260408.mbx

260408.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 8, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 70 Headlines 2ND CHANCE: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, McClain Says 3M COMPANY: Erie Regional Sues Over Environmental Contamination 3M COMPANY: Tinker Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ADAMS COMMUNITY: McGuire FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Mississippi ADJHA NY&CO: Paolone Sues Over Website's Deceptive Retail Prices AEROTEK INC: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due May 29 AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Partial Dismissal in Garner Wiretapping Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Front Drive Axles ANTHEM BLUE: McGowan Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices ASHYANA BANQUETS: Relwani Seeks Catering Managers' Unpaid Overtime ASPINAL OF LONDON: Nonato Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ATLANTICARE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stavoli Alleges AWP INC: McGuirk Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Driver Protectors BANK OF NEW YORK: Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit BELL AMBULANCE: Flowers Sues Over Unprotected Private Information BIGGS AND FEATHERBELLE: Knowles Sues Over Website's Access Barriers BLUE ECHO: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOULEVARD LABS: Herwick Sues Over Private Information Disclosure CALIFORNIA: Appeals Remand Order in Thakkar ADA Suit to 9th Circuit CENTRAL FLORIDA: Obtains Electronic Data Without Consent, Suit Says CHAIRISH INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Processing Fees CHUBBY CATTLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Song Alleges CJ FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goff and Talley Suit Alleges CLEARWAY ENERGY: New England Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties CONSUMER SAFETY: Fails to Properly Secure IT Network, Praznik Says COTY INC: Srinivasan Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price CRAFTMIX INC: Proxmire Sues Over Drink Mix Products' False Labels D'IORIO LANDSCAPING: Faces Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DEACONESS HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Thompson Says DEHUMIDIFIED AIR: McVay Seeks Field Service Technicians' Unpaid OT ELON MUSK: Must Face Class Action Over Twitter Stake, Judge Rules FAMILY FOOTWEAR: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wilson Says FINANCE OF AMERICA: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Howard Alleges FLASH CHARM: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Powell Says GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Agrees to Settle Benzene Suit for $990,000 GEMMA POWER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walker Alleges GEORGIA: Swanson Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir. GINGER HEALTH: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOYARD ECOM: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Towns Suit Alleges HELPING HANDS: Underpays Direct Support Professionals, Price Says HERITAGE BANK: Holmes Files Suit in W.D. Washington HIGHTOWER HOLDING: Young Files Suit in N.D. Illinois HUDSON VALLEY: Vaughn Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind INK 477: Petersen Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 11th Cir. INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tax Refund Advance Loans INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Gonzales Sues Over Private Data Breach JEBEDIAH S. CHRISTY: Leka Files FDCPA Suit in Mass. Sup. Ct. JELLY BELLY CANDY: Love Suit Removed to E.D. California KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Protect Private Information, Perez Says KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Prus Alleges KENTMERE REHABILITATION: Dunne Files Suit for Negligence LASKO PRODUCTS: Sells Heaters Without Thermostats, Mercado Claims LINUS TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Drop Case Over Labeling Claims MELISSA DATA: Aufrichtig Suit Removed to D. Colorado MILL AT JANIE'S: Vaughn Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MILTNER'S SHOES: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Tinney Says NATIONAL DEBT: Sends Unsolicited Commercial Emails, Garcia Claims NAVIA BENEFIT: Faces Fisher Suit Over Private Data Breach NEP GROUP INC: Lampert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NERDWALLET COMPARE: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California NESTER HOSIERY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Knowles Alleges NEWREZ LLC: Tuttle Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 4th Circuit NEWTON COUNTY, GA: McCarthy Seeks School Resource Officers' Wages PACIFIC BELL: Hernandez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit PACKAGING CORP: Castillo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. PATELCO CREDIT: $7.25MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set July 1 PHARMACY FAMILIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zinner Alleges PINTEREST INC: Uziel Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices POWERFUL CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Taylor Alleges PREMIUM BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Hidden Processing Fees R.J. REYNOLDS: Bell Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 9th Circuit REACTHINK CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Dilone Suit Says REIMAGINED PARKING: McGinity Suit Removed to N.D. California RETAIL MERCHANDISING: Rathke Files Suit in D. Minnesota ROLAND CENTER: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. S&S SPRAYERS LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SKIN LAUNDRY HOLDINGS: Adu Suit Removed to N.D. California STA MANAGEMENT: Appeals Court Order to Michigan Ct. of Appeals STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia STRYKER CORP: Fredrickson Sues Over Data Security Failures SUPERGOOP LLC: Dunning Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Chemicals, Syma Says SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Chemicals, Wright Says TARGET CORP: McElerath-Bey Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. TENNESSEE: Shoemaker Sues Over Digital Property Confiscation Policy TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRINITY HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jackson Alleges TRINITY HEALTH: Pabon Files Suit Over Data Breach UG2 LLC: Guillen Suit Removed to N.D. California UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks Pilot Examiners' Procedural Due Process UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trinity Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. VANCO PAYMENT: Helmold Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois WALLPAPER BOULEVARD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says WATKINS WELLNESS: Strong Files Suit Over Defective Hot Tub Products WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Scurry Suit Removed to W.D. Washington YALE NEW: Williams Sues Over Data Privacy Violations YBL RESTAURANT GROUP: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YOUNG'S MARKET: Gomez Suit Removed to E.D. California ZSG CO: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ********* 2ND CHANCE: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, McClain Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL MCCLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2ND CHANCE SOLUTIONS, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11419-LTS (D. Mass., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted calls to the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including invasion of privacy, intrusion into daily life, and private nuisance. 2nd Chance Solutions, Limited is a home improvement, renovations, and logistics company based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Erie Regional Sues Over Environmental Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Erie Regional Airport Authority, and others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHEMOURS FC; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT, INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; DYNEON LLC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE ANSUL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; WILLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL; Case No. 2:26-cv-01327-RMG (D.S.C., March 30, 2026), is brought against Defendants, jointly and severally, to recover compensatory, consequential and punitive damages for the investigation, monitoring, remediation, removal, disposal and economic costs related to the wanton continuing trespass, nuisance, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and strict liability for environmental and economic injuries contamination and unlawful incursion onto the Plaintiff's property, land, surface, surface water, groundwater, surface and subsurface soil, sediment, natural resources caused by Defendants' fluorinated Class-B firefighting foams, known as Aqueous Film Forming Foams products and/or component products, manufactured with synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams that contains Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and/or Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") (including any of their salt, ionic or acid forms and their precursors or degradation products) manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants for civilian, military and training applications worldwide. In this complaint, the term per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") refers to a family of synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not limited to: PFOA, PFOS, Perfluorohexanoic Acid ("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic Acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"), Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS"). The Defendants knew or should have known that airports and military operations at airports were heavy users of AFFF, and as such, with said uses of AFFF resulting in pollution of environmental media with AFFFs and the component compounds, chemicals, and toxins of AFFFs. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages under various causes of action against Defendants. Because the Defendants knowingly placed defective and dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the stream of commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for causing the release of toxic PFAS compounds onto Plaintiff's lands and its surface and subsurface soil. Defendants did not act to remove AFFF from the stream of commerce. Because Defendants negligently caused release of toxic PFAS compounds onto Plaintiff's lands and its surface and subsurface soil, they are jointly and severally liable. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and/or consequential damages for all past and future costs to investigate, remediate, remove, dispose of, and monitor PFAS contamination on the Erie Airport, surface and groundwater caused by the use of Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS on the Erie Airport property, as well as reasonable attorney's fees as this suit was brought in the public interest, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns the Erie International Airport and the land upon which the Airport operates and has overall administrative, development, and operational responsibility for the Erie Airport. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Frazer III T. Roe Frazer II J. Grant LaBar John Michael Allen Jacob A. Schmidt R. Prescott Sifton, Jr. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Boulevard, Suite 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 647-6464 Fax: (615) 307-4902 Email: Trey@frazer.law Roe@frazer.law Grant@frazer.law Mac@frazer.law Jacob@frazer.law Scott@frazer.law - and - Bryan G. Baumann, Esq. KNOX MCLAUGHLIN GORNALL & SENNETT, P.C. TOOHEY, P.C. 120 West 10th Street Erie, PA 16501-1410 Phone: (814) 459-2800 Email: bbaumann@kmgslaw.com 3M COMPANY: Tinker Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Herman Tinker, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2026-900851.00. was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00524-NAD. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert claims against all Defendants, including 3M, for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability (statutory), strict liability (Restatement), fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com ADAMS COMMUNITY: McGuire FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Delandria McGuire, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Adams Community Care Center, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00127 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on March 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00046-DMB-DAS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Adams Community Care Center, LLC -- https://adamsrehab.com/ -- offer short-term rehabilitation, 24-hour nursing care and the Adams Heritage Outpatient Rehabilitation Clinic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Phone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Robin Banck Taylor, Esq. Blythe K. Lollar, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 985-4496 Fax: (601) 985-4500 Email: robin.taylor@butlersnow.com blythe.lollar@butlersnow.com ADJHA NY&CO: Paolone Sues Over Website's Deceptive Retail Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARISA PAOLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADJHA NY&CO. LLC and NYCO IP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03142 (C.D. Cal., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading pricing practices in connection with the sale of their clothing products on the website, https://www.nyandcompany.com/. According to the complaint, the Defendants advertise fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products. ADJHA NY&Co. LLC is a clothing retailer, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. NYCO IP LLC is a clothing retailer, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Salik, Esq. CARTER ARNETT PLLC 111 Pier Ave., Suite 101 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (214) 550-8188 Facsimile: (214) 550-8185 Email: osalik@carterarnett.com AEROTEK INC: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerotek, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elsa Paniagua Alvarado, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aerotek, Inc., Mary Ann's Baking Co., Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV007868 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Aerotek Inc. -- https://www.aerotek.com/en -- provides staffing and services solutions in manufacturing, logistics, construction, aviation, facilities and maintenance.[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 ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due May 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Aldeyra Therapeutics ("Aldeyra" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ALDX) securities during the period of November 3, 2023 through March 16, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Aldeyra investments, you have until May 29, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/aldeyra-therapeutics What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that Aldeyra failed to disclose that (1) the results of the reproxalap (an Aldeyra drug candidate) clinical trials were inconsistent; and (2) the inconsistency of the results rendered any purported positive findings from these trials unreliable and not meaningful. On March 17, 2026, the Company filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K, announcing receipt of a Complete Response Letter from the FDA, stating that there is "a lack of substantial evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations . . . that the drug product will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its proposed labeling" and that "the application has failed to demonstrate efficacy in adequate and well controlled studies in the treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease." The Complete Response Letter also stated that the "inconsistency of study results raises serious concerns about the reliability and meaningfulness of the positive findings" and that "the totality of evidence from the completed clinical trials does not support the effectiveness of the product." On this news, the price of Aldeyra shares declined by $2.99 per share, or approximately 71%, from $4.23 per share on March 16, 2026 to close at $1.24 on March 17, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aldeyra securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP Tel: (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Partial Dismissal in Garner Wiretapping Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Merrill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge on Tuesday, March 31, trimmed a class action accusing Amazon of misleading users about Alexa recordings, but allowed certain wiretap claims to proceed. