260417.mbx

260417.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 17, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 77 Headlines A1 MART: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Chaudhari Says AETNA LIFE: Appeals Tossed Dismissal Bid in Gordon Suit to 2nd Cir. ALBERTSON'S LLC: Haro Suit Removed to S.D. California AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Caffrey Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ANGELUS SHOE: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ANTHEM HEALTHCHOICE: Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ARC STEEL: Appeals Settlement & Judgment Order in Hurtado Suit ATKINSON CONSULTING: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Overtime BLOOMCHIC US: Corbett Sues Over Inaccessible Website for the Blind BOEING COMPANY: Lara-Trespalacios Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BRANDT EQUITIES: Tiede Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info CALIFORNIA: Jimenez Files Suit Over Race-Based Maternal Program CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Unlawful Taxes in Debt Collectors' Licenses CARNIVORE BRANDS: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Castaneda Says CONSUMER SAFETY: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Curry Alleges CRUNCHYROLL LLC: Enfield Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info DL1961 PREMIUM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bennett Says DOLLAR GENERAL: Plaintiffs Allowed to File TAC ECI INVESTMENTS: Fanning Sues for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination ELEVANCE HEALTH: Dismissal of Holland Discrimination Suit Upheld ELEVANCE HEALTH: Kneppar Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ENSTEP TECHNOLOGY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suit Says ENTRATA INC: Brown Suit Removed to D. Nevada EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Tosses "Caraway" Data Breach Suit ERICSSON INC: Orobitg Sues Over Illegal Access to Personal Info ESA MANAGEMENT: McCluskey Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. FABLETICS INC: Ashford Suit Seeks IEEPA Tariff Refunds FIRSTMARK SERVICES: Appeals Denied Motions for Leave to Appeal FMR LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Elmaroukh Says FOOTWEAR UNLMITED: Butler Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GOURMET FACTORY: Martinez Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels HIGHTOWER HOLDING: Samowitz Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info HIMS & HERS: Mackey Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. IMMUNITYBIO INC: Douglas Sues Over Misleading Company Statements IPPC INC: Murphy Files Suit in D. New Jersey KAO USA: Chiplinsky Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. LAST BRAND INC: Andrews Suit Removed to D. Columbia LEGGETT & PLATT: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Somnigroup LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA: Counsel Must File Joint Scheduling Report LION STAR: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info LOUISIANA: Final Judgment in Parker vs. State Penitentiary Vacated LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Harhay Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LULULEMON USA: Fails to Provide Tariff Refunds, Neuman Says MERCER ADVISORS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Moses Suit Alleges MERCER STREET: Akimova Files Suit Over Arbitration Noncompliance MN BEST: Morgan Sues Over False Retail Prices and Fake Discounts MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ: Court of Appeals Affirms "Knight" Suit Dismissal MRO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Britt Suit Says NACOGDOCHES MEMORIAL: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Parker Says NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Batton Appeals Injunction Order to 7th Cir. NEW YORK, NY: Esparza Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NEWREZ LLC: McKernan Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Sues Over NPK Fertilizers Price-Fixing Scheme NZXT INC: Settles Deceptive Marketing Class Suit for $3.45-Mil. OLLY METABOLISM: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Gummies ONYX EQUITIES: Faces Watts Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info PINDER SECURITY: Ingram Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PRESSLER FELT: Duong Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 3rd Circuit PRIME BUYERS: Joint Status Report Due May 6 REALREAL INC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Curry Says ROAR BEVERAGES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Says ROKU INC: Else Sues Over Smart Televisions' Software Defects ROSCO PRODUCTION: Olaguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages RSM ENTERPRISES: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Wilson SKYMOUNT PROPERTY: Stockdale Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit SMITH COLLEGE: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay Unused Personal Time SMSBIOTECH INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Stewart Says SOAPOLOGY NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Johnson Says SPANOS CORPORATION: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STRYKER CORP: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Primer Says SWEET CANDY: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users SWEET CATCH: Faces Victor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SYNOPSYS INC: Fails to Keep Personal Info From Unauthorized Access TARGET CORP: Chavez Class Suit Transferred to C.D. California TOO LOST: Faces Craig Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE: Sued Over Website's Trap-and-Trace Device UNITED STATES: Ruiz Suit Transferred to E.D. California USAA GENERAL: Madkins Sues for Breach of Contract VALLEY FAMILY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Oarbeascoa Claims VALLEY FAMILY: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Denton Says VEGGIE GALAXY: Kuzmich Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages VITAS HEALTHCARE: Dickson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois VIVINT SMART: Website Installs Tracking Pixels, Gonzalez Says WALLBEDS BY WILDING: Denies Blind Users Website Access, Suit Says WARD CHRYSLER: Denial of Bid to Stay Baldwin Class Suit Upheld WELLS FARGO: Navarro Appeals Court Order in ERISA Suit to 8th Cir. WHITMAN HOSPITAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $500,000 WING YIP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 3rd Circuit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Nexus' Subsidiary Faces Exposure Lawsuits ********* A1 MART: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Chaudhari Says ------------------------------------------------------ GAUTAM CHAUDHARI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AJAY MADHANI, JAYKUMAR MADHANI, PRAKASHKUMAR CHAUDHARY, A1 MART LLC, Radhey LLC, 1320 LLC, 355 LLC, and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00047-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va., April 3, 2026) is a class and collective action for unpaid overtime and misclassification under both federal and state law. The complaint relates that Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid one and one-half times their regular rates for overtime hours. The Wage and Hour Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent contractors when they were really employees. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeks unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, regular wages, liquidated damages, triple damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, employment benefits, and all relief allowed by law pursuant to the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (VOWA), Virginia Minimum Wage Act (VMWA), and Virginia Misclassification Law (VML). Plaintiff Gautam Chaudhari is a former employee of Defendants and was employed by Defendants primarily at the A1 Mart in Harrisonburg from January 1, 2022, until the end of February 2024. Defendants Ajay and Jaykumar Madhani are in the business of operating convenience stores, using a web of interrelated companies including Defendants A1 Mart LLC, Radhey LLC, 1320 LLC, and 355 LLC. Defendant Prakashkumar Chaudhary was hired by Wage and Hour Defendants to oversee the operation of their stores, including recruitment, hiring and firing, task and location assignments, and scheduling. Defendants A1 Mart LLC, Radhey LLC, and 1320 LLC operate retail convenience stores in the Western District of Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marissa L. Baer, Esq. Rachel C. McFarland, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: (434) 977-0553 E-mail: marissa@justice4all.org rmcfarland@justice4all.org - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com AETNA LIFE: Appeals Tossed Dismissal Bid in Gordon Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Binah Gordon, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-1447, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the Defendant denies health insurance coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgeries and procedures under Aetna's categorical coverage exclusion on such treatments, in violation of the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded health programs and activities under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. section 18116 ("Section 1557"). On Mar. 3, 2025, Plaintiffs Jamie Homnick and Gennifer Herley filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On Apr. 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On Mar. 8, 2026, Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. As a result of this Ruling and Order, Aetna is required to make individualized coverage determinations as to Dr. Homnick and Dr. Herley only, on the basis of medical necessity, as opposed to categorically excluding their claims under Aetna's Clinical Policy Bulletin 0615 (CPB 0615). The appellate case is captioned as Gordon v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 26-820, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees BINAH GORDON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christine Webber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 - and - Ezra Ungrich Cukor, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR TRANS EQUALITY EDUCATION FUND 305 Seventh Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10001 - and - Joseph Wardenski, Esq. WARDENSKI PC 134 West 29th Street New York, NY 10001 Defendant-Appellant AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Theodore J. Tucci, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 ALBERTSON'S LLC: Haro Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emmanuel Haro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a Delaware corporation; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CU011414C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02120-RSH-DDL. The Complaint is a purported class action alleging the following causes of action: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages and overtime; failure to pay proper sick pay; failure to pay proper vacation wages; failure to provide accurate written wage statements; failure to timely pay all final wages; failure to indemnify; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Brian M. Noh, Esq. Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Phone: +1 213 457 8000 Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com bnoh@reedsmith.com thendershot@reedsmith.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Caffrey Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA CAFFREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02064-JMB-DTS (D. Minn., March 27, 2026) is a class action against Ameriprise for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Ameriprise clients' personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, a data breach took place on March 22, 2026. ShinyHunters, a notorious cybercriminal extortion group, was engaged in these data theft and ransom schemes, including threatening to leak stolen sensitive information to coerce payment from victims. Despite the data breach occurring on that day, to date, the Defendant has inexplicably failed to notify the victims of the data breach and that their private information has been compromised by the ransomware group. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained. The Defendant has failed to properly monitor and implement security practices regarding the computer network and systems that housed the private information. Had Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner or possibly prevented it altogether, says the suit. Ameriprise Financial is a Minneapolis-based financial services firm that provides comprehensive wealth management through personalized financial planning, investment advisory and brokerage services, asset management, and insurance and annuity products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com ANGELUS SHOE: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Angelus Shoe Polish Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03384 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://angelusdirect.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 4, 2025, while searching online, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website. During her visit, Plaintiff Davis became interested in the products listed on the category pages and attempted to browse the available items and complete a purchase. However, while browsing the website, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction independently. She alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Angelus Shoe Polish Co., Inc. operates the website that offers a range of footwear and leather care products, including cleaners, paints, dyes, and conditioning supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ANTHEM HEALTHCHOICE: Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, on behalf of Baby Doe, a minor, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, on behalf of Baby Doe, a minor, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendant for its publication of inaccurate directories of mental-health providers. On Mar. 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge John P. Cronan granted on Mar. 2, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' state-law claims are expressly preempted by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act ("FEHBA") thus the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The appellate case is captioned as Doe v. Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., Case No. 26-813, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOE, on behalf of Baby Doe, a minor, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Defendant-Appellee ANTHEM HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. is represented by: Matthew Joel Aaronson, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 ARC STEEL: Appeals Settlement & Judgment Order in Hurtado Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ARC STEEL SUPPLY INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Segundo David Bermeo Hurtado, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arc Steel Supply Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-4857, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On May 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce judgment, which Judge Vera M. Scanlon granted on Mar. 2, 2026. On Mar. 3, 2026, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants in the amount of $105,000. The appellate case is captioned as Hurtado v. Arc Steel Supply Inc., Case No. 26-850, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SEGUNDO DAVID BERMEO HURTADO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Defendants-Appellants ARC STEEL SUPPLY INC., et al. are represented by: Adam C. Weiss, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF ADAM C. WEISS, PLLC 3 School Street, Suite 303 Glen Cove, NY 11542 ATKINSON CONSULTING: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- LASHAWN JONES, ROBERT WILSON, LASONIA CRUMB and SIMON SKILES, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATKINSON CONSULTING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00934-JFR-KK (D.N.M., March 27, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover from the Defendant unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were paid an hourly rate with no additional compensation for overtime on hours worked on the Hermits Peak FEMA PA-TAC project in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the similarly situated misclassified contractors overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, adds the complaint. Atkinson Consulting LLC was founded in 2010. The company's line of business includes providing professional engineering services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hessam Parzivand, Esq. Travis Bryan, Esq. THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185 Sugar Land, TX 77477 Telephone: (713) 533-8171 (832) 233-7527 Facsimile: (713) 533-8193 E-mail: hp@parzfirm.com travis@parzfirm.com BLOOMCHIC US: Corbett Sues Over Inaccessible Website for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BloomChic US Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00266 (W.D. Wis., March 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.bloomchic.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Corbett and other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Corbett was searching online for a dress for an upcoming event when she discovered Defendant's website. She decided to explore the available options and intended to make a purchase directly from the website. During her navigation, she became interested in the Floral Embroidered Elastic Waist Lined Midi Dress and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Corbett and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. BloomChic US Ltd. operates the website that offers women's apparel including dresses, tops, sweaters, bottoms, and swimwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BOEING COMPANY: Lara-Trespalacios Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Lara-Trespalacios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 26-2-01497-31 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01135. On these bases, Plaintiff brings five causes of action on behalf of himself and the putative Class for: failure to pay wages as required by Washington's Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"); failure to provide proper meal and rest periods as required by Washington's Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA"); willful refusal to pay all wages owed under Washington's Wage Rebate Act ("WRA"); and failure to pay wages owed at termination under Washington's Wage Payment Act ("WPA").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Derek J. Moretz, Esq. Devin Kathleen Epp, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 600 Stewart Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (424) 587-8423 - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrea Delgadillo Ostrovsky, Esq. T. Ray Ivey, WSBA No. 55683 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: andrea.ostrovsky@morganlewis.com ray.ivey@morganlewis.com - and - Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Email: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com - and - Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 324-1138 Email: kevin.gaffney@morganlewis.com BRANDT EQUITIES: Tiede Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK TIEDE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRANDT EQUITIES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00087-ARS (D.N.D., March 27, 2026) is a civil action arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard certain personally identifying information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees and customers, resulting in unauthorized access to Defendant's network between November 8, 2025, and November 12, 2025, and again between November 20, 2025 and November 22, 2025. According to the complaint, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures to protect Plaintiff's and the Class Members' sensitive personal information and warn them promptly and fully about the data breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says the suit. Brandt Equities, LP is a holdings company that manages diversified interests in agriculture, industrial real estate, entertainment, and hospitality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, ALC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CALIFORNIA: Jimenez Files Suit Over Race-Based Maternal Program --------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DR. ERICA PAN, in her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health; DR. BARBARA FERRER, in her official capacity as Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; MANUEL CARMONA, in his official capacity as the Director of Public Health for the Pasadena Public Health Department; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; and PASADENA PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-3500 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) arises