ricke@StueveSiegel.com Hanson@StueveSiegel.com Wagner@StueveSiegel.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Raoof, Esq. Rene E. Thorne, Esq. Robert W. Rachal, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 E-mail: Sarah.Raoff@jacksonlewis.com Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com Robert.Rachal@jacksonlewis.com SOPHI15 INC: Banos Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sophi15, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Moza Banos, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Sophi15, Inc. d/b/a La Nonna's Day Pizza and Pasta, Ana Moreira, Adilson Moreira, Case No. 606420/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 25, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Commercial (Employment). Sophi15, Inc. doing business as La Nonna's Day Pizza & Pasta -- https://lanonnasdaypizzapasta.com/ -- serves fresh, homemade Italian favorites.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Collin Weiss, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 910 Franklin Ave, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 SPORTIF USA INC: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPORTIF USA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02427 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2026) is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website, www.sportif.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff brings this civil action against the Defendants, for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive e-commerce website, www.sportif.com in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, andtherefore to the essential products and services offered therein, constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., and related state and city civil rights laws., says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind due to Retinitis Pigmentosa, a progressive retinal degenerative disease that causes severe visual field constriction and substantial central vision loss. Sportif USA traces its origins to 1965 and has operated continuously as a family-run apparel company for more than six decades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL: Court Remands Data Breach Suit to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in the case captioned as Ilana Abraham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. St. Mary's Hospital of St. Mary's County, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. DKC 25-3479 (D. Md.), granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as moot Defendant's motion to transfer venue. Plaintiff Ilana Abraham was a patient of Defendant St. Mary's Hospital of St. Mary's County, Inc. (SMH), a full-service hospital located in Leonardtown, Maryland. SMH regularly collected and stored personal information (PI) from its patients, including names, social security numbers, dates of birth, treating physician details, dates of service, medication information, insurance information, and treatment or diagnostic information. That PI was stored on SMH's computer network, which was administered by a third-party IT vendor identified as Oracle Health. Plaintiff received a notice from SMH dated August 1, 2025, informing her that a security breach of Oracle Health's computer network had occurred sometime between January 22, 2025, and March 15, 2025. Although SMH's own network was not affected, it offered Plaintiff a 12-month membership in Experian's IdentityWorks Credit 3B free of charge. Plaintiff alleged that SMH had not adequately prioritized cybersecurity and patient privacy, failed to adequately train employees on cybersecurity, and maintained no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its or the third-party's computer systems. As a result of the Data Breach, she alleged her PI was accessed and disclosed in an unauthorized manner, along with that of most, if not all, of SMH's patients. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on September 22, 2025, in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, Maryland, bringing three counts: (1) negligence, (2) violation of the Maryland Personal Information Privacy Act (PIPA), and (3) violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), on behalf of herself and a class of all persons whose PI was maintained by SMH and accessed or acquired without authorization during the Data Breach. She estimated the class contained over 10,000 individuals. Defendant removed the action to federal court on October 22, 2025, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and simultaneously moved to transfer the case to the Western District of Missouri, where thirty-two related class actions had been consolidated before Chief Judge Beth Phillips in connection with the Oracle Health data breach. Plaintiff moved to remand on November 18, 2025, arguing lack of Article III standing and inadequate amount in controversy under CAFA. Upon careful examination, the court addressed the remand motion first, consistent with Fourth Circuit guidance that without subject matter jurisdiction, a court can only decide that it does not have jurisdiction. The court found that Defendant failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating Article III standing. To establish injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must allege an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. The court noted that under Fourth Circuit precedent, the dividing line in data breach cases is whether actual misuse of PI is alleged. Mere theft is insufficient, but actual misuse, such as unauthorized credit cards opened in a plaintiff's name, clears the standing bar. Plaintiff's complaint listed numerous prospective harms and alleged two past harms: economic loss and severe stress and anxiety. The court found these allegations insufficient. The vague and undifferentiated list of prospective harms lacked the concrete facts needed to establish actual events. The conclusory allegation of economic loss carried no factual content. Bare assertions of emotional injury, the court noted, are insufficient to confer Article III standing under Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017), as a contrary rule would allow plaintiffs to manufacture standing at will. The court further noted that the Fourth Circuit in Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Co., 156 F.4th 413 (4th Cir. 2025) had rejected the logic that the targeted nature of an attack alone could support standing, given that such an approach embraces a lower threshold of only a reasonable probability of harm, rejected by the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013). Accordingly, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand, rendering Defendant's motion to transfer venue moot. The court denied Plaintiff's request for costs, expenses, and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), finding that Defendant had an objectively reasonable basis for removal, including a colorable CAFA amount-in-controversy argument and a reasonable basis to believe Plaintiff's proposed class was subsumed within the pending nationwide class action in Missouri. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated March 27, 2026 is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tyh496s from Pacermonitor.com STRATEGY INC: Dodge Class Action Dismissed as Moot -------------------------------------------------- Strategy Inc. disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the counsel for the parties entered into a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Dismissing the Dodge class action as Moot. A purported class action lawsuit was filed on July 21, 2025, by David Dodge in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Strategy and its board of directors (the Board). Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL), the holders of Strategy's common stock were entitled to vote on an amendment to the certificate of designations for Strategy's 8.00% Series A Perpetual Strike Preferred Stock (the STRK Amendment) and asserts a claim against the Board for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the purported DGCL violation. On September 29, 2025, Strategy and the Board filed an answer in the Action denying all allegations of wrongdoing. In addition, on March 12, 2026, counsel for the parties entered into a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Dismissing the Action as Moot), which provides for the dismissal of the Action as moot with prejudice as to Plaintiff and without prejudice as to claims belonging to any other actual or potential members of the putative class. Under the Stipulation, Strategy has agreed to seek stockholder approval of a proposal to ratify the STRK Amendment pursuant to Section 204 of the DGCL at its next regularly scheduled annual meeting of stockholders. Strategy also has agreed to pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $550,000. The Court has not passed, and will not pass, judgment on any entitlement to attorneys' fees or the amount thereof. Strategy Inc. is a corporate entity engaged in capital markets activities, including the issuance and management of preferred stock and other securities. The company is incorporated in Delaware and is subject to the governance and corporate law requirements of that jurisdiction. STRICKLAND'S STEAKHOUSE: Lighten Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Xavier Lighten, on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated employees v. STRICKLAND'S STEAKHOUSE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-03183 (D.N.J., March 25, 2026), is brought seeking damages for failure to comply with the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJSWHL"). The Defendant repeatedly and systemically failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to Plaintiff and other employees by unlawfully taking a tip credit for a tip pool that was shared by management, as well as failing to pay overtime when servers worked over 40 hours in a workweek, because Defendant erroneously claimed that Plaintiff and other employees earned "too much" to receive overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Server at Strickland's from January 9, 2024, until December 18, 2025. Strickland's operates a high-end steakhouse in Woodbridge, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben H. Bodzy, Esq. BODZY LAW PLLC 200 Connell Drive Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Phone: (888) 215-6060 (phone) Email: bbodzy@bodzylaw.com SYNGENTA CROP: Calanni Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Joseph Calanni and Helen Calanni, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-477 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 25, 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 Plaintiffs 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 - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 457-7728 Fax: (401) 457-7708 Email: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Causes Parkinson's Disease, Cully Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CULLY, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-416 PQT (Del. Super., March 23, 2026) is a class 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 complaint asserts that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under a products liability theory for marketing a defectively designed product, as well as for failing to adequately warn of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management, seeds, and research and development services.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Latham Sues Over Exposure to Dangerous Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Roger M. Latham and Audrea J. Latham, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-476 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 25, 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 Plaintiffs 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 - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 457-7728 Fax: (401) 457-7708 Email: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com SYNGENTA CROP: Toney Sues Over Defective Herbicide Products ----------------------------------------------------------- GUS TONEY, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-431 PQT (Del. Super., March 23, 2026) is a class 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 complaint asserts that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under a products liability theory for marketing a defectively designed product, as well as for failing to adequately warn of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management, seeds, and research and development services.