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik, a Bill Clinton appointee, dismissed claims brought under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and wiretap claims from three plaintiffs. But, he allowed wiretap claims brought under Florida and Maryland to proceed, along with federal wiretap claims related to "false wakes" of Alexa devices. Alexa, the online retail giant's virtual assistant, is available on a variety of devices that can perform tasks like setting timers, changing music or controlling smart home functions and activates when it detects a "wake word" from users, such as the name "Alexa." In 2021, a group of people with Alexa devices in their homes sued Amazon, accusing the company of deceptively failing to disclose that Alexa-enabled devices are susceptible to "false wakes" and record short bits of audio just before a wake word is spoken. They claim Amazon retains the snippets of audio even after confirming it wasn't meant for Alexa and sometimes denies requests to delete the recordings. However, Lasnik found the company was more forthcoming than the plaintiffs had characterized and dropped the claims brought under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs pointed to evidence suggesting Alexa devices have encountered false wakes hundreds of millions of times since the devices were introduced. Lasnik said it was "not clear where the deception lies," as the company has disclosed how and why the false wakes occur, such as in households that include people who happen to be named Alexa or drive a Lexus. The company also disclosed that audio would be streamed and recorded when a wake word is detected, including audio from a few seconds before the wake word. "Again, there can be no deception when the applicable disclosures do not conceal but instead contemplate the very practice of which plaintiffs complain," Lasnik wrote. The plaintiffs also accused Amazon of hiding the fact it retains and reviews false wake data and that human reviewers may be involved. Lasnik once more found that the company's frequently asked questions page has clearly disclosed the data retention since at least 2019. The judge also found the company clearly and repeatedly disclosed that it retained the data and used it to improve its services. "The 'services' that might benefit from use of the retained Alexa data were not limited in any way other than that they belong to or are offered by Amazon," Lasnik wrote. "Plaintiffs offer no theory or explanation for their bald assertion that Amazon's disclosures regarding what it did with the Alexa data was deceptive." Lasnik determined that the only potentially deceptive conduct in the case involves how Amazon retains and deletes false wake data. However, Amazon provided evidence that none of the false wake recordings associated with the plaintiffs' accounts were reviewed by humans and none of the plaintiffs requested that the company delete their Alexa recordings. Lasnik dismissed wiretap claims from three of the plaintiffs -- finding they registered the devices themselves and had agreed to Amazon's terms -- but allowed wiretap claims from plaintiffs who had not registered the devices themselves but lived in a household with a device to continue under the laws of their own states. Additionally, Lasnik allowed the non-registrant plaintiffs' federal wiretap claims to move forward. Federal wiretap law blocks the interception of any spoken communication and the disclosure of those intercepted communications. Amazon argued that false wake recordings don't violate the federal wiretap law because the interception isn't intentional and argued the plaintiffs lack a reasonable expectation that their communications wouldn't be intercepted. Lasnik found it raised questions better left for a jury. "Whether such interceptions are intentional and whether the non-registrants should have known prior to filing this lawsuit that having an Alexa device in their homes meant their conversations were subject to interception will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the fact finder," Lasnik wrote. Neither Amazon nor the plaintiffs responded to a request for comment before press time. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Front Drive Axles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co. Inc. Why: They claim Honda sold Prologue electric vehicles with defective front drive axles that pose a safety risk. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Honda of knowingly selling Prologue electric vehicles with defective front drive axles that pose a safety risk. Plaintiffs Ashley Custer and Jorge Santiago claim the front drive axles in the 2024-2026 Honda Prologue EVs contain a defect that causes impaired propulsion, steering response and drivability, especially during turning or low-speed operation. "Progressive axle deterioration leads to impaired propulsion, steering response, and drivability, particularly during turning or low-speed operation and is a serious safety concern," the Honda class action lawsuit says. Custer and Santiago want to represent a nationwide class and New York and Pennsylvania subclasses of consumers who bought or leased a 2024-2026 Honda Prologue EV. The pair claim Honda is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach of express and implied warranty, and violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Pennsylvania Lemon Law. Custer and Santiago demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, incidental and consequential damages for themselves and all class members. Honda failed to disclose Prologue defect, class action claims Custer and Santiago claim Honda failed to disclose the Honda Prologue defect to consumers, despite allegedly being aware of it through pre-production testing, consumer complaints and reports from dealerships. The plaintiffs argue Honda's failure to provide a permanent fix for the defect under its warranty constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and express warranty, as well as a violation of the Pennsylvania Lemon Law. Custer and Santiago claim Honda has only offered to replace the defective drive axles with equally defective components, which they argue is merely a temporary solution that does not address the underlying issue. The plaintiffs argue Honda's conduct has resulted in financial harm to consumers, who they claim would not have purchased the vehicles or would have paid significantly less if they had known about the defect. In another Honda lawsuit, the company is accused of selling vehicles with defective turbocharged engines that are prone to overheating, head gasket failure and other problems. Custer and Santiago are represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC. The Honda class action lawsuit is Custer, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01330-KSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] ANTHEM BLUE: McGowan Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER McGOWAN and KAREN MURPHY-ACOSTA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01094-TLN-SCR (E.D. Cal., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its misrepresentations, misstatements, and omissions of its supposedly robust behavioral health provider network and the behavioral health benefits purportedly available to those, like Plaintiffs, who enrolled in Defendant's health insurance and have used Defendant's insurance services. Plaintiff Heather McGowan is a resident of Sacramento County, California. Ms. McGowan, her husband, and their children are enrolled in Anthem's PPO Prudent Buyer Classic plan. Plaintiff Karen Murphy-Acosta is a resident of Orange County, California. She and her daughter were members of the PERS Gold PPO plan from May 12, 2022 to December 31, 2024. The Plaintiffs' insurance policies claim to cover behavioral health care with a robust network of available behavioral health providers made available by Defendant. In reality, that network is threadbare: there are very few behavioral health providers in California who actually take the insurance, are in-network, and accept new patients. Thus, the promised coverage is largely non-existent. The failure by an insurance company or health care service plan to have an adequate network to meet members' needs is itself a violation of federal and state network adequacy laws, says the suit. The complaint alleges that the Defendant engages in deceptive business practices by knowingly publishing an inaccurate and misleading provider directory. It does so for several reasons: 1) a robust provider network is attractive to potential customers; 2) a seemingly robust directory of providers gives Defendant the appearance of compliance with state and federal network adequacy laws (without the costs associated with creating and maintaining an adequate network and accurate directory); and 3) when members forego care after a time-consuming and frustrating provider search, Defendant does not have to pay for the care they would have received. By publishing a provider directory in which the vast majority of providers do not exist, no longer practice, are not actually in-network with Defendant, are not accepting new patients, and/or have other inaccurate information listed, the Defendant actively harms its members, asserts the complaint. When Defendant misrepresents its network, members like Plaintiffs pay inflated premiums for an insurance plan that does not actually offer an adequate provider network to meet their needs. Many members, like Plaintiffs, have no choice but to utilize out-of-network doctors, incurring thousands of dollars in expenses, it adds. Pursuant to the California Civil Code, Plaintiffs and Class members seek an injunction to bar Defendant from continuing its deceptive practices, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs also seek damages for Defendant's violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Defendant Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company is a stock corporation registered to do business in California. It provides administrative services to members of the CalPERS Gold PPO plan (the "PERS Gold plan") and the California's Valued Trust PPO Prudent Buyer Classic plan (the "CVT Prudent Buyer plan") but does not function as the health insurance provider of those plans because they are self-funded, meaning the entities providing the insurance--CalPERS and California's Valued Trust--are themselves the insurers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 E-mail: Scohen@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 335-2965 E-mail: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com ASHYANA BANQUETS: Relwani Seeks Catering Managers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAKSH RELWANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASHYANA BANQUETS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03269 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was initially employed by the Defendant as a junior catering manager on or about May 7, 2023, until his promotion to senior catering manager, a position Plaintiff held until his unlawful constructive discharge on or about August 25, 2025. Ashyana Banquets, LLC is a catering and events company based in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. Chasidy K. Clark, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Email: ceisenback@atlaslawcenter.com nvolheim@atlaslawcenter.com cclark@atlaslawcenter.com ASPINAL OF LONDON: Nonato Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASPINAL OF LONDON USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03271 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.aspinaloflondon.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Aspinal of London USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ATLANTICARE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stavoli Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Stavoli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02965 (D.N.J., March 23, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Stavoli was employed by the Defendant as a registered nurse. AtlantiCare Health System Inc. provides non profit community health care services. The Company manages a network of hospitals, clinics, and physicians. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com mclark@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com AWP INC: McGuirk Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Driver Protectors ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MCGUIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AWP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00387-EAS-SCS (S.D. Ohio, March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a driver protector in Columbus, Ohio. AWP, Inc. is a traffic control company, doing business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. Kevin A. Nickel, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlega.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com knickel@mcoffmanlegal.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-8525, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, negligent failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent physical harm, and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing non-routine banking. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted on Jan. 29, 2026. On Feb. 11, 2026, the Court reaffirms its Jan. 29 Order. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Doe v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Case No. 26-703, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: David Boies, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Defendant-Appellee THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION is represented by: Christopher Bouchoux, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 - and - Brittany R. Warren, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 - and - Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 BELL AMBULANCE: Flowers Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGEMAN FLOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELL AMBULANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00427 (E.D. Wis., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, and/or health insurance information Despite Bell's duty to safeguard the private information of its current and previous patients, and/or their family members, the Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about February 13, 2025. Despite learning of the breach in February 2025, Bell did not provide written notification to Plaintiff regarding the unauthorized access until March 2026, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. The Plaintiff further seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the data breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Bell Ambulance, Inc. is provides emergency and non-emergency medical transportation and related emergency medical services, including ambulance and paramedic services, operating primarily in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com BIGGS AND FEATHERBELLE: Knowles Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIGGS AND FEATHERBELLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02369 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.biggsandfeather.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Biggs and Featherbelle, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BLUE ECHO: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE ECHO CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02213 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.blueechocare.