under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and federal civil rights statutes. The complaint relates that California funds programs to support pregnant women and new mothers. But under the States Black Infant Health (BIH) program, access to those public benefits turns on race alone. A Pasadena resident and new mother who recently gave birth to her first child, the Plaintiff sought support from the local BIH program while pregnant. After learning that she is not black, she was excluded from the program. Countless other pregnant and new mothers across California suffer the same exclusion. They qualify in every way except the government's racial criterion. The program sets no income limits -- only race decides who gets help, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a proposed class of similarly situated individuals who are eligible for BIH services in all respects except race. Defendant Dr. Erica Pan is the Director of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which oversees and implements the statewide BIH program. Defendant Dr. Barbara Ferrer is the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, which administers the county-level BIH program. Defendant Manual Carmona is the Director of Public Health for the Pasadena Public Health Department, which administers the city-level BIH program. Defendant Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is a local health jurisdiction under relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code pertaining to local health administration and maternal, child, and adolescent health. Defendant Pasadena Public Health Department cooperates with public and private agencies dealing with health needs of residents of the City of Pasadena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Quinio, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 E-mail: aquinio@pacificlegal.org - and - Samantha R. Romero-Drew, Esq. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (202) 888-6881 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 E-mail: SRomero@pacificlegal.org CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Unlawful Taxes in Debt Collectors' Licenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on April 7, two debt collection trade associations and a debt collector filed a putative class action petition against California's Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) in the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco on behalf of a proposed class of approximately 1,243 licensed debt collectors statewide. The petition challenges licensing fees that the DFPI imposed on debt collectors under the state's Debt Collection Licensing Act. The petitioners alleged the fees constitute unlawful taxes in violation of Proposition 26, which requires that state-imposed charges not exceed the reasonable cost of regulation and bear a fair relationship to each payor's burden on, or benefit from, the regulatory program. They alleged the DFPI "grossly overestimated" the number of regulated debt collectors, budgeting for more than 7,000 licensees when only approximately 1,200 applied, and never adjusted its budget to reflect the actual market size. As a result, the petition contends the DFPI assessed a total of $10.2 million in fees for fiscal year 2025 and allocated costs based on licensees' net proceeds -- a metric the petitioners argued measures ability to pay rather than regulatory burden. The petitioners contended that, unlike other states that impose fixed or capped licensing fees, California's uncapped, revenue-based assessments were neither predictable nor proportionate, and warned that the fees had already prompted some licensees to withdraw from the state. The petitioners also alleged the DFPI failed to consult a statutorily required advisory committee meaningfully on the fee formula and, though it purportedly did so orally at a committee meeting, never disclosed the assessment-rate factor in formal rulemaking. The petition asserts that the DFPI proposed expanding its licensing definitions to sweep in additional businesses, which the petitioners characterized as an attempt to justify the agency's "unreasonably large" budget rather than align costs with the actual regulated market. The petitioners argued the fees would ultimately raise the cost of credit in the state and harm its economy. The petition raised four causes of action: (i) a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085; (ii) declaratory relief for due process violations and breach of Proposition 26; (iii) declaratory relief under the Administrative Procedures Act; and (iv) a claim for refund of unconstitutional taxes. [GN] CARNIVORE BRANDS: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVORE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02777 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 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.beardedbutchers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty buttons, empty links that contain no text, missing form labels, broken references, contract errors, and improper semantic markup, says the suit. 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. Carnivore Brands, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Castaneda Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY CASTANEDA and LAUREN GOODLOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIME FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-2924 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 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 personal identifiable information (PII) of thousands of its customers. In collecting and maintaining the PII, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. On April 1, 2026, Defendant experienced a widespread outage on its network due to unauthorized access to its systems by cybercriminals. Defendant has yet to formally notify Class Members of the Breach even though Plaintiffs and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, the sensitive PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members was placed into the hands of cybercriminals, inflicting numerous injuries and significant damages upon Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Plaintiffs and Class Members, hence, seek injunctive or other equitable relief to ensure Defendant adequately safeguards PII by implementing reasonable security procedures and practices. Plaintiffs Cindy Castaneda and Lauren Goodloe are current customers of Defendant, and are Data Breach victims. Defendant Chime Financial, Inc. is a financial technology company offering a suite of app-based banking and financial services through partnerships with FDIC-insured banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market St., Ste. 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com CONSUMER SAFETY: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Curry Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK CURRY, 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-00134-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa, March 26, 2026) alleges that Defendant breached its duties owed to Plaintiff and Class members by failing to take reasonable appropriate measures to secure, protect, and/or otherwise protect and harden its network infrastructure and systems and in failing to safeguard their private information. Consumer Safety Technology, LLC d/b/a Intoxalock is the manufacturer of the "Intoxalock" breathalyzer interlocks that are installed and monitored on vehicles. As the programs are administered by state agencies as part of their respective criminal justice systems, with monitoring and reporting, Intoxalock users must provide to Defendant personally identifying information and other sensitive information such as criminal and conviction history to use the interlock. And since Defendant charges a monthly fee and other fees, such as calibration fees, for the use of the Intoxalock, users must also provide financial account information and payment information to Defendant. On March 14, 2026, cybercriminals attacked Defendant's systems and disabled its critical network infrastructure and successfully stole the vast quantities of information maintained by Defendant. In addition to theft of private information, countless users were unable to use their vehicles for over a week, as the outage disabled countless Intoxalocks across the United States, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all those similarly situated to seek relief for the consequences of Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard their private information; failure to maintain the continued operation of critical cloud infrastructure and systems, failure to reasonably provide timely notification to Plaintiff and Class members that their private information had been compromised; failure to timely and accurately inform Plaintiff and Class members about the consequences of the outage; and for Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their private information.[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 marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Alex Lee, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com alee@caffertyclobes.com CRUNCHYROLL LLC: Enfield Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMILIA ENFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRUNCHYROLL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02714 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. On no later than March 12, 2026, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII and financial information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, the complaint adds. Crunchyroll LLC owns and operates its subscription streaming service that offers consumers who pay a monthly subscription price access to thousands of on demand anime titles.[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 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com DL1961 PREMIUM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bennett Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dl1961 Premium Denim Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03418 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://dl1961.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On January 20, 2026, while searching online for men's straight jeans, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website. While exploring the website, Plaintiff Bennett browsed the Sale category to review available options and attempted to make a purchase of jeans. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Dl1961 Premium Denim Inc. operates the website that offers denim products for women, men, and kids, including jeans, denim jackets, shorts and skirts, knitwear and jumpsuits, performance pants and tailored chinos, seasonal tops and outerwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law DOLLAR GENERAL: Plaintiffs Allowed to File TAC ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, TODD J. VASOS, JEFFERY C. OWEN, JOHN W. GARRATT, and KELLY M. DILTS, Case No. 3:23-cv-01250 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta A. Trauger entered memorandum granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third consolidated amended complaint. While the plaintiffs seek to file a third amended complaint, the parties have briefed a motion to dismiss only once. Even accepting the defendants' contention that the court ought to apply Rule 15(a)(2) more conservatively in securities fraud cases, the court perceives no gamesmanship by the plaintiffs and is not persuaded that, in this case, it should exercise its discretion to deny the plaintiffs' motion to amend. Lead Plaintiffs Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and Quoniam Asset Management GmbH, on behalf of those who acquired Dollar General Corporation common stock between May 28, 2020, and Aug. 28, 2024, inclusive, brought this putative securities fraud class action against Dollar General and four Company executives. The SAC alleges that the Company's mismanagement emerged through a series of partial corrective disclosures, beginning Dec. 1, 2022, and ending Aug. 29, 2024, in the form of financial disclosure forms and earnings and conference calls. Dollar General is a retailer that operates discount stores. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gG2oJB at no extra charge.[CC] ECI INVESTMENTS: Fanning Sues for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- SARA FANNING, on behalf of her minor child, Plaintiff v. ECI INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a SUBWAY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01115-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., March 26, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act seeking redress for Defendant's sex-based discrimination, sex-based harassment, and retaliation under Title VII and the IHRA. ECI Investments, LLC d/b/a Subway is a limited liability corporation specializing in food and restaurant services. The Plaintiff's minor child worked for the Defendant from March 20, 2025 until her unlawful termination on November 17, 2025. Beginning in or around March 2025, the Plaintiff's minor child was subjected to repeated sexual comments and inappropriate conduct by a male co-worker. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination on behalf of her minor child with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights. The temporal proximity between Plaintiff's minor child report of sexual discrimination and harassment to Defendant and Defendant's retaliatory actions, gives rise to a strong inference that the termination was motivated by Plaintiff's minor child's sex and engagement in protected activity, says the suit.[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) 575-8181 E-mail: ceisenback@atlaslawcenter.com nvolheim@atlaslawcenter.com cclark@atlaslawcenter.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Dismissal of Holland Discrimination Suit Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, REBECCA HOLLAND, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., f/k/a Anthem, Inc., Defendant, Appellee, Case No. 25-1359 (1st Cir.). Holland filed a putative class action against Elevance, alleging that it designed and administered a health insurance plan—through its subsidiary Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc.—that excluded coverage for weight-loss medication. She alleged that the Exclusion violated federal law because it discriminated against plan enrollees diagnosed with obesity. Holland, a Falmouth Public Schools employee, is enrolled in a health insurance plan designed and administered by Anthem through the Maine Education Association Benefits Trust. After being diagnosed with obesity, Holland was prescribed FDA-approved medications, including Wegovy and Contrave, but Anthem denied coverage based on the plan's exclusion. Her doctors repeatedly tried to push it through. Dr. Rebecca Hemphill’s office first appealed, pointing to Holland's medical history and need for treatment. Later, Dr. Jared Cassin submitted additional support, including details about her obesity and binge eating disorder. Even with those efforts, Anthem stood by the exclusion and refused to cover the medication, including denying a later preauthorization request outright. On September 20, 2024, Holland, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, sued Anthem's parent company, Elevance, for disability discrimination under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 18116. She alleged that Elevance designed and administered health plans that discriminated based on the disabling condition of obesity. Elevance moved to dismiss. On April 9, 2025, the district court granted Elevance's motion to dismiss. The district court rejected as conclusory Holland's allegations that she and every Plan participant with an obesity diagnosis and weight-loss medication prescription were disabled. Rather, the district court explained that whether a health condition results in disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") was not a formulaic inquiry based on a mere diagnosis and prescription but was an individualized inquiry. Nonetheless, it rejected Holland's discrimination allegations as conclusory and conjectural. It reasoned that the Exclusion under the Plan applied even if an enrollee was overweight rather than obese, and that the Exclusion operated for both overweight and obese participants regardless of whether they were disabled. Accordingly, on its face, the Exclusion does not turn on disability status, impacts participants whether they are disabled or not, and does not isolate disabled participants for discriminatory treatment. Thus, the district court concluded that Holland's allegations did not support a plausible finding that the Exclusion amounted to intentional, proxy, disparate impact, or deliberate indifference discrimination against Holland or the putative class. Lastly, the district court declined to rule on whether Elevance or Anthem, as Elevance's subsidiary administering the Plan at issue, was the appropriate defendant in this Section 1557 action. Instead, it dismissed the case based on the lack of a valid discrimination claim. Holland's timely appeal followed. On appeal, Holland raised three issues. She argued the district court wrongly dismissed her disability discrimination claim, saying she had adequately pleaded intentional, proxy, and disparate impact discrimination. She also challenged the court's comments about whether Elevance was the proper defendant. Lastly, she argued the court went too far in its views on whether disability status could be proven on a class-wide basis. The First Circuit held that it need not address the latter two issues because it found that Holland failed to plausibly state a claim for disability discrimination under Section 1557. The Appellate Court rejected Holland's proxy discrimination argument. It said her complaint didn't show a close enough connection between people with obesity and those who need prescription weight-loss medication. Without that link, the court couldn't treat the exclusion as a stand-in for disability discrimination. As a result, her proxy discrimination claim failed. Holland attempted to show intentional discrimination by alleging that: (1) the Plan constitutes facial discrimination; and (2) Elevance acted with deliberate indifference. The Appellate Court rejected Holland's argument that the plan was discriminatory on its face. It pointed out that the exclusion doesn't just apply to people diagnosed with obesity. The plan separately states that any drug mainly used for weight loss isn't covered, no matter the reason. Because of that, the Court viewed the exclusion as neutral. It applies to anyone seeking weight-loss medication, not just people with obesity, so it doesn't single out a specific condition or group. The First Circuit also found no basis to infer intentional discrimination. It said Holland's complaint didn't show that Elevance knowingly ignored or was deliberately indifferent to the idea that people with obesity, prescribed weight-loss medication, could qualify as disabled under the ADA. Without that, her claim of intentional discrimination couldn't hold up. Finally, the First Circuit rejected Holland's disparate impact argument. She claimed people with obesity didn’t have meaningful access to prescription drug benefits, but she didn't clearly define what that benefit is supposed to include under the ACA. While the ACA prohibits disability discrimination, it doesn't require insurers to cover every medically necessary treatment for a specific condition. Without more detail showing what meaningful access should look like, her claim fell short. For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/xke4n5d. Anna P. Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com -- with whom Kiese T. Hansen -- khansen@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Eleanor Hamburger -- ehamburger@sylaw.com -- Richard E. Spoonemore -- rspoonemore@sylaw.com -- Ari Robbins Greene, Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, Shelby Leighton -- sleighton@publicjustice.net -- and Public Justice were on brief, for appellant. Elizabeth Parr Hecker -- ehecker@crowell.com -- with whom Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Carol B. Lewis -- clewis@crowell.com -- Daniel J. Hofmeister -- dhofmeister@crowell.com -- Bryan M. Webster -- bwebster@crowell.com -- Alex M. Lucas -- alucas@crowell.com -- and Reed Smith LLP were on brief, for appellee. ELEVANCE HEALTH: Kneppar Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Leah Kneppar, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00863 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00268-DJN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Elevance Health, Inc. -- https://www.elevancehealth.com/ -- is an American health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott E. Nevin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700, Baltimore, MD 2120 Phone: (410) 260-0183 Facsimile: 410-244-1047 Email: snevin@nicholllaw.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, MN Bar No. 340133* NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com - and - Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Fax (617) 993-5801 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq. Kevin M. Young, Esq. Lennon Haas, Esq. Mitchell A. Robinson, Esq. Olivia Jenkins, Esq. Shannon Cherney, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste. 