[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 TAP REAL: Armstrong Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------ Tap Real Estate Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Delaware Chancery Court stayed the Armstrong derivative suit during the pendency of the shareholder lawsuit that has been dismissed. The Company was named as a defendant on July 14, 2022, in a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit filed in the Delaware Chancery Court styled Mike Armstrong, derivatively on behalf of HUMBL, Inc. v. Brian Foote, Jeffrey Hinshaw, George Sharp, Michele Rivera, and William B. Hoagland, Case No. 2022-0620, which alleges the same claims as the Pasquinelli litigation described above, seeks unspecified monetary damages, is stayed during the pendency of the shareholder lawsuit that has been dismissed, and that it is expected this case will also be dismissed. Tap Real Estate Technologies, Inc. is a technology company focused on real estate-related digital solutions and services. The company develops and operates platforms intended to streamline real estate transactions and enhance property-related financial technologies. TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Hernandez Set for Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jovanny Hernandez v. Tapestry, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07010-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Motion: Aug. 25, 2026 -- Tapestry's Opposition: Sept. 22, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs' Reply: Oct. 6, 2026 -- Class Certification Hearing: Oct. 22, 2026 -- Additional dates will be set on: Oct. 22, 2026 Tapestry is a New York-based luxury fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sYGh4O at no extra charge.[CC] TOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Court Certifies Carpenters Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Arnulfo Cabrera, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tobar Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-26-0072 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action and court-approved notice. Plaintiffs Arnulfo Cabrera, Elmer Callejas, and Yovani Gutierrez, together with eight opt-in Plaintiffs, are carpenters who worked on the construction of the Commodore John Rodgers Elementary and Middle School in Baltimore City, Maryland (the Project). They filed suit against their employers, Defendants Tobar Construction, Inc. (Tobar) and DC Construction, Inc. (DC Construction), as well as CAM Construction Co., Inc. (CAM), the general contractor on the Project, alleging that Defendants paid them far less than the required straight-time and overtime wages for their carpentry work. CAM awarded DC Construction a subcontract for concrete work, and DC Construction entered into a second-tier subcontract with Tobar for a portion of the work. According to Plaintiffs, Tobar and DC Construction operated as a single integrated enterprise, operated out of the same facility, and shared employees between them. Plaintiffs lodged claims under the FLSA (Count I); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (Count II); the Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute (Count III); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (Count IV). Maryland's prevailing wage law required Defendants to pay the carpenter rate in Baltimore City of $33.21 per hour, plus $14.03 per hour in fringe benefits, totaling $47.24 per hour. According to Plaintiffs, for the vast majority of their hours worked, Defendants paid only the common laborer rate of $20.81 plus $6.39 in hourly fringe benefits, totaling $27.20 per hour -- a difference of $20.04 per hour. For the vast majority of their overtime hours, Defendants paid Plaintiffs 1.5 times the common laborer rate rather than 1.5 times the carpenter rate. In support of the motion, Plaintiffs Callejas and Gutierrez submitted declarations stating that no one tracked the time they and their coworkers spent performing different tasks, that the same foremen supervised all carpenters on the Project, and that all carpenters worked side-by-side and faced the same problem of not getting paid the carpenter rate. Their paystubs corroborated these assertions. The Court applied the lenient two-stage certification process used in this circuit. At the first, or notice, stage, Plaintiffs need only make a relatively modest factual showing as to the existence of a common policy, scheme, or plan that violates the FLSA. The Court found that Plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing that other potential plaintiffs are similarly situated so as to warrant a collective action. Defendants did not oppose the motion. The Court approved Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Collective Action and Consent to Join Collective Action, provided in both English and Spanish, and permitted notice by mail, email, text message, and postings at Defendants' offices and the Project for a 60-day opt-in period. The Court ordered Defendants to produce, within 21 days, a computer-readable database of names, last-known mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment for all individuals employed by Tobar or DC Construction as non-exempt, non-supervisory employees engaged in construction work as a carpenter or laborer at the Project from January 9, 2023 to the present. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated March 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EKbM6F from PacerMonitor.com TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Loses Bid to Decertify Wage Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TransPerfect Translations International Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10104 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant's motion to decertify a certified class action brought under the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs, former employees of Defendant, alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the NYLL. The class -- certified on March 21, 2024 -- consists of all TransPerfect salaried employees in New York City who were paid $1,125.00 per week or less between December 31, 2018 and September 30, 2019, and who did not sign arbitration agreements. The NYLL designates workers performing executive, administrative, or professional functions as exempt from receiving overtime payments should their base salaries exceed a certain salary threshold. The salary threshold for overtime exemption for New York City employees at companies with 11 or more employees increased from $975 to $1,125 per week on December 