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving the blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Blue Echo Care LLC owns and operates the commercial website which offers health products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BOULEVARD LABS: Herwick Sues Over Private Information Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL HERWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOULEVARD LABS, INC. and THE SKIN AGENCY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02855 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2026) arises from the unwanted disclosure of Plaintiff's and other web visitors' private personal and health information. The Plaintiff and the Class Members used the Boulevard Labs' scheduling software and had their personal sensitive health information tracked by Defendants using the Tracking Tools. However, the Defendants never obtained authorization from Plaintiff or Class Members to share their sensitive health information with third parties. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff and Class Members gave no informed consent for information about their sensitive health information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of user information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and asserts the following statutory and common law claims against Defendants: Invasion of Privacy; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Boulevard Labs, Inc. is a software company providing practice management software to over 6,000 providers across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - Jordan Underhill, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 E-mail: junderhill@sirillp.com CALIFORNIA: Appeals Remand Order in Thakkar ADA Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIKITA JULIA KOKHNENKO is taking an appeal from a court order denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis in the lawsuit entitled Ushakant Thakkar, Trustee of the Thakkar Restated Revocable Family Trust Dated November 27, 1991, and in his individual capacity, Plaintiff, v. Nikita Julia Kokhnenko, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12353-CV-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Dec. 30, 2025, Defendant Nikita Julia Kokhnenko filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, which Judge Cynthia Valenzuela denied on Feb. 19, 2026. The action is remanded to Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate case is styled as Thakkar v. Kokhnenko, et al., Case No. 26-1940, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 11, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee USHAKANT THAKKAR, Trustee of the Thakkar Restated Revocable Family Trust Dated November 27, 1991, and in his individual capacity, is represented by: Heidi Marie Wyckoff, Esq. ZELMS ERLICH AND MACK 20920 Warner Center Ln., Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 368-9002 Defendant-Appellant NIKITA JULIA KOKHNENKO appears pro se. CENTRAL FLORIDA: Obtains Electronic Data Without Consent, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSARI MOHAMAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL FLORIDA TAX AND ACCOUNTING, INC. and ANEES AHMAD TANOLI, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00688 (M.D. Fla., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Stored Communications Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged procurement, direction, authorization, and ratification of unauthorized access to the Plaintiff's electronic communications and tax-related electronic data. According to the complaint, the Defendants used a forensic examination and credential-based access to obtain electronic communications and federal tax return information belonging to the Plaintiff, a non-party to the underlying state court litigation styled as Mohamad v. Lawgical Insight, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-02354-JSS-LHP, without authorization. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages, suit says. Central Florida Tax and Accounting, Inc. is a provider of audit, tax, financial advisory, and business management services in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Brian Phillips, Esq. J. BRIAN PHILLIPS, PA 37 North Orange Avenue, Ste. 222 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 493-7183 Email: jason@jbrianphillipsesq.com celina.reis@jbrianphillipsesq.com CHAIRISH INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Processing Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Camille Broome filed a class action lawsuit against Chairish Inc. Why: Broome claims Chairish adds hidden processing fees to the final cost of its products at checkout. Where: The Chairish class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Chairish of adding hidden processing fees to the final cost of its products at checkout. Plaintiff Camille Broome filed the class action complaint against Chairish on Feb. 5 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Chairish charges online shoppers an undisclosed processing fee in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which constitutes hidden fees. The complaint alleges that when consumers visit the website and select an item for purchase, they are not shown the total cost upfront. Instead, they are quoted an artificially low price that excludes all hidden fees, only to have a hidden "processing fee" added after they have clicked through various screens required to make a purchase, Broome says. To make matters worse, the fee is affirmatively disclosed for the first and only time on the final "place order" screen, after consumers have input all their shipping and credit card information, the lawsuit says. Chairish 'swindling' customers with hidden fees, lawsuit alleges Broome claims this "cheap trick" has enabled Chairish to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers through hidden fees. The complaint compares the practice to a brick-and-mortar store advertising an item for a certain price, only to add a hidden fee at the checkout counter. Broome says that if consumers noticed a hidden fee after reaching the final stage of checkout, they would be reasonably outraged. The class action lawsuit claims that Chairish's practice is known as "drip pricing," in which businesses advertise products at artificially low prices and then disclose additional charges later in the buying process. In 2024, the California legislature amended the Consumers Legal Remedies Act to directly prohibit drip pricing, making it unlawful to advertise a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges, except for taxes or shipping, the lawsuit says. Broome is looking to represent anyone who purchased items on Chairish's website on or after Feb. 5, 2023. She is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws and is seeking certification of the Chairish class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In a similar class action lawsuit, consumers accuse MyPillow Inc. of advertising false discounts on its products and then charging a hidden "shipping protection" fee. The plaintiff is represented by Stefan Bogdanovich of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Chairish class action lawsuit is Broome v. Chairish Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01144, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] CHUBBY CATTLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Song Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ SAMUEL SONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHUBBY CATTLE THE INTERLOCK ATLANTA LLC; and CHUBBY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01555-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 23, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Song was employed by the Defendants as a server. Chubby Cattle The Interlock Atlanta LLC is a hot pot and Japanese barbecue restaurant with set menus. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Joseph Quattlebaum, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 Email: chall@hallandlampros.com joseph@hallandlampros.com CJ FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goff and Talley Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESEAN GOFF and MAX WELLBROCK-TALLEY, on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CJ FOODS USA, INC., SCHWAN'S SHARED SERVICES, LLC, SCHWAN'S COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00291-UNA (D. Del., March 17, 2026) challenges policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, and the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The donning and doffing of sanitary clothing and other protective equipment by Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees is an intrinsic element of their activities. However, they were not paid for their pre and post-shift donning and doffing and/or donning and doffing during bona fide meal breaks. In addition, they were not paid for time spent in mandatory pre-shift meetings, says the suit. Headquartered in La Palma, CA, CJ Foods USA, Inc. manufactures and distributes Asian food products in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com CLEARWAY ENERGY: New England Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Clearway Energy, Inc., Plaintiff v. CLEARWAY ENERGY, INC., CLEARWAY ENERGY GROUP LLC, JONATHAN BRAM, CRAIG CORNELIUS, NATHANIEL ANSCHUETZ, OLIVIER JOUNY, MARC-ANTOINE PIGNON, BRUCE MACLENNAN, PAIGE GOODWIN, BRIAN R. FORD, JENNIFER LOWRY, DANIEL B. MORE, and STANLEY O'NEAL, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0427 (Del. Ch., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of duty. According to the complaint the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff and the Class by, among other things, causing the Board to agree to Clearway Energy's proposed reclassification of its Class A shares into Class C shares ("Proposed Reclassification"), which will allow Clearway Energy Group to unfairly perpetuate its control of Clearway, while allowing CEG to realize massive liquidity. As a result, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been harmed and will continue to be harmed by the Proposed Reclassification through which they will lose the potential opportunity to influence the management decisions of Clearway on an ongoing, long-term basis, and the value of their investments in Clearway will be diminished. Clearway Energy, Inc. is a renewable energy provider, headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. Clearway Energy Group LLC is a clean energy company, headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com - and - Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey Gorris, Esq. Christopher M. Foulds, Esq. Matthew D. Venuti, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS PA 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 Email: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com jgorris@friedlandergorris.com cfoulds@friedlandergorris.com mvenuti@friedlandergorris.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. Tae Kyung (TK) Yang, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 CONSUMER SAFETY: Fails to Properly Secure IT Network, Praznik Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRADLEY PRAZNIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a INTOXALOCK, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00131-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, March 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure its IT Network and failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures -- such as encryption, multi-factor authentication, or timely software patches -- which allowed unauthorized third parties to cause service disruptions to Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that as a condition of obtaining services with Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their sensitive and confidential personal information and pay for services. The Defendant made promises and representations to individuals', including Plaintiff and Class Members, that it maintained adequate security processes and procedures to guard its IT Network from unauthorized access. On March 14, 2026, Defendant experienced an incident. As a result of the Incident, installations, calibrations, account access, and other court-ordered services of Defendant were disrupted. This has resulted in many customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, from being able to provide a negative alcohol breath sample in order start their vehicles. As a result of the Incident, Plaintiff and Class Members vehicles became inoperable, creating substantial harm to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: loss of property, use of their vehicles, and lost wages, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons impacted as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect its IT Network from unauthorized access; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Incident. Defendant's conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal and state statutes. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff Bradley Praznik is a customer of Defendant, and a victim of the Incident. Defendant Consumer Safety Technology, LLC d/b/a Intoxalock is a provider of ignition interlock devices ("IIDs") or car breathalyzers, helping individuals with DUI/OWI convictions resume driving safely. Defendant's devices measure breath alcohol concentration ("BrAC") and prevent cars from starting if a driver has been drinking, meeting state requirements in 46 states with over 100,000 users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com E-mail: marty@sagwlaw.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com COTY INC: Srinivasan Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- SUVEGA SRINIVASAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COTY INC.; SUE NABI; and LAURENT MERCIER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02343 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Coty common stock between November 5, 2025, to February 4, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, after the market closed on February 4 and 5, 2026, Coty announced its financial results for the second quarter fiscal year 2026, unveiling disappointing earnings results with worsening performance in the Consumer Beauty segment. The Company also noted the recent transition of its Chief Executive Officer in conjunction with the below-expectation results. Coty further withdrew its fiscal year 2026 guidance for EBITDA and revised the Company's near-term outlook downward. Coty attributed its results and lowered guidance to a combination of macroeconomic factors including rising costs and uncertain consumer demand and lack of "operational discipline" in both Prestige and Consumer Beauty segments. The price of Coty's common stock declined from a closing market price of $3.43 per share on February 4, 2026, to $2.66 per share on February 6, 2026, a decline of about 22%, says the suit. Coty Inc. manufactures and distributes beauty products. The Company offers fragrances, color cosmetics, hygiene, sun care, and skin treatment products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com CRAFTMIX INC: Proxmire Sues Over Drink Mix Products' False Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELLA PROXMIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRAFTMIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01874-RBM-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unfair competition, false advertising, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, breach of consumer protection statutes, unjust enrichment, and violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a line of drink mix products. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the products as "All Natural." In reality, the products contain a number of artificial ingredients, including citric acid. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them. Craftmix, Inc. is a beverage company, with its principal place of business in Marina Del Rey, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel H. Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com D'IORIO LANDSCAPING: Faces Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- OMAR MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'IORIO LANDSCAPING CORP. and DANIEL D'IORIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01868 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a landscape laborer from in or about 2022 until January 2026. D'Iorio Landscaping Corp. is a landscaping services, with its principal place of business located in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com DEACONESS HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Thompson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JANE WHITE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEACONESS HEALTH SYSTEM INC. and MEDICOPY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00579-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., March 24, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former patients of Defendants. The Private Information provided by Plaintiff and Class Members includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and medical information. In collecting and maintaining Private Information, Defendants agreed they would safeguard the data in accordance with their internal policies, state law, and federal law. However, the Defendants lost control over that data when the cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendants' insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on February 2, 2026, resulting in cybercriminals having unfettered access and the exfiltration of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private information. On March 6, 2026, Defendant Deaconess posted on their website a Notice of Data Incident. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have not sent out individualized notice letters to the victims of the Data Breach. Defendants' delay in informing and failure to provide clear notice of the Data Breach even though Plaintiff and Class Members had their most sensitive information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, caused Plaintiff and Class Members to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) statutory damages; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendants' possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Private Information. Through this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Jane White Thompson is a former patient of Defendant Deaconess. Defendant Deaconess Health System was founded in 1982 and is a provider of health care services to more than 1.5 million individuals in southwestern Indiana, western Kentucky, and southeastern Illinois. Defendant MediCopy Services, Inc. is a health information management company based out of Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com DEHUMIDIFIED AIR: McVay Seeks Field Service Technicians' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER MCVAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEHUMIDIFIED AIR SOLUTIONS CORPORATION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00757 (M.D. Pa., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay all wages due in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field service technician from October 2025. Dehumidified Air Solutions Corporation LLC is a manufacturer of indoor pool dehumidification systems based in Montreal, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manali Arora, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 995-2733 ELON MUSK: Must Face Class Action Over Twitter Stake, Judge Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that a federal judge on Tuesday, March 31, said former Twitter investors who accused Elon Musk of defrauding them by waiting too long to disclose his initial investment in the social media company may pursue their case as a class action. The decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter in Manhattan exposes the world's richest person to potentially greater damages than if investors were forced to sue individually. Lawyers for Musk did not immediately ⁠respond to requests for comment. Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in October 2022 and renamed it X. Investors led by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System said Musk ignored a March 24, 2022 deadline set by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules to reveal he owned 5% of Twitter shares, and waited 11 more days before disclosing a 9.2% stake. The investors said Musk saved more than $200 million, and cheated them because they sold Twitter shares at depressed prices during the 11-day period. Investors said they relied on two March 26, 2022, tweets, where Musk said he was "giving serious thought" ⁠to creating a Twitter rival, and said "Haha that would be sickkk" after someone suggested he buy Twitter and change its bird logo to a doge image. In opposing class certification, Musk said investors could not prove they relied on his alleged fraud. But the judge said Musk did not overcome the presumption that his alleged ⁠misrepresentations affected Twitter's share price, and that the investors relied on his silence. Carter also said the inability to measure damages classwide did not mean a class could not be certified. The case is separate from a lawsuit ⁠in San Francisco federal court, where a jury found Musk liable on March 20 for trying to drive the takeover price down by questioning whether Twitter was overrun by fake and spam ⁠accounts, or bots. Damages have yet to be determined. Musk is expected to appeal. The SEC also sued Musk over his disclosure of his 5% Twitter stake. Both sides disclosed on March 17 that settlement talks were ongoing. [GN] FAMILY FOOTWEAR: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wilson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY FOOTWEAR CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03466 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.familyfootwearcenter.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Family Footwear Center, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FINANCE OF AMERICA: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Howard Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA HOWARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCE OF AMERICA HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a FINANCE OF AMERICA REVERSE LLC d/b/a FINANCE OF AMERICA COMPANIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00298-RWS (E.D. Tex., March 25, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant receives and maintains the highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") of thousands of its consumers. In collecting and maintaining the PII, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. However, on October 20, 2026, the Defendant was hacked. The cybercriminals that obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII appear to be the notorious cybercriminal group "WorldLeaks". Because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII were compromised: a. Name; b. Date of birth; c. Social Security number; d. Driver's license number; and e. Financial information. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. The size of the putative Class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. And upon information and belief, the putative Class is over one hundred members -- as it includes its consumers. And yet, Defendant failed to notify the class. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured by Defendant's Data Breach. The Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft which violates her rights to privacy. Plaintiff Yolanda Howard is a citizen of Galt, California and is a Data Breach victim. She has been a customer of Defendant since 2022 and remains so to date. Defendant Finance of America Holdings LLC d/b/a Finance of America Reverse LLC d/b/a Finance of America Companies Inc. is a reverse mortgage lender that specializes in providing financial products to retired adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com FLASH CHARM: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Powell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLASH CHARM, INC. d/b/a IDERA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00698 (W.D. Tex., March 24, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have entrusted Defendant with their sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII1" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant detected on October 31, 2025. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, contact information, Social Security numbers, and bank account numbers. Defendant began sending individualized Notice of Data Breach letters to those affected by the Data Breach on February 26, 2026. The complaint alleges that as a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for: negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Bryan Powell is a former employee of Defendant and a victim of Defendant's Data Breach. Defendant Flash Charm, Inc. d/b/a Idera is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in Texas, and provides productivity database tools that help its customers manage, secure and optimize complex data environments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Agrees to Settle Benzene Suit for $990,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Galderma Laboratories agreed to a $990,000 class action settlement to resolve claims that it misled consumers about possible benzene contamination in its Differin acne products. The Differin settlement benefits consumers who purchased Differin Daily Deep Cleanser (5% benzoyl peroxide), Differin Acne Spot Treatment (10% benzoyl peroxide) and/or Differin Maximum Strength Acne Foaming Cleanser (10% benzoyl peroxide) between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 19, 2026. According to the class action lawsuit, Differin misled consumers by failing to warn them about possible benzene contamination in its acne products. Benzene is a known human carcinogen that can cause leukemia and other blood disorders. Differin is an acne treatment brand owned by Galderma Laboratories. The brand's products, including Differin Acne Spot Treatment, are available at retailers such as Walmart, Walgreens and CVS. Differin has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $990,000 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Differin settlement, class members can receive a cash payment for the purchase of eligible products. With proof of purchase, class members can claim an unlimited number of products for a payment of $9 per product. Without proof of purchase, class members can claim up to three products for a payment of $9 per product. Class members who claim three products without proof of purchase will receive a total of $27. The deadline for exclusion and objection to the class action settlement is May 19, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Differin settlement is scheduled for June 30, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 19, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased Differin Daily Deep Cleanser (5% benzoyl peroxide), Differin Acne Spot Treatment (10% benzoyl peroxide) and Differin Maximum Strength Acne Foaming Cleanser (10% benzoyl peroxide) products between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 19, 2026. Potential Award From $9 to $27 without proof of payment, or unlimited claims with proof of payment. Proof of Purchase Proof of payment can include physical receipts, online payment records or similar documentation. Proof of purchase is not required for up to three product purchases. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/19/2026 Case Name Williams v. Galderma Laboratories LP, Case No. 1:24-cv-02222, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 06/30/2026 Settlement Website DifferinBPOProductSettlement.com Claims Administrator Differin BPO Product Claims Administrator P.O. Box 4100 Portland, OR 97208-4100 info@DifferinBPOProductSettlement.com (877) 317-7638 Class Counsel R. Jason Richards AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC Matthew A. Girardi BURSON & FISHER P.A. Gary M. Klinger MILBERG PLLC Trenton Ross Kashima BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC Defense Counsel Paige H. Sharpe Anand Agneshwar Daniel Raymond ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP [GN] GEMMA POWER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walker Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD S. WALKER; and DOMINIC A. CAPCINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEMMA POWER SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00694 (N.D. Ohio, March 23, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as safety coordinators. Gemma Power Systems, LLC provides engineering and construction services. The Company offers heavy construction services solutions for power and renewable energy industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP 3208 Clinton Avenue 1 Clinton Place Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 815-9500 Facsimile: (216) 815-9500 Email: jbristol@crklaw.com - and - Ann-Marie Ahern, Esq. McCARTHY, LEBIT, CRYSTAL & LIFFMAN CO., L.P.A. 1111 Superior Avenue East, Suite 2700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-1422 Facsimile: (216) 696-1210 Email: ama@mccarthylebit.com GEORGIA: Swanson Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARK KENNETH SWANSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Mark Kenneth Swanson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JON BURNS, in his individual capacity, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00701-TRJ, in the Northern District of Georgia. On Feb. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs sued Speaker Burns, claiming a violation of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. On Apr. 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Tiffany R. Johnson granted on Feb. 25, 2026. The case is dismissed for lack of standing. The appellate case is captioned as Mark Swanson, et al. v. Jon Burns, Case No. 26-11024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARK KENNETH SWANSON, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Kenneth Muhammad, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH MUHAMMAD 10 Glenlake Pkwy., Ste. 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 618-0910 Defendant-Appellee JON BURNS, in his individual capacity, is represented by: Patrick D. Jaugstetter, Esq. JARRARD & DAVIS, LLP 222 Webb St. Cumming, GA 30040 Telephone: (678) 455-7150 - and - Theodore Paul Meeker, III, Esq. SUMNER MEEKER, LLC 14 E. Broad St. Newnan, GA 30263 Telephone: (770) 251-1750 GINGER HEALTH: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GINGER HEALTH COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02214 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.wonderbelly.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Ginger Health Company owns and operates the website which offers digestive medicine for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb,Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal GOYARD ECOM: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Towns Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOYARD ECOM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02579 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.goyard.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: unlabeled buttons, inaccessible form fields, broken keyboard navigation, and missing alt text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Goyard Ecom, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com HELPING HANDS: Underpays Direct Support Professionals, Price Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNAN PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HELPING HANDS OF OHIO INC. and EBONY LOFTON, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00711-JRK (N.D. Ohio, March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a direct support professional from August 6, 2021, until August 5, 2023. Helping Hands of Ohio Inc. is a company that provides care, adult day services, and transportation to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities based in Lucas County, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 364-1330 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com HERITAGE BANK: Holmes Files Suit in W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Bank, et al. The case is styled as Janet L. Holmes, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Heritage Bank, Heritage Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-05314-DGE (W.D. Wash., March 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Heritage and People’s Choice Limited, trading as Heritage Bank -- https://www.heritage.com.au/default.aspx -- is one of Australia's largest mutual banks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl J. Marquardt, Esq. 1126 34th Ave., Ste. 311 Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: (206) 388-4498 Email: carl@cjmpllc.com HIGHTOWER HOLDING: Young Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hightower Holding, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Neil Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hightower Holding, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03492 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Default. Hightower Advisors -- https://hightoweradvisors.com/ -- is a wealth management firm that helps grow financial advisory businesses and connect clients with financial advisors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com HUDSON VALLEY: Vaughn Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUDSON VALLEY SEED LIBRARY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03205 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://hudsonvalleyseed.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Hudson Valley Seed Library LLC specializes in heirloom and open-pollinated garden seeds, along with garden-themed contemporary art. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law INK 477: Petersen Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PETERSEN is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to amend/correct and motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Jose Petersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ink 477, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20008-JAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Common Law. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff and the Defendants filed their respective motions for summary judgment. On Apr. 8, 2025, Judge Joan A. Lenard entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I, III, IV, and V; and granting in part and denying in part as to Count II. On May 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend/correct and a motion for reconsideration on the Apr. 8 Order, which Judge Lenard denied on Mar. 13, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Jose Petersen v. Ink 477, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-10928, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 24, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSE PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, PA 6701 Sunset Dr., Ste. 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665-9211 Defendants-Appellees INK 477, LLC, et al. are represented by: Shawna Corrine Biggs, Esq. Julia G. Young, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 111 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 203-7599 - and - Sergio Rafael Casiano, Jr., Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP 100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-4400 INTUIT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tax Refund Advance Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Zachary Bostick sued Intuit Inc. and its subsidiaries. Why: Bostick claims the companies violated the Military Lending Act by charging excessive fees on TurboTax refund advance loans. Where: The Intuit class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Intuit and its subsidiaries of violating the Military Lending Act by charging excessive fees on TurboTax refund advance loans. Plaintiff Zachary Bostick's class action lawsuit alleges Intuit and its subsidiaries -- Intuit TT Offerings Inc., CK Progress Inc. d/b/a Credit Karma, MVB Bank Inc., First Century Bank N.A., Santa Barbara Tax Products Group LLC and Green Dot Bank -- charged excessive fees on TurboTax refund advance loans. Bostick argues the companies also unlawfully required borrowers to waive their rights to seek relief in court as a condition of obtaining TurboTax refund advance loans. "Defendants' practices described herein are standardized and uniformly applied to all consumers who apply for and receive Refund Advance Loans," the Intuit class action lawsuit says. Bostick wants to represent a nationwide class of covered borrowers who obtained a TurboTax refund advance loan within the applicable limitations period and were required to authorize routing of their federal tax refund through a temporary deposit account, which was used for repayment of the loan and deduction of fees. TurboTax refund advance loans 'charge excessive fees' Bostick argues TurboTax refund advance loans are marketed as a short-term, refund-based consumer loan that allows taxpayers to receive a portion of their anticipated federal tax refund shortly after filing. The plaintiff claims TurboTax refund advance loans are inseparable from a mandatory refund-processing and account structure that enables Intuit and its partners to impose fees incident to the extension of credit. Bostick argues that while the loans are advertised as carrying "0% interest," the Military Lending Act requires calculation of the Military Annual Percentage Rate, which he claims includes not only stated interest but also fees and charges imposed directly or indirectly as a condition of the extension of credit. "Refund Advance Loans are repaid through direct routing and interception of the borrower's federal tax refund," the Intuit class action lawsuit says. Bostick claims Intuit and its subsidiaries are guilty of unlawful security interest/account access, excessive interest and fees and waiver of rights. In other news, student loan holders allege the U.S. Department of Education inaccurately reports balances when loans are transferred to a new servicer, causing financial harm to borrowers. Bostick is represented by Victor J. Sandoval and David S. Almeida of Almeida Law Group LLC and Brandon M. Wise and Domenica M. Russo of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP. The Intuit class action lawsuit is Bostick v. Intuit Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01444, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Gonzales Sues Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC. and INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02325-NC (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendants failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class that led to a data breach. The Defendants failed to prevent the private information of individuals including Plaintiff and Class Members from being stolen. Instead, the Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA, Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. provides robotic-assisted, minimally invasive surgical services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com JEBEDIAH S. CHRISTY: Leka Files FDCPA Suit in Mass. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jebediah S. Christy, D.D.S., P.C., et al. The case is styled as Silvio Leka, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jebediah S. Christy, D.D.S., P.C., and Aspen Dental Management Inc., Case No. 2684CV00932 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Contract / Business Cases. Jebediah S. Christy, D.D.S., P.C. -- https://www.aspendental.com/providers/jebediah-christy/1497830889/ -- operates at least one dental practice and conducts business in Massachusetts, including at its Leominster, Massachusetts location.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilir Kavaja, Esq. KAVAJA LAW, P.C. 92 State Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 515-5545 Email: ilir@kavajalawcom JELLY BELLY CANDY: Love Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kalitha Yvonne Love, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CU26-01882 was removed from the Superior Court for the Superior Court of the State of California, Solano County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00549. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts class and individual claims for: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code Section 510, 1194, and 1198; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Section 512 and 226.7; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7; failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226; and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Howard M. Knee, Esq. Nicole N. Wentworth, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424-239-3400 Facsimile: 424-239-3434 Email: howard.knee@blankrome.com nicole.wentworth@blankrome.com KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Protect Private Information, Perez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60845-XXXX (S.D. Fla, March 24, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former students and employees of Defendant, the Class Members. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of doing business and/or as a condition of employment with Defendant, each customer/employee must provide Defendant with sensitive, personal, and private information: address, telephone number, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, driver's license state, and financial account information. Unfortunately, Defendant failed to take adequate measures to protect its current and former students and employees' Private Information stored on its computer servers, including failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards or policies to protect Private Information, and failing to supervise its information technology or data security agents and employees, or vendors, to prevent, detect, and stop breaches of its systems. As a direct result of Defendant's failures, on March 17, 2026, Defendant provided notice to the Maine Attorney General that unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to their systems between October 30, 2025, and November 18, 2025. The information accessed included names, Social Security Numbers, driver's license numbers, and other highly sensitive data. Defendant's consumer notification letter was also dated March 17, 2026--over five months after the data breach occurred. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff additionally suffered actual injury in the form of experiencing an increase in unwanted calls, texts, and/or emails, which were caused by the Data Breach due to proximity in time and the content of the requests, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Melissa Perez is a former student of Defendant prior to and at the time of the Data Breach. Defendant Kaplan North America, LLC is a Florida-based international provider of education and training services. Defendant offers standardized test preparation, professional certification, and continuing education programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Kadian Crawford, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: service@eksm.com KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Prus Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PRUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60849-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") (or "Private Information") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Defendant had a continuous duty to adopt and employ reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private Information from disclosure to third parties. However, an unauthorized individual gained access to Defendant's servers between October 30, 2025 and November 18, 2025 and obtained certain files from the network. The following types of Private Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers. On March 24, 2026, Defendant submitted notification of the Breach to the Office of the Maine Attorney General and began mailing notification letters to the impacted individuals. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons. Plaintiff Michael Prus is a citizen of White Lake, Michigan and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Kaplan North America, LLC is a provider of educational services, including test preparation, professional certification training, and higher education support programs. Defendant is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. Florida Bar No. 1058251 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com E-mail: mmeyer@zlk.com KENTMERE REHABILITATION: Dunne Files Suit for Negligence -------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN DUNNE, as the Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ELIZABETH COURTNEY PORSTMAN, Deceased, Plaintiff v. KENTMERE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER INC. d/b/a KENTMERE REHABILITATION AND SKILLED NURSING INC., Defendant, Case No. N26C-03-467 KMM (Super. Ct., Del., March 25, 2026) is a class action pursuant to the Delaware Survival Act, and claims all damages properly recoverable under the Act. Plaintiff Kristen is the daughter of the Decedent, Elizabeth Courtney Porstman, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth Courtney Porstman. The complaint relates that on June 16, 2024, the Decedent, Elizabeth Courtney Porstman, had been a long term care resident at the Defendant's facility and was admitted under the custody, care, and control of the Defendant's facility with a history of ambulatory dysfunction, bursitis, chronic diastolic heart failure, difficulty walking, degenerative joint disease, pulmonary embolism, asthma, lumbar back pain, obstructive sleep apnea on CPAP, primary immuno deficiency, and subjective cognitive impairment. On June 16, 2024, she fell while trying to stand unassisted. She sustained a femur fracture and was subsequently admitted to the hospital for surgical repair. She underwent a subsequent surgery on the left proximal tibia and was discharged from the hospital on June 22, 2024. Subsequently, she passed away on June 26, 2024. The complaint alleges that agents and employees of Defendant's facility failed to appropriately assist Ms. Porstman, and failed to prevent her fall and subsequent injuries. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Decedent sustained conscious pain and suffering from June 16, 2024, up through her death on June 24, 2024. The Defendant and its agents and/or employees were careless and negligent, and breached the appropriate standard of care, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for conscious pain and suffering from personal injuries, medical and related expenses, mental anguish, interest pursuant to the Delaware Survival Act and Court costs. Defendant Kentmere Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center Inc. d/b/a Kentmere Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing Inc., is a Delaware domestic corporation that conducts business in the State of Delaware located at 1900 Lovering Avenue, Wilmington, Delaware 19806.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Gaspero, Jr., Esq. NITSCHE & FREDRICKS, LLC 305 North Union Street, Second Floor P.O. Box 2324 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 655-4040 E-mail: jgaspero@attys4u.com LASKO PRODUCTS: Sells Heaters Without Thermostats, Mercado Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASKO PRODUCTS, LLC and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-02391 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacturing, and sale of electric space heaters without thermostats. According to the complaint, the Defendants market the heaters to consumers as safe and lawful products that are suitable for heating indoor or outdoor spaces. However, the sale of electric space heaters without thermostats is already outlawed in New York because such products pose a serious, often fatal fire hazard. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the heaters or would have paid less for them. Lasko Products, LLC is a manufacturer of ventilating and home comfort products based in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement specialty retailer based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com LINUS TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Drop Case Over Labeling Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Conrad, writing for INC., reports that a class‑action lawsuit against New York–based protein bar maker David was dismissed, ending a case that accused its parent company, Linus Technologies, of misstating fat and calorie content on nutrition labels. The plaintiffs in the suit against David notified the court that they were voluntarily dismissing the case but without prejudice, meaning they could file again. When the lawsuit first became public, David co‑founder Peter Rahal responded aggressively across social media, email, and the press. In a March 12 email to customers, Rahal argued that the suit relied on bomb calorimetry -- a lab method that measures the heat released when food is burned. "Your body doesn't burn food, it digests it," he wrote, adding that the method can make certain ingredients appear to contain more calories than the body actually absorbs. The company, known for viral stunts like selling frozen cod to promote the protein content of its bars, also released a satirical video mocking the allegations. The clip features increasingly absurd rumors -- "I heard their ice cream is made from cows that only listen to Joe Rogan," one person says -- before landing on the line: "Not all rumors are true." The video, which has drawn nearly 16 million views on TikTok, was released shortly after news of the lawsuit broke. It's not uncommon for fast-growing CPG brands to face class-action lawsuits. Both Thinx and Poppi settled suits as they were growing. Even Rahal's previous company, RxBar which Kellogg's acquired in 2017, was sued over claims on its label in 2018 (the suit was dismissed). "An unfortunate part of American culture and the food industry is that there is a huge list of law firms that have no cost and attempt to shake down new brands. At RxBar this happened and it will happen at David today and in the future. An interesting observation is that these types of frivolous lawsuits are correlated with Walmart target distribution. It's as if these lawyers are walking Walmart for victims. If you are in Walmart as a brand, you have enough money to pay them to settle," he told Emily Sundberg's newsletter Feed Me. At the heart of the lawsuit -- and a considerable amount of the drama surrounding the young company -- was an ingredient called esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG), a synthetic fat substitute that passes through the body without being fully digested, much like fiber. "The FDA assigns it a lower calorie value for labeling purposes for exactly this reason," Rahal wrote. "The same applies to EPG." Launched in October 2024, David was a success right out of the gate: pacing toward $180 million in sales in 2025. But in less than two years, it has seen more than its share of drama, much of it stemming from that one ingredient. In May of 2025, it raised $75 million in a Series A round, using part of the proceeds to purchase bought Epogee, the sole manufacturer of EPG. That move has haunted the brand, which is facing a separate antitrust lawsuit from three food startups that had been using EPG in their products. Rahal has characterized it as necessary to support David's demand for EPG, and told Feed Me sales would resume, but did not provide a timeline. [GN] MELISSA DATA: Aufrichtig Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Meaghan Aufrichtig, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MELISSA DATA CORPORATION, Case No. 2026CV30828 was removed from the District Court for the County of Denver, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01318. The Plaintiff alleges that Melissa's purported conduct violates Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA"). The Plaintiff pleads PTFA precludes "list[ing] a cellular telephone number in a directory for a commercial purpose unless the person whose number has been listed has given affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listing."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Facsimile: (720) 336-3663 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Phone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig J. Mariam, Esq. Elena A. Kuzminova, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (213) 270-7856 MILL AT JANIE'S: Vaughn Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MILL AT JANIE'S FARM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03130 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.janiesmill.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Mill At Janie's Farm, LLC specializes in growing and stone-milling organic grains to produce high-quality flours and grits for bakers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MILTNER'S SHOES: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILTNER'S SHOES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03469 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.bootleggersfootwear.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Miltner's Shoes, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Glyphosate, Tinney Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN TINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00411 (E.D. Mo., March 23, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the 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 sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com NATIONAL DEBT: Sends Unsolicited Commercial Emails, Garcia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01894-TWR-BJW (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of California's Business and Professions Code. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements. According to the complaint, the Defendant's marketers send spam using falsified header information, spoofed domains and nonsensical sending addresses to evade spam filters. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. National Debt Relief LLC is a debt repayment services provider based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com NAVIA BENEFIT: Faces Fisher Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- MARNI FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00909 (W.D. Wash., March 17, 2026) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On January 23, 2026, the Defendant discovered suspicious activity related to its IT Network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to confirm the nature and scope of the data breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed and potentially acquired certain information between December 22, 2025, and January 15, 2026, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Headquartered in Renton, WA, Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. is a third-party administrator of employee benefits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-9332 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive - Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com NEP GROUP INC: Lampert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEP Group, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Lampert and Terrence Roddy, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. NEP Group, Inc.; Broadcast Sports International LLC; and Does 1 100, Case No. 26CV007879 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." NEP Group -- https://www.nepgroup.com/ -- is the world's most trusted media services and live events partner in live sports and entertainment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter Cordura, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM 3160 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 207 San Diego, CA 92108-3834 Phone: 619-234-2833 Email: ccordura@maralawfirm.com NERDWALLET COMPARE: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nerdwallet Compare, Inc. The case is styled as Brittany Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nerdwallet Compare, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02744 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NerdWallet Compare, Inc. -- https://www.nerdwallet.com/ -- is a Delaware corporation providing information and tools related to loans and mortgages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com NESTER HOSIERY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Knowles Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTER HOSIERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02371 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.farmtofeet.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Nester Hosiery, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NEWREZ LLC: Tuttle Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 4th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY TUTTLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Gregory Tuttle, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NewRez LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00223-TDS-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for allegedly inflating borrowers' balances on long-dormant second mortgages through unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable means. On June 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 22, 2025. On Feb. 23, 2026, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is styled as Gregory Tuttle v. NewRez LLC, Case No. 26-1333, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GREGORY TUTTLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. BLOSSOM LAW PLLC 126 North McDowell Street Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 256-7766 - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 (703) 424-7571 Defendants-Appellees NEWREZ LLC, d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, et al. are represented by: Jasmine Kelly Gardner, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 201 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 343-2262 - and - Nicholas Jordan, Esq. Melissa O. Martinez, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 500 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 659-4428 (410) 659-4432 - and - Elizabeth F. Pellegrini, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 501 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 755-6661 - and - Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-7745 NEWTON COUNTY, GA: McCarthy Seeks School Resource Officers' Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY MCCARTHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01685-SDG (N.D. Ga., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant for approximately two years as an elementary school resource officer. Newton County School District is a public corporate body and a county political subdivision in Newton County, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Matthew W. Herrington, Esq. CALDWELL BRIDGERS & BENJAMIN, LLC 1425-A Dutch Valley Place NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Email: bridgers@appliedlegalinsight.com herrington@appliedlegalinsight.com PACIFIC BELL: Hernandez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS HERNANDEZ is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to remand and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Luis Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10157-JLS-SSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. On Nov. 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court. On Feb. 23, 2026, Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. All claims in the case are dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is styled as Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al., Case No. 26-1761, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 24, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 30, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 4, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LUIS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Defendants-Appellees PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: David W. Moreshead, Esq. Andrew James Delaplane, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 PACKAGING CORP: Castillo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case ANGEL MATA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, PCA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CORRUGATED, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. VCU331448, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 24, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02285-SAB to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Packaging Corporation of America is an American manufacturing company based in Lake Forest, Illinois. PCA Central California Corrugated, LLC is a container supplier in Kingsburg, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 Email: sgroode@littler.com - and - Annureet K. Bezwada, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 244-7500 Facsimile: (559) 244-7525 Email: abezwada@littler.com PATELCO CREDIT: $7.25MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set July 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Patelco Credit Union has agreed to a $7,250,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the financial cooperative failed to protect the sensitive information of its current and former members from a data breach discovered in June 2024. The $7.25 million Patelco Credit Union class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 26, 2026 and covers all individuals whose personally identifying information was potentially involved in the data breach as notified by Patelco. Court documents indicate that approximately one million current and former members of the credit union are eligible for relief from the deal. The court-approved website for the Patelco Credit Union class action settlement can be found at PatelcoSettlement.com. According to the agreement, Patelco settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have two options for monetary reimbursement. Settlement documents state that class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of monetary losses are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The agreement says class members must submit proof, like invoices or receipts, that demonstrate they incurred expenses because of the data breach that have not been previously reimbursed. Instead of a documented-loss payment, class members may submit a claim form to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement fund estimated to be $100 per share. The agreement notes that the final amount of this payment may increase or decrease depending on the number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after all attorneys' fees, administration expenses, lead plaintiff service awards, and documented-loss claims have been paid. Additionally, the agreement states that class members who were California residents at any time between June 29, 2024 and June 11, 2026 are eligible to receive two shares of the pro-rated cash payment, for a total of approximately $200, due to statutory provisions under the California Consumer Privacy Act. To submit a Patelco settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Patelco Credit Union settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 11, 2026. Finally, Patelco has agreed to implement certain business practice changes to improve and better secure its systems as part of the settlement agreement. The court will determine whether to grant the Patelco data breach settlement final approval following a hearing on July 1, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Patelco Credit Union class action lawsuit claimed that the California-based, member-owned financial institution failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive information tied to current and former members of the credit union, leading to a data breach discovered on June 29, 2024. According to the filing, private information that may have been accessed in the breach includes names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth and/or email addresses. [GN] PHARMACY FAMILIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zinner Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LEA ZINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMACY FAMILIA, LLC; FAMILIA HEALTH CLINIC LLC; and ARTHUR SODERBERG, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-60809-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Zinner was employed by the Defendants as a pharmacist. Pharmacy Familia, LLC owns and operates a pharmacy in Deerfield Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Eiss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L. 550 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 420 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 914-7890 Facsimile: (855) 423-5298 PINTEREST INC: Uziel Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN UZIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINTEREST, INC., WILLIAM READY, and JULIA BRAU DONNELLY, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02745 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Pinterest's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Pinterest securities at artificially inflated prices between February 7, 2025 and February 12, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pinterest was experiencing and/or was likely to experience reduced revenues from its advertising partners; (ii) Pinterest overstated its ability to manage the impact of U.S. tariffs on the macroeconomic environment in which the company operated, including the foreseeable impact on its advertising partners; (iii) the impact of the foregoing on Pinterest's advertising revenues was significant enough that Pinterest was facing and/or likely to face an imminent restructuring; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all times. When the truth emerged, Pinterest's stock price fell $3.12 per share, or 16.83 percent, to close at $15.42 on February 13, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Pinterest, Inc. is a visual social media platform company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com POWERFUL CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Taylor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CRYSTAL NICOLE TAYLOR; CALICIA ROZANNE BROWN; and JASON ALLEN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERFUL CLEANING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00190-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., March 20, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as janitors. Powerful Cleaning, LLC provides commercial cleaning services, janitorial services, and industrial cleaning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Macy D. Hanson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC The Echelon Center 102 First Choice Drive Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 853-9521 Email: macy@macyhanson.com PREMIUM BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Hidden Processing Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Premium Brands Opco LLC. Why: They claim Premium Brands Opco charges hidden processing fees on its Loft and Ann Taylor and Loft websites. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges consumers who make purchases on the Loft and Ann Taylor websites are illegally charged hidden processing fees. Plaintiffs Nary Sun and Floribel England filed the class action complaint against Premium Brands Opco LLC on Feb. 26 in New York federal court, alleging violations of consumer protection laws. According to the lawsuit, Premium Brands Opco charges consumers a "Processing" or "Handling" fee at the end of the purchase process on its Ann Taylor and Loft websites, without disclosing the fee upfront. Sun and England claim this practice, known as "drip pricing," is deceptive and amounts to a bait-and-switch tactic. "Businesses engage in drip pricing by advertising products at artificially low headline prices and then disclosing additional charges later in the buying process," the Loft class action lawsuit says. Sun and England claim Premium Brands Opco's practice violates consumer protection laws in California and Virginia, which prohibit companies from advertising prices that do not include all mandatory fees or charges. Lawsuit: Websites charge fees that are not taxes or shipping charges The class action lawsuit argues that the processing fee charged by the Loft and Ann Taylor websites is not a tax or shipping charge, and therefore should be included in the advertised price. The plaintiffs claim consumers are misled into thinking they are getting a better deal than they actually are, and that the fee reduces price competition. Sun and England are looking to represent anyone in California or Virginia who purchased items on the Ann Taylor or Loft websites and paid the mandatory fee during the past three years. They are suing for violations of California and Virginia consumer protection laws and seek certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In other hidden fees, second-hand clothing marketplace Depop is facing allegations it advertised item prices that failed to include a mandatory "marketplace" fee at checkout. [GN] R.J. REYNOLDS: Bell Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA BELL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Vanessa Bell, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04521-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. On Sept. 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 21, 2025. On Feb. 20, 2026, Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have standing, but failed to plausibly state claims under the UCL, CLRA, FAL, and the express warranty claim. Moreover, because the Plaintiffs failed to submit an opposition to their claims for implied warranty and unjust enrichment, those claims are deemed abandoned. The Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over Defendant British American Tobacco, p.l.c., and the limited jurisdictional discovery is unlikely to withstand the jurisdictional challenges. The appellate case is styled as Bell, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, et al., Case No. 26-1806, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 25, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 30, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on April 6, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on May 6, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 15, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants VANESSA BELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Fletcher Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL, PC 3262 Westheimer Road, Suite 423 Houston, TX 77098 - and - Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE, LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Defendants-Appellees R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Darren K. Cottriel, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 - and - Austin Tyler Fields, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Bobbie Rae Bailey, Esq. Edward Martinovich, Esq. LEADER BERKON COLAO & SILVERSTEIN, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2980 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 234-1750 - and - Maxwell D. Herman, Esq. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS KRAMER (US) LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 REACTHINK CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Dilone Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL DE JESUS URENA DILONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REACTHINK CORP., MAKABAD CORP. d/b/a ADH GROUP, CRISTIHAN ZULUAGA, ANDRES ABADIA, MAURICIO PEDRAZA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01860 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay uniform maintenance. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer and HVAC technician specializing in refrigeration and mini-split installation from approximately August 14, 2024 through approximately August 11, 2025. Reacthink Corp. is a domestic business corporation based in New York. Makabad Corp., doing business as ADH Group, based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 220 Ninth Street, Suite 2049 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (833) 729-3247 Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com REIMAGINED PARKING: McGinity Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sean McGinity, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. REIMAGINED PARKING LLC, d/b/a IMPERIAL PARKING (U.S.), LLC, a.k.a IMPARK, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-26-634173 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02760-TSH. The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff's and other Class Members' right to privacy and personally identifiable information ("PII") protections under California Civil Code Section 1798. The Complaint also alleges that Defendant utilizes Automated License Plate Reader ("ALPR") technology at its parking lot at 355 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, without following the requirements set forth in Section 1798. It alleges that Plaintiff McGinity's PII was collected by an ALPR and that this is the basis for the statutory violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob S. Canter, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 986-2800 Facsimile: (415) 986-2827 Email: JCanter@crowell.com RETAIL MERCHANDISING: Rathke Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Merchandising Services, Inc. The case is styled as Courtney Rathke, individually and on behalf herself, and all others similarly situated v. Paid to Think Inc. doing business as: My Legal Academy, Case No. 0:26-cv-02092-JMB-EMB (E.D. Ark., March 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Retail Merchandising Services, Inc. (RMS) -- https://www.rmservicing.com/ -- provides industry-leading retail merchandising services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com ROLAND CENTER: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Roland Center. The case is styled as Roseangel Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Roland Center, Case No. 26STCV10197 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Roland Center -- https://www.therolandcenter.org/ -- offers high-quality rehabilitation, vocational training, job placement and work support services to the developmentally disabled.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. litwin, Esq. LYFE LAW LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 888-203-1422 Email: johnl@lyfe.com S&S SPRAYERS LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S&S Sprayers, LLC. The case is styled as Beatriz Adriana Gil Lopez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S&S Sprayers, LLC, Case No. 26CUB01198 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." S&S Sprayers -- https://sssprayers.com/ -- is an agricultural and oil business firm that provides pest control, weed control, dust control, and spraying services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Yousefzadeh, Esq. Joshua Shirian, Esq. SHIRIAN LAW 10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 907-5000 SKIN LAUNDRY HOLDINGS: Adu Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Margaret Adu, James Gladstone, Sarah Hill, Stefanie Lovino, Lourdes Padron, Courtney Page, Meagan Rios, Andrea Stull, and Monique White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKIN LAUNDRY HOLDINGS, INC.; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive., Case No. CGC-26-633248 was removed from Superior Court of the State of California, in and for County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02769. The Complaint alleges that Skin Laundry Holdings, through its website, used pixels and similar tracking technologies ("Tracking Technologies") to collect and share Plaintiffs' information, including protected health information, with unauthorized third parties. Plaintiffs alleged this resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of their private information, violated their right to privacy, and caused exposure to targeted advertising or other unwanted consequences. The California Plaintiffs further sought to represent a California Subclass in claims for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), and the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Shively, Esq. Wendy Qiu, Esq. Paul Bond, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 560 Mission St Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.743.6906 Fax: 415.743.6910 Email: ashley.shively@hklaw.com wendy.qiu@hklaw.com paul.bond@hklaw.com STA MANAGEMENT: Appeals Court Order to Michigan Ct. of Appeals -------------------------------------------------------------- STA MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled James Barker, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STA Management LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. _______, in the Wayne Circuit Court in Michigan. The appellate case is captioned as JAMES BARKER vs. STA MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 379994, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on March 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES BARKER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. Kelly R. McClintock, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC 221 N. Main St., #300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 926-8389 Defendants-Appellants STA MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. are represented by: Donovan Asmar, Esq. BODMAN PLC 201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 743-6033 Facsimile: (248) 743-6002 STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Holtsclaw, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00280-EWH-RJK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Stake Center Locating -- https://www.stakecenter.com/ -- is a specialized provider of excavation and utility location services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe Street, Ste. 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com - and - Brian David Gonzales BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: (970) 214-0562 Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan B. Felts, Esq. Daniel David Stratton, Esq. Denis E. Jacobson, Esq. TUGGLE DUGGINS PA 400 Bellemeade Street, Suite 800 P.O. Box 2888 Greensboro, NC 27402 Phone: (336) 378-1431 Fax: (336) 274-6590 Email: afelts@tuggleduggins.com dstratton@tuggleduggins.com djacobson@tuggleduggins.com - and - Zane A. Gilmer, Esq. STINSON LLP 1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.376.8416 Email: zane.gilmer@stinson.com STRYKER CORP: Fredrickson Sues Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH FREDRICKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00878-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich., March 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former employees. On or around March 11, 2026, the Defendant was hacked in the data breach. However, the Defendant has not begun notifying the class about the data breach, depriving the victims of the earliest opportunity to protect themselves from identity theft, the suit says. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's misconduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence Headquartered in Portage, MI, Stryker Corporation is a medical technologies firm that offers products and services in MedSurg, Neurotechnology and Orthopaedics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 609-3733 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com SUPERGOOP LLC: Dunning Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCEANN DUNNING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled MarceAnn Dunning, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Supergoop, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11242, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that two of its sunscreen products contain a lower Sun Protection Factor ("SPF") level than indicated on the products' labels. On Jan. 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 21, 2025. On Feb. 24, 2026, Judge John P. Cronan entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate case is styled as Dunning v. Supergoop, LLC, Case No. 26-797, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 31, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARCEANN DUNNING, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Defendant-Appellee SUPERGOOP, LLC is represented by: Richard Andre Jacobson, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 666 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10103 SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Chemicals, Syma Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SAUNDRA SYMA, on behalf of the Estate of CHARLES TIEKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC; CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-430 PQT (Del., Sup., March 23, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. 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 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Chemicals, Wright Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA WRIGHT, on behalf of the Estate of LONNIE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC; and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-417 PQT (Del., Sup., March 23, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. 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 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com TARGET CORP: McElerath-Bey Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case COURTNEY MCELERATH-BEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2026CH01481, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 25, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03310 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) by inquiring about and acting on her pending criminal charges, including by withdrawing her conditional offer of employment based on those pending charges. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meredith R. McBride, Esq. Mark J. Girouard, Esq. Mollie Clark Ahsan, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-7500 Facsimile: (612) 305-7501 Email: mmcbride@nilanjohnson.com mgirouard@nilanjohnson.com mclarkahsan@nilanjohnson.com TENNESSEE: Shoemaker Sues Over Digital Property Confiscation Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SHOEMAKER and LINDA WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRANK STRADA, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00367 (M.D. Tenn., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Takings Clause and Substantive Due Process under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution and for declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's Digital Property Confiscation Policy, which violates the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' constitutionally protected property interest in the digital property they purchased and owned. According to the complaint, the implementation of the policy barred the Plaintiffs and the Class from accessing the digital content they purchased from authorized vendor JPay, Inc. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant from continuing to enforce the policy that prohibits them from accessing their digital media property, suit says. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Mothershead, Esq. RELENTLESS ADVOCACY PLLC 7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 240 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 891-3901 Email: kyle@relentlesslaw.com - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS B. HARVEY 365 E. Avenida de Los Arboles #226 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Telephone: (805) 768-4440 Email: tbhlegal@proton.me - and - Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Esq. 355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (929) 266-3971 Email: dami@animashaun.me TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Travelpro Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02026-ECT-ECW (D. Minn., March 24, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website www.travelpro.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Travelpro Products, Inc. is a Florida Company that offers luggage and accessories for sale including carry-on luggage, checked luggage, luggage sets, backpacks, garment bags, duffel bags, laptop bags, totes, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com TRINITY HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jackson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY S. JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION; and HEALTH GORILLA INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-10948-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., March 20, 2026) is an action alleging the Defendants' failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that due to the Defendants' data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, unauthorized third parties were able to target Defendants' computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Trinity Health Corporation operates as a non-profit healthcare organization. The Organization offers nursing, assisted living, medical and home care, rehabilitation therapy, nutritional planning, and bereavement support services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: 267-685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com TRINITY HEALTH: Pabon Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- JUSTINA PABON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION, AND HEALTH GORILLA INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-10989-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., March 24, 2026) arises out of the unauthorized access to and disclosure of the sensitive personal information and protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and other patients of Defendant Trinity, facilitated through the health information exchange platform operated by Defendant Health Gorilla. The complaint relates that Defendant Health Gorilla operates as both a Qualified Health Information Networks ("QHIN") under Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement ("TEFCA") and an Implementer under Carequality. In that dual capacity, Health Gorilla controlled which entities could access patient records through these nationwide frameworks. Once an entity was onboarded by Health Gorilla, it could access real-time patient data from any participating healthcare provider -- requiring only basic demographic information such as a patient's name and address to retrieve that patient's medical records. On January 13, 2026, Trinity was notified by its health information exchange ("HIE") partner of a potential unauthorized disclosure of Trinity patients' PHI. On March 13, 2026, Trinity began notifying affected patients. Trinity's breach notice stated that the health information that may have been disclosed varies based on the content of the information exchanged but may have included clinical care details, demographic information, insurance information, and potentially driver license numbers. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' respective failures to exercise reasonable care in vetting, monitoring, overseeing, and safeguarding the patient data and exchange pathways at issue, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal and medical information was accessed by entities with no legitimate treatment purpose and disclosed without authorization, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members face a heightened and ongoing risk of identity theft, medical identity fraud, and other harms. Plaintiff has already experienced incidents consistent with misuse of her exposed information, including increased spam communications and suspicious fraudulent activity. The Plaintiff brings this action seeking compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and all other relief the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Justina Pabon is a patient of Trinity Health. On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff received a data breach notification letter from Trinity informing her that her personal and health information may have been compromised in connection with the unauthorized access. Defendant Trinity is one of the largest not-for-profit Catholic health systems in the United States, operating 92 hospitals across 25 states with more than 133,000 employees. Defendant Health Gorilla is a health information network and interoperability platform that operates as a QHIN under the federal TEFCA and as an Implementer under the Carequality framework.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-2180 E-mail: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com UG2 LLC: Guillen Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Melvin Guillen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UG2, LLC, a Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV485689 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02766. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: failure to pay all overtime wages; minimum wage violations; failure to reimburse for necessary business-related expenses; meal period violations; rest period violations; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200; and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Morgan Forsey, Esq. Brett Young, Esq. Saisruthi Paspulati, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 555 South Flower Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.629.7400 Facsimile: 213.629.7401 Email: morgan.forsey@afslaw.com brett.young@afslaw.com saisruthi.paspulati@afslaw.com UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks Pilot Examiners' Procedural Due Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD LASKY, and JOSEPH PUGLIA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINITRATION, and BRYAN BEDFORD, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00580 (M.D. Fla., March 17, 2026) seeks declaratory process and relief against the Federal Aviation Administration and its Administrator, Bryan Bedford, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of a class former Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) whose designations were terminated by the FAA due to their age in violation of their respective rights of equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs maintains that the FAA violated the federal law by promulgating and enforcing unlawful rules that deprive DPEs of procedural due process. The FAA is a government agency responsible for regulation of civil aviation to promote air transportation safety in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. "Jack" Webb, Esq. JOHN D. WEBB, P.A. 1662 Stockton Street, Ste. 201 Jacksonville, FL 32204 Telephone: (904) 803-4686 E-mail: jwebb@jackwebblaw.com arichey@jackwebblaw.com jupton@jackwebblaw.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trinity Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case TRINITY MEDICAL CARE, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 47-CV-2026-900309, was removed from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on March 25, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00490-HDM to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for their failure to implement necessary measures to prevent ransomware attack and shutdown which led to the disruption of their services or delay of payments. Trinity Medical Care LLC is a therapeutic care practice located in Huntsville, Alabama. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a healthcare company, with its principal place of business in Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. David Moore, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 420 20th Street North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-5287 Email: dmoore@joneswalker.com VANCO PAYMENT: Helmold Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nancy Helmold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vanco Payment Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2026CH01243 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03485. The Complaint asserts two causes of action: Violation of Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. Section 325F.69; and Violation of Illinois's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Binder, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-702-8733 Email: Matt.Binder@alston.com - and - Alexandra Peurach, Esq. David Carpenter, Esq. Kaylan Meaza, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 881-7683 Email: alex.peurach@alston.com david.carpenter@alston.com kaylan.meaza@alston.com WALLPAPER BOULEVARD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wallpaper Boulevard, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00350 (N.D. Ind., March 17, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.wallpaperboulevard.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reader-users. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wallpaper Boulevard, LLC owns and operates the website which offers wallpapers for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law WATKINS WELLNESS: Strong Files Suit Over Defective Hot Tub Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY STRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATKINS WELLNESS LLC and WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01896-BTM-SBC (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants asserting claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and to seek full compensation for all consumers harmed by Defendants' deceptive practices and dangerous Products. The complaint relates that Defendants manufacture, market, and sell a line of premium hot tubs known as the Highlife Collection spas. The Products contain Hydromassage Rotary Jets (6 fin) that Defendants touted as state-of-the-art features providing therapeutic benefits and relaxation. Despite marketing these Products as safe, premium wellness systems, the Products suffered a defect in materials, workmanship, and/or design -- the hydromassage rotary jets create a dangerous suction force that allows users' hair to become entangled, submerging their heads underwater, and posing serious entanglement and drowning hazards. The Defendants failed to disclose the Defect to consumers in their labeling, packaging, or marketing materials, and instead continued to charge premium prices ranging from $16,000 to $24,000 for Products that lacked the safety consumers expected. In response to mounting pressure, Defendants initiated an inadequate recall on February 12, 2026, affecting approximately 32,900 units sold nationwide between October 2022 and September 2025. The Recall covers eight models -- Grandee, Envoy, Vanguard, Aria, Prodigy, Sovereign, Jetsetter, and Jetsetter LX—from model years 2023, 2024, and 2025, says the suit. Plaintiff Anthony Strong brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class and California Class, asserting claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, to seek full compensation for all consumers harmed by Defendants' deceptive practices and dangerous Products. The Plaintiff Anthony purchased a Hot Spring Aria Spa, serial number ARN23D3231110, from Stove & Spa Center, an authorized dealer of Defendants' products. Defendant Watkins Wellness LLC is engaged in the production and sale of premium spas, therapeutic jet systems, ozone purification systems, spa covers, and related wellness products sold under the Hot Spring, Highlife Collection, Moto-Massage, and other brand names. Defendant Watkins Manufacturing Corp. has been engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, labeling, marketing, distributing, warranting, and selling the recalled Highlife Collection spas and related products, including hydromassage jets, spa accessories, and replacement parts, throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415-839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617-377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Scurry Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kendall Scurry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET PACIFIC NORTHWEST LLC, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. 26-2-06761-9 SEA was removed from t the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01080. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest from Whole Foods for its alleged: failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; and violation of Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. Damon C. Elder, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com brian.buckley@morganlewis.com YALE NEW: Williams Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------- JAMES WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00421 (D. Conn., March 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in illegal and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and putative Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including, but not necessarily limited to Google, LLC, The Trade Desk, Inc., StackAdapt, Inc., and Adobe, Inc., is an ongoing harm to its users and the healthcare system as a whole. Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation operates as a non-profit health care organization. The Company offers emergency care, cardiology, orthopedic, neurology, transplantation, and oncology services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Michael Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com - and - Deborah L. McKenna, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 472 Wheelers Farms Rd, Suite 300 Milford, CT 06461 Telephone: (203) 691-6491 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 YBL RESTAURANT GROUP: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against YBL Restaurant Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joselin Gonzalez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YBL Restaurant Group LLC, Does 1 Through 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC26635396 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." YBL Restaurant Group is a collection of dining establishments in San Francisco, California, offering a diverse range of culinary experiences.[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 YOUNG'S MARKET: Gomez Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Santiago Gomez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. STK-UOE-2026-1362 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00548. The Complaint contains eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Fermin H. Llaguno, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: fllaguno@littler.com - and - Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Facsimile: 916.561.0828 Email: njenkins@littler.com - and - Cirrus B. Jahangiri, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: cjahangiri@littler.com ZSG CO: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZSG, CO., D/B/A PUBLIC REC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03470 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.publicrec.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. ZSG, Co., doing business as Public Rec, is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.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 ***