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 888-1875 Email: bbartlett@seyfarth.com kyoung@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com mrobinson@seyfarth.com ojenkins@seyfarth.com scherney@seyfarth.com - and - Christine M. Costantino, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 975 F St NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 828-5347 Fax: (202) 828-5393 Email: ccostantino@seyfarth.com ENSTEP TECHNOLOGY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Enstep Technology, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00445 (N.D. Ind., April 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://crazycompression.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Deinnocentes's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Deinnocentes has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on November 18, 2025. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to complete the purchase independently. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Deinnocentes and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff May Ann Deinnocentes is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Enstep Technology, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of compression wear and related products, including compression socks and calf compression sleeves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law ENTRATA INC: Brown Suit Removed to D. Nevada -------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angela Brown, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. ENTRATA, INC., Case No. A-26-940907-C was removed from the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01040. On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a class action against Entrata in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada alleging violation of the Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"). The Plaintiff also asserts claims for tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, as well as claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, and restitution.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Philip Erwini Esq. CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 710 South Seventh Street, Suite A Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 382-5222 Facsimile: (702) 382-0540 Email: pre@cwlawlv.com - and - David D. Cross, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 346-4000 Facsimile: (202) 346-4444 Email: DCross@goodwinlaw.com - and - Alicia Rubio-Spring, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, 02210 Phone: (617) 570-1000 Facsimile: (202) 346-4444 Email: ARubio-Spring@goodwinIaw.com EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Tosses "Caraway" Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Equifax's motion to dismiss the case, IRVIN E. CARAWAY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-12267 (11th Cir.). Caraway, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal in his civil case that was consolidated in the multidistrict litigation for cases arising out of the 2017 Equifax data breach, which, upon approving a class action settlement, the district court dismissed with prejudice in 2020. In his notice, Caraway expressly sought to appeal this case but did not clearly identify any rulings from which he was appealing. Premised on Caraway's notice evincing an intent to appeal from the district court's most recent order denying Caraway's post-judgment motion to transfer venues, Equifax moves to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Caraway lacks standing to challenge the order and that the order is neither final nor otherwise appealable. Equifax alternatively moves for summary affirmance. Caraway did not respond. Upon review of the record and Equifax's motion to dismiss, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Caraway's appeal because his notice of appeal is not timely to challenge any order in this case. The district court entered its most recent order on the docket on November 7, 2024, which denied Caraway's post-judgment motion and concluded the post-judgment proceeding. Because the district court did not enter judgment on a document separate from its November 7 order, the order is not deemed entered until April 7, 2025, the first business day following 150 days after its entry on the docket. If Caraway sought to appeal from the November 7 order, he was therefore required to file a notice of appeal by May 7, 2025. He did not file his notice until June 30, 2025. The notice is thus untimely to appeal from the November 7, 2024, order. As his notice of appeal is not timely to appeal from the court's most recent order, Caraway's notice is also not timely to appeal from any earlier order. The Eleventh Circuit therefore lacked jurisdiction to review his appeal. Accordingly, Equifax's motion to dismiss is granted, and Caraway's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Equifax's alternative motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/W5RW6kaes ERICSSON INC: Orobitg Sues Over Illegal Access to Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SISY OROBITG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERICSSON INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00340-ALM-BD (E.D. Tex., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 17, 2025, and April 22, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Ericsson Inc. is a networking and telecommunications company, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com ESA MANAGEMENT: McCluskey Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMY J. MCCLUSKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-00002-01474-4, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01033 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's amended complaint sets three causes of action against ESA Management: (1) failure to compensate for legally noncompliant meal and rest periods; (2) minimum wage violations in violation of Minimum Wage Act; and (3) failure to pay overtime wages. ESA Management LLC is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes the operation of nonclassifiable establishments.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Brian Rho, Esq. Eliza Whitworth, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com ewhitworth@littler.com FABLETICS INC: Ashford Suit Seeks IEEPA Tariff Refunds ------------------------------------------------------ TANYA ASHFORD, SOFIA POINDEXTER, CAMBRIA SMITH, and AMEE GRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FABLETICS, INC. and FABLETICS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01643 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2026) is a class action seeking restitution and disgorgement of all tariff surcharges Plaintiffs paid to Fabletics, plus prejudgment interest, and other equitable relief. Last year, the Trump Administration imposed a sweeping set of tariffs pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) which the Supreme Court recently held were unlawful. As the federal government has acknowledged and as the Court of International Trade has ordered, the government must now refund the billions of dollars it collected in connection with the IEEPA tariffs, plus interest. The problem is that importers overwhelmingly passed the cost of IEEPA tariffs on to consumers, but only the importer has standing to seek a refund in the Court of International Trade. Therefore, importers stand to gain an enormous windfall at the expense of consumers. The complaint relates that Fabletics's products are largely produced in overseas factories. While the IEEPA tariffs were in effect, Fabletics imported its products to the United States from countries subject to the IEEPA tariffs prior to selling them to American consumers and therefore incurred customs charges. But Fabletics did not bear the cost of the IEEPA tariffs itself; rather, it shifted the tax burden to its customers by levying a "tariff surcharge" on consumer transactions. Fabletics has publicly acknowledged that it responded to the IEEPA tariffs by collecting a tariff surcharge from its customers. The tariff surcharge is a discrete, line-item identified on each customer's bill. It would therefore be trivial for Fabletics to refund the tariff surcharges to its customers. Nevertheless, Fabletics has refused to commit to providing any sort of refund to consumers. Instead, it has stated to reporters that while the Supreme Court ruling is an important development, tariffs remain in place and there are still many outstanding questions regarding implementation and potential refunds that it is closely monitoring, says the suit. Plaintiffs Tanya Ashford, Sofia Poindexter, Cambria Smith, Amee Graham, and Amber Calabro are Fabletics customers who paid tariff surcharges in connection with the IEEPA tariffs. Defendants Fabletics, Inc. and Fabletics, LLC is the world's largest digitally native activewear brand.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON WERNING CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com - and - Jacob Polin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 344 20th Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 E-mail: jacob@levinlawpa.com FIRSTMARK SERVICES: Appeals Denied Motions for Leave to Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- FIRSTMARK SERVICES LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions for leave to appeal in the lawsuit entitled Tashanna B. Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstmark Services LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05849, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit arises out of an adversary proceeding in a single Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In that adversary proceeding the Bankruptcy Court preliminarily enjoined and restrained the Debtor's and putative class creditors from: (1) taking any acts to collect on [student] loans that exceed the cost of attendance as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 221(D) and graduation loans incurred to pay for living expenses while pursuing professional licensure, that are held by Ms. Golden and the Putative Class Members that have an outstanding balance subject to collection ("May 7, 2025 Order"); and (2) expanding that restraint to include loans for which the servicer is not able presently to determine that a loan, together with other scholarships, loans and grants, does not exceed the cost of attendance until [the servicer] has established that the criteria necessary to exclude a loan from the scope of the injunction have been met ("October 8, 2025 Order"). Ms. Golden's creditors, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4 and GS2 2016-A and Nelnet, d/b/a Firstmark, each move for leave to appeal the May 7, 2025 Order. PHEAA also amended its motion for leave to appeal to include the October 8, 2025 Order, and for a stay of the preliminary injunction during appeal. On Mar. 31, 2026, Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. entered an Order denying the Defendants' motions for leave to appeal without prejudice. The motion to stay is denied as moot. The appellate case is styled as Tashanna B. Golden v. Firstmark Services LLC, et al., Case No. 26-819, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TASHANNA B. GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: George F. Carpinello, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434−0600 Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com Defendants-Appellants FIRSTMARK SERVICES LLC, et al. are represented by: H. Peter Haveles, Esq. Peter Haveles, Jr., Esq. Ashley Bryne Akapo, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 822−2280 Facsimile: (212) 259−8586 Email: peter.haveles@akerman.com phaveles@akerman.com ashley.akapo@akerman.com FMR LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Elmaroukh Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TAAJUDIN ELMAROUK, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FMR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02876 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies (Google Analytics Tracker, Segment Tracker, and Adobe Target Tracker) on the Website, www.fidelity.com that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's conduct constitutes a serious invasion of users' privacy. The severity of the invasion is heightened by the financial context of the Website, the persistent and cross-platform nature of the identifiers used, and the commercial exploitation of the intercepted data, it adds. As a result of Defendant's invasion of their privacy, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered harm, including loss of privacy, loss of control over their personal information, and the unauthorized commercial exploitation of their browsing activity, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Taajudin Elmarouk is a California citizen residing in Contra Costa County and was in California when he visited the Website on March 17, 2026. Defendant FMR, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that owns, operates, and controls the Website, an online platform through which FMR offers financial services, investment accounts, retirement planning tools, and personal finance education to consumers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com FOOTWEAR UNLMITED: Butler Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOOTWEAR UNLMITED, INC., d/b/a THE FRYE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02523 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant arising from its failure to ensure that its ecommerce website, www.thefryecompany.com is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals in violation 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 Law. On multiple occasions in 2025 and 2026, including January 14, February 8, and March 2, 2026, Plaintiff Butler visited Defendant's website using NVDA (Non-Visual Desktop Access) with the intent to browse and purchase specific products. During each visit, Mr. Butler encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise, says the suit. The Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its Website in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers denies Mr. Butler, and all similarly situated individuals, the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, privileges, and advantages, in violation of the federal and state laws, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to remediate the website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the website is -- and remains -- fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Footwear Unlmited, Inc. operates the website which markets and sells leather boots, shoes, sneakers, sandals, bags, accessories, and gift cards to consumers throughout the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com GOURMET FACTORY: Martinez Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN MARTINEZ and MARIA GABRIELA ARAUZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE GOURMET FACTORY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02528 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs seeking relief individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated customers, who purchased Defendant's deceptively labeled products during the statute of limitations period, for violation of New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and fraud. This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of (1) Capatriti "100% Pure Olive Oil" and (2) Capatriti "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" in the United States. The Defendant markets, labels, advertises, and sells the Products to consumers with packaging that prominently and unequivocally represents that the oil is "100% Pure" or "Extra Virgin Olive Oil," respectively. The Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers believe, based on Defendant's representation, that the Products are pure olive oil. However, independent laboratory testing has shown that the Products are adulterated with olive pomace oil. Pomace is an ultra-processed byproduct extracted from leftover olive skins and pits, typically using a combination of chemical solvents and high temperatures. Although it comes from olives, pomace is not olive oil and the refining process required after extraction it renders it flavorless and odorless, say the Plaintiffs. The complaint asserts that the mislabeling of the Products render them completely worthless. By mislabeling the Products, the Defendant dupes consumers into purchasing something that is not olive oil. Nevertheless, the Products are labeled and sold as premium olive oil, and they command a substantial price premium over blended pomace oils. The Gourmet Factory, Inc. manufactures and imports olive oil, olives, vegetable oils, and specialty foods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Craig A. Eaton, Esq. EATON & TORRENZANO, L.L.P. 8416 3rd Ave Brooklyn, NY 11209 Telephone: (718) 332-7766 Facsimile: (718) 332-5898 E-mail: ce1617@aol.com HIGHTOWER HOLDING: Samowitz Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info --------------------------------------------------------------- GAIL SAMOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHTOWER HOLDING, LLC, HIGHTOWER ADVISORS, LLC d/b/a HIGHTOWER ADVISORS, HIGHTOWER SECURITIES, LLC and HIGHTOWER TRUST COMPANY, NA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03797 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act, and declaratory Judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between January 8, 2025, and January 9, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Hightower Advisors, LLC, doing business as Hightower Advisors, is an independent wealth management firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Hightower Securities, LLC is a broker dealer based in Chicago, Illinois. Hightower Trust Company, NA is a provider of trust services based in Houston, Texas. Hightower Holding, LLC is the parent company of Hightower Advisors, Hightower Securities and Hightower Trust based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com HIMS & HERS: Mackey Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------- The case styled as HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-003060, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 26, 2026. The Florida Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-60865 to the proceeding. The suit is brought by the Plaintiff for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a foreign corporation which sells various goods to persons across the U.S. through its online store.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Armand del Castillo, Esq. JONES DAY Brickell World Plaza 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 714-9631 E-mail: adelcastillo@jonesday.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Douglas Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMIAH DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMMUNITYBIO, INC., and PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03261 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded ImmunityBio securities between January 19, 2026 and March 24, 2026, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendant made materially false and/or misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Soon-Shion materially overstated Anktiva's capabilities; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about ImmunityBio's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, ImmunityBio common stock fell $1.98 per share, or 21%, to close at $7.42 per share on March 24, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. ImmunityBio, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on developing cell and immunotherapy products for the treatment of cancers, infectious, and inflammatory diseases. ImmunityBio serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com IPPC INC: Murphy Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IPPC Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kelly Murphy, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IPPC Inc., IPPC of New York LLC, Innovative Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03597 (D.N.J., April 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. IPPC -- https://www.ippcrx.com/ -- is a privately owned and operated state of the art long term care pharmacy servicing New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com KAO USA: Chiplinsky Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as KATE CHIPLINSKY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAO USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 26STCV03975, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03298 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Defendant for an alleged violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant improperly marketed and sold Jergens Skin Firming Body Lotion in violation of the California Health & Safety Code and the California Sherman Law. The Plaintiff further alleges that her UCL claim is based on Defendant's purported violation of the California Sherman Law. Kao USA Inc. is a subsidiary of Japan's Kao Corporation, focusing on personal care, hair care, and beauty products for both consumers and professional salons.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Leventhal, Esq. Cindy Kaneko, Esq. GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD JORDAN & SHAPIRO LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 2850 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 765-4380 E-mail: jleventhal@glaserweil.com ckaneko@glaserweil.com LAST BRAND INC: Andrews Suit Removed to D. Columbia --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Allysa Andrews, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. LAST BRAND, INC., Case No. 2026-CAB-001059 was removed from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01152. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges Quince's comparison prices on its website violate the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Quince's "Traditional retail" strikethrough prices next to its list prices and "You save [x]%" representations misleads "consumers into believing they are receiving a bargain for their purchases."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick J. Curran Jr., Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1301 K Street NW, Suite 500 East Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 973-4277 Email: patcurran@dwt.com - and - James H. Moon, Esq. Katelyn A. Feliciano, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Ave 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6819 Fax: (213) 655-9682 Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com katelynfeliciano@dwt.com LEGGETT & PLATT: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Somnigroup ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (NYSE: LEG) related to its sale to Somnigroup International Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Leggett & Platt shareholders will receive 0.1455 shares of Somnigroup common stock for each share of Leggett & Platt common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/leggett-platt-incorporated/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA: Counsel Must File Joint Scheduling Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANNICK BANDALI, v. THE LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY, INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-60825-WPD (S.D. Fla., the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order as follows: 1. The Court will only consider motions filed in this Court's docket; therefore, any party wishing to have the Court rule on a motion that was pending in state court upon the removal of this action must refile that motion in this Court's docket. 2. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Southern District of Florida Local Rule 16.1. 3. Within 35 calendar days of the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, unless this action is excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B.2. 4. The parties may submit a single report combining the discovery plan report and the scheduling conference report. However, unilateral submissions are prohibited. 5. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a discovery plan report or joint scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney’s fees and costs. The Defendant is a voluntary health agency dedicated to blood cancer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dMG0Qw at no extra charge.[CC] LION STAR: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- CATRINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LION STAR NACOGDOCHES HOSPITAL, LLC d/b/a NACOGDOCHES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00342 (E.D. Tex., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on January 31, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lion Star Nacogdoches Hospital, LLC, doing business as Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, is a medical services provider based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com LOUISIANA: Final Judgment in Parker vs. State Penitentiary Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's final judgment in the case, KENTRELL PARKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; FARRELL SAMPIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; REGINALD GEORGE; JOHN TONUBBEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; OTTO BARRERA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; CLYDE CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; EDWARD GIOVANNI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; RICKY D. DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; LIONEL TOLBERT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; RUFUS WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SHANNON HURD; ALTON ADAMS; IAN CAZENAVE; EDWARD WASHINGTON; ALTON BATISTE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TIM HOOPER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; ASHLI OLIVEAUX, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in her official capacity; GARY WESTCOTT, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections; RANDY LAVESPERE, Medical Doctor; STACYE Falgout; PAUL TOCE; BILL HAWKINS; CYNTHIA PARK, ACNP; THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 23-30825 (5th Cir.). The appeal arises from atavistic court rulings that seek to control prison management in violation of constitutional law and fundamental principles of federalism. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") in 1996 to rein in such judicial adventurism, 18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a), (f), yet its precepts were violated by the district court. In 2015, a class of inmates filed suit against the Defendants-Appellants who run the Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP") at Angola. They claimed that the prison's medical care was constitutionally deficient, and it failed to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act (collectively, "ADA/RA"). Although the case was tried in October 2018, evidence of prisoners' medical treatment that occurred years earlier was introduced. In March 2021, the court entered a 124-page Liability Opinion with extensive findings concerning alleged systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. Chastened, the prison authorities immediately began renovating their facilities, upgrading personnel, and improving standards of care, as they anticipated the bifurcated remedial trial scheduled for June 2022. At that trial, the court considered some (but not all) of the interim improvements and the scope and nature of any remedies that it would require of LSP. After trial, LSP made other improvements, including the introduction in October of an electronic medical recordkeeping system, which promised to rectify numerous concerns of the court. Citing its trial-management discretion, the court refused to consider the upgrades. Not until November 2023 was the court's 104-page Remedial Opinion issued, together with a Remedial Order and Final Judgment. The Judgment was entered in favor of Class Plaintiffs and the ADA Sub-Class Plaintiffs and against Defendants, the current Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al. Six decretal sections of the Remedial Order followed, concerning Special Masters; Remedial Plans for Medical Care and the ADA; Cooperation and Access to require the Defendants' coordination with Special Masters or their representatives; Reporting, a timetable for reporting to the court; Monitoring Implementation of Remedial Plans and Periodic Reports to the Court; and Fees and Costs. Upon entry of the Judgment, the court administratively closed the case. This appeal followed. At Defendants' request, a panel of the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order pending appeal, and another panel later reviewed the merits. At no time during the stay proceeding or in the parties' briefs did the parties question the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Appellate Court raised the question sua sponte and received further briefing. A panel majority then issued its decision that would have dismissed the appeal. The Court voted to rehear the case en banc, consequently vacating the panel opinion. The Fifth Circuit opined that although the en banc court may reconsider every aspect of the district court's liability and remedial holdings, it's only necessary to point out the court's grave errors in addressing the remedial phase of the case. The Supreme Court held that injunctive relief is inappropriate in prison conditions cases unless efforts to fix unconstitutional conditions are so lacking that they continue to reflect prison officials' deliberate indifference. The Appellate Court said the court used the wrong legal standard in gauging the status of LSP's medical care following watershed improvements. Repeatedly, its Remedial Opinion described the improvements as "robust" or partially corrective of problems described in the Liability Opinion. But repeatedly, the court held, they were "not enough" to cleanse the Defendants of deliberate indifference or remove the threat of future unconstitutional denial of adequate medical care. Moreover, the court erroneously refused to update its remedial analysis with evidence of critical reforms that LSP achieved in the seventeen months between the remedial trial and the Remedial Opinion. The district court also applied the wrong standard when addressing the prison's compliance with the ADA/RA. These errors reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of injunctive relief in institutional-reform litigation. Hence, the Remedial Order must be vacated and remanded for a thorough reconsideration in light of the correct standards. The Fifth Circuit said none of these Remedial Opinion complaints, coupled with the affirmative changes made by the Defendants, rises to the level of showing ongoing deliberate indifference by the Defendants. That is especially true, given that the American Correctional Association ("ACA") reaccredited LSP in August 2024 after the prison satisfied 100% of 64 mandatory standards and 98.98% of the nonmandatory standards set forth by the ACA. As with the Eighth Amendment, the district court made the same kind of mistakes in regard to LSP's alleged violations of the ADA/RA. In particular, its Remedial Opinion continually discounted improvements that it knew had been made for the benefit of disabled prisoners. What the district court failed to acknowledge is that the ADA does not set out a standard of care for medical treatment, and it is not violated by a prison's simply failing to attend to the medical needs of its disabled prisoners. As a result, the district court's Remedial Opinion went too far. Although ADA/RA remedies are not subject to the PLRA, the court's micromanagement of the prison's facilities, personnel, procedures, and standards of care require reconsideration. For all these reasons, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court was made aware of a substantial risk of serious legal error that could arise from discounting the Defendants' innovations and improvements to prison medical care and disability care that were made during the remedial phase and post-trial, but it chose to ignore the risk. Likewise, it chose to ignore that ongoing improvements and innovations gave rise to a strong legal likelihood that the Defendants were not guilty of continued deliberate indifference or disability discrimination. The district court, in sum, was deliberately indifferent to both the evidentiary and legal framework that bound it. The Fifth Circuit, following the Supreme Court, must maintain a delicate balance among the prerogatives of public institutions, the demands of federalism, and the judiciary's limited remedial role. The district court's Remedial Order failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/rO6royZ6Z LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Harhay Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael J. Harhay, William F. Schmierer, all other similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Lowe's Companies, Inc., Case No. 26CV008212 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sam Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com LULULEMON USA: Fails to Provide Tariff Refunds, Neuman Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA NEUMAN, JESSICA KELLEY, BOBBY KELLEY, and RONALD K. BUCKMAN III on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LULULEMON USA INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11029-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., March 27, 2026) arises from Lululemon USA's retention of profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This class suit seeks to prevent Lululemon from double recovery. Lululemon has made no commitment to return any portion of its anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who ultimately bore those costs. Lululemon's simultaneous recoupment of tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing and from the government through court-ordered tariff refunds constitutes unjust enrichment at the expense of Plaintiffs and a proposed class of similarly situated Lululemon customers, asserts the complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks a judgment that Lululemon is obligated to return to Plaintiffs and the Class all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. The Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Lululemon recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Lululemon USA Inc. is one of the world's largest yoga wear and sportswear companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. Kathryn Regan Eisenstein, Esq. Brian P. Markham, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com keisenstein@manteselaw.com bmarkham@manteselaw.com MERCER ADVISORS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Moses Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE MOSES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCER ADVISORS, INC. and MERCER GLOBAL ADVISORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01452 (D. Colo., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from Mercer's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on or around January 22, 2026. Mercer also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Mercer Advisors, Inc. is a financial services company based in Denver, Colorado. Mercer Global Advisors, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mercer Advisors based in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com MERCER STREET: Akimova Files Suit Over Arbitration Noncompliance ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA AKIMOVA, Plaintiff v. MERCER STREET HOSPITALITY, LLC, and SESSANTA, LLC d/b/a BISTROT LEO, d/b/a BUTTERFLY SOHO, d/b/a A60 ROOFTOP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02725 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2026) is a class and collective action against the Defendant for its failure to comply with a decision issued by an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration agreement. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filed her Arbitration Demand with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) on February 14, 2023, and faithfully litigated her grievances throughout the arbitration process. After Defendants received an adverse decision at Summary Disposition, Defendants refused to pay any further arbitration costs, effectively ending the proceedings. On September 11, 2025, JAMS administratively closed the arbitration case, due to Defendants' failure to pay, leaving Plaintiff with no recourse but to file the instant suit. This action seeks confirmation of the arbitrator's order and a judgment requiring Defendant to pay the damages, attorneys fees, costs, sanctions, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. In addition to confirmation of the arbitrator's order, Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, that she is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages including overtime, due to time-shaving; (2) unpaid wages due to improperly deducted meal credits; (3) liquidated damages; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, she and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages including overtime due to time-shaving; (2) unpaid wages due to improperly deducted meal credits; (3) statutory penalties; (4) liquidated damages; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant the NYLL, she is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid commissions; (2) damages for late payment; (3) damages for breach of contract; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs, adds the complaint. Plaintiff ANNA AKIMOVA is a resident of Queens County, New York. Defendant MERCER STREET HOSPITALITY, LLC owns and operates SESSANTA LLC d/b/a BISTROT LEO, d/b/a BUTTERFLY SOHO, d/b/a A60 ROOFTOP.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MN BEST: Morgan Sues Over False Retail Prices and Fake Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MN BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00836 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Business and Professions Code and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of advertising fake retail prices and discounts. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely advertises "Reg" and "Comp. Value" prices and corresponding "Save" calculations that never reflected the genuine prevailing retail price for the 90 consecutive days immediately preceding the sale, as required by California's Business and Professions Code Section 17501. These tactics are used not to convey accurate information about a product's market value, but to manufacture the artificial appearance of consumer savings. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property. MN Best Buy Co., Inc. is a consumer electronics retailer, with its principal place of business in Richfield, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave., Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com - and - Kevin J. Cole, Esq. William Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, APC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ: Court of Appeals Affirms "Knight" Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case NANCY KNIGHT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MOHAVE COUNTY, Defendant/Appellee, Case No. 1 CA-CV 25-0528 (Ariz. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the dismissal of Knight's claim against Mohave County. In 2010, Knight bought a home in Desert Lakes Subdivision Tract 4076-B located in Fort Mohave, Arizona. Homes in Desert Lakes were subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), first recorded in 1989, which included setback requirements. In 1993, Mohave County adopted Resolution No. 93-122, amending the zoning setback requirements applicable to Desert Lakes to conform to the CC&Rs' setback requirements. In 2021, Knight sued several Desert Lakes homeowners and Mohave County Development Services (the Hogue case). In the Hogue case, Knight sought to enforce the CC&Rs' setback requirements and to prevent the County from approving setbacks smaller than those in Resolution 93-122. Mohave County, the real party in interest, moved to dismiss her claims as time-barred. The court granted that motion and entered judgment for the County and against Knight. Knight appealed, and in September 2024, the Appellate Court affirmed. In March 2025, Knight filed this suit against Mohave County, again seeking to enforce Resolution 93-122. This time, Knight sought certification as a class action on behalf of similarly situated Desert Lakes homeowners. Mohave County moved to dismiss, arguing that the judgment in the Hogue case meant Knight's claim in this case was barred by claim preclusion. After full briefing, the superior court granted the motion, concluding the judgment in the Hogue case barred Knight's claim in this suit. The court also denied her request for class certification. After entry of final judgment, Knight timely appealed. To the extent Knight argued that the Hogue case was not a putative class action, the Appellate Court held that this difference did not negate claim preclusion here. Because Knight was barred from asserting the claims in this case, given the judgment in the Hogue case, she could not properly represent a putative class. Although Knight stated, without support, that claim preclusion does not exist, the doctrine does exist. And to the extent she suggested the doctrine does not apply, it does. Because claim preclusion barred her claim here, the court properly dismissed Knight's complaint. Because Knight's claim failed, the superior court properly denied her request for class certification. Accordingly, the Appellate Court did not address her arguments regarding the timeliness of her claim or her assertion that the case must be removed to federal court. For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at https://lnk.ua/qZeK1T4wa. Nancy Knight, Fort Mohave, Plaintiff/Appellant. Mohave County Attorney's Office, Kingman, By Matthew J. Smith, Jason Mitchell, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee. MRO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Britt Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