31, 2018. Prior to this increase, Plaintiffs' salaries exceeded the $975 weekly threshold, satisfying eligibility for overtime exemption. When the threshold increased, however, Defendant did not raise the salaries of these previously exempt workers but continued to treat class members as exempt from overtime pay. One month after the filing of the lawsuit, Defendant retroactively increased the salaries of 82 class members in September 2019, though these adjustments did not include interest on adjusted salaries during the relevant period. On March 14, 2025, following completion of fact discovery, Defendant filed the instant motion to decertify the class. On November 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending denial. Defendant filed objections and Plaintiffs responded. After de novo review, the court adopted the R&R in its entirety. Defendant raised four decertification arguments. First, it argued that compensating a federally exempt employee at a rate of at least 1.5 times the state's minimum wage constitutes a defense to liability for misclassification under the NYLL, rendering class treatment inappropriate. Second and third, it argued that differences in employee positions, duties, and schedules precluded common proof sufficient for predominance. Fourth, it maintained that breaking the class into subclasses would be inappropriate because typicality and numerosity would not be satisfied. The court rejected each argument. On the first, the court found that Defendant conflates the antecedent classification decision -- whether an employee is exempt -- with the computation of overtime for non-exempt employees. The question of whether an employee is classified as exempt necessarily precedes the question of whether overtime needs to be calculated at all. An employer may not defend a claim of wrongful misclassification by pointing to a correctly calculated overtime rate, because an exempt employee does not receive overtime pay. The court further found that Defendant overstated the significance of the R&R's loophole hypothetical, which appeared only in a single footnote. Regardless of whether the hypothetical used the correct federal salary threshold, Defendant failed to properly classify Plaintiffs in the first place, and that core finding stood. On the second and third arguments, the court agreed with the R&R that any variation in duties and hours is not so large as to overcome the common proof of a uniform practice that deprived class members of overtime -- namely, Defendant's failure to pay class members the salary threshold needed to satisfy New York's administrative exemption. In the absence of proper recordkeeping, Plaintiffs are permitted to rely on an expert's analysis to establish a reasonable inference of hours worked. These arguments had already been rejected at the certification stage, and no meaningful changes arising from post-certification discovery warranted a different result. Accordingly, the court adopted the R&R in its entirety and denied Defendant's motion to decertify the class. A copy of the OPINION & ORDER dated March 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ku2Sv4 from PacerMonitor.com TU TIPICO DOMINICANO: Mena Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amaury Mena, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TU TIPICO DOMINICANO CORP., TU TIPICO RESTAURANT DOMINICANO II INC., and ROBERTO RAMIREZ, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-02450 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2026), is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the minimum wage provisions of the NYLL. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually each week, throughout his employment. Yet, in exchange for his work, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that failed to compensate him at least at the applicable minimum wage rate for each hour worked, and failed to compensate him at the statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or the minimum wage, if greater, for the hours that he worked each week in excess of forty, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-managerial dishwasher and delivery driver, from March 2024 until September 14, 2024. The Defendants are two New York corporations that together operate as a single enterprise to run two Staten Island-based restaurants, and the enterprise's owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated derivative class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Oct. 30 and Nov. 7, 2025, two purported stockholders of the Company filed derivative complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of the Company's current officers and directors (collectively, the Derivative Actions), in which the Company is named as a nominal defendant. The complaints are based on the same alleged misconduct as in the Securities Class Action and assert state law claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, as well as federal law claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On Nov. 20, 2025, the Court issued an order relating the Derivative Actions to the Securities Class Action. The Derivative Actions seek unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement and restitution, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Separately, on March 12, 2026, a purported stockholder made a demand on the Company's Board of Directors to commence a civil action against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors for breaching their fiduciary duties based on the same alleged misconduct as alleged in the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions (the Demand). At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the Derivative Actions or the Demand. Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel therapies for patients with kidney disease and related conditions. The companys lead product candidate, oxylanthanum carbonate (OLC), is being developed for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis. UNICYCIVE THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Elkhodari Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Elkhodari amended complaint on March 13, 2026. On Aug. 15, 2025, a putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Elkhodari v. Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (the Securities Class Action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company and certain current officers and/or directors of the Company as defendants. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's manufacturing of oxylanthanum carbonate (OLC) and the approval prospects of its New Drug Application for OLC for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients on dialysis in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 29, 2024, and June 27, 2025, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On Jan. 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 13, 2026, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the Securities Class Action. Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel therapies for patients with kidney disease and related conditions. The companys lead product candidate, oxylanthanum carbonate (OLC), is being developed for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis. UNIQLO USA LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uniqlo USA LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02036-JWB-JFD (D. Minn., March 25, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.uniqlo.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, loungewear, sweaters, jackets, underwear, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL: Carter Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342. The case is styled as Donna Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342, Case No. 606417/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342 -- https://local342update.com/ -- is a labor union in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com UNITED PARKS: Eastman Seeks to Seal Unredacted Class Cert Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATIANA EASTMAN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. UNITED PARKS AND RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:24-cv-01534-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order directing the Clerk to file under seal an unredacted version of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and accompanying Exhibits D, E, F, G, I, J, L, and M, and granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Accordingly, sealing the unredacted materials is necessary to protect Defendant’s confidential business information and third parties’ personal identifying information. The documents Plaintiff seeks to seal were designated as confidential by Defendant because they contain sensitive business information: Exhibit D contains August 2023 internal email communications among Defendant’s management concerning confidential business operations, including financial data, strategic planning, and customer-related considerations. Exhibit F is an internal summary prepared in connection with Defendant's corporate representative deposition and reflects non-public financial information and internal operations. Exhibit L consists of internal communications spanning May 2022 through March 2024 regarding the development and implementation of the surcharge, including strategic and operational discussions. United Parks is an American entertainment company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZYNMkm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Owens, Esq. Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com andree@scottdowens.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com USA HOME IMPROVEMENT: Milton Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Home Improvement LLC. The case is styled as Jessie Milton, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. USA Home Improvement LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-22028-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. USA Home Improvement -- https://usahomeimprovement.com/ -- specializes in hurricane windows and doors, air conditioning and roofing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com VANILLA CHIP: Gonzalez Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vanilla Chip LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-02392 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's deceptive marketing and sale of a line of nutritional supplement products sold under the "TruHeight" brand and promoted as helping children to grow. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the products to parents of children as young as five years old, representing that the products help children grow taller. Specifically, the products all state that they are for ages "5+" and use the terms "Supports Growth" and "Helps Kids Grow" or "Supports Bone Growth and Development." These representations allegedly false, misleading, and unsubstantiated, the Plaintiff says. However, the clinical study which Defendant links on its website does not demonstrate that the products increase children's growth and, when properly examined, demonstrates that the Products provide no growth benefit to the very age group for which they are marketed. In that study, children under the age of 10 who consumed no product at all experienced growth equal to or greater than children who consumed Defendant's supplement, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class paid a price premium for the products based on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions concerning the quality and characteristics of the Products and were injured as a result, the complaint asserts. Vanilla Chip LLC manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells nutritional supplements under the TruHeight brand throughout the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. FURIA LAW, LLC 880 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 830-1915 E-mail: furiap@furiafirm.com VIRGIN GALACTIC: $2.3MM Associated in Settlement Proposal --------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that a $2.3 million expense is associated with the proposed settlement of Lavin class action lawsuit. The Company is defending a putative securities class action filed on May 28, 2021 in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In September 2021, the court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021, and that a $2.3 million expense is associated with the proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is a spaceflight company focused on developing and operating commercial human spaceflight and related research services. The company aims to provide suborbital space experiences and advance space-based technologies for government, research, and private customers. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Abughazaleh Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Abughazaleh derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 13, 2023, alleged shareholder Yousef Abughazaleh filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the District of Delaware captioned Abughazaleh v. Branson et al., Case No. 23-156-MN, asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is a spaceflight company focused on developing and operating commercial human spaceflight and related research services. The company aims to provide suborbital space experiences and advance space-based technologies for government, research, and private customers. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Espinosa Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Espinosa shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On September 3, 2024, alleged shareholder Kimberly Espinosa filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Espinosa v. Branson et al., Case No. 2024-0895-JTL, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is a spaceflight company focused on developing and operating commercial human spaceflight and related research services. The company aims to provide suborbital space experiences and advance space-based technologies for government, research, and private customers. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Molnar, Tubbs Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Molnar and Tubbs derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 9, 2024, alleged shareholders Crystal Molnar and Cleveland Tubbs filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the Central District of California captioned Molnar v. Branson et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-775, asserting violations of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934 and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is a spaceflight company focused on developing and operating commercial human spaceflight and related research services. The company aims to provide suborbital space experiences and advance space-based technologies for government, research, and private customers. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company discloses that it is involved in multiple shareholder derivative actions arising from substantially similar allegations as those in the securities class action. On February 21, 2022, March 1, 2022, September 21, 2022, and July 11, 2024, four alleged shareholders filed separate derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned Spiteri v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00933 (Spiteri Action), Grenier v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01100 (Grenier Action), Laidlaw v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05634 (Laidlaw Action), and Gera v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04795 (Gera Action), respectively. On May 4, 2022, the Spiteri and Grenier Actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00933 (Consolidated Derivative Action). On September 30, 2023, the Laidlaw Action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action. On September 12, 2024, the Gera Action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action. Collectively, these complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934 and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment, and they seek an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys' fees and other equitable relief. The parties are currently exploring a potential resolution of the Consolidated Derivative. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is a spaceflight company focused on developing and operating commercial human spaceflight and related research services. The company aims to provide suborbital space experiences and advance space-based technologies for government, research, and private customers. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Jennings Sues Over Emission of Noxious Odors -------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA JENNINGS, KATHERINE SCOTT, and MATTHEW ROTUNNO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW JERSEY, INC. d/b/a WASTE MANAGEMENT, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03132-GC-TJB (D.N.J., March 24, 2026) alleges that the Defendant created a foreseeable risk of harm and caused an unreasonable invasion of the Plaintiffs' and Class' properties by noxious odors. Waste Management of New Jersey leases, operates, and maintains the Monmouth County Reclamation Center landfill located in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. Through its operation and maintenance of the Landfill, the Defendant has released, and continues to release overwhelming and widespread noxious odors that invade Plaintiffs' residential properties, and similarly situated residential properties, causing property damages through private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence, says the suit. The complaint asserts that the Defendant breached its duties by negligently and improperly maintaining and operating the Landfill. By failing to properly maintain and operate its Landfill, the Defendant failed to exercise the duty of ordinary care and diligence. Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware, registered to do business in New Jersey and identified through public sources as the lessee, operator, and/or entity exercising control over the landfill.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq. COHEN & RIECHELSON 3500 Quakerbridge Road, Suite 203 Hamilton, NJ 08619 Telephone: (609) 394-8585 Facsimile: (609) 394-8620 E-mail: KRiechelson@crlawoffices.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: sliddle@lsclassaction.com lsheets@lsclassaction.com mrobb@lsclassaction.com WEST SHORE: Seawood Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dontrell Seawood, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WEST SHORE HOME, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00769-KMN (M.D. Pa., March 25, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees were entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately October 2025 to March 2026 with the job title of bathroom installer. The Defendant is a company that provides home renovation and remodeling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48375 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com ********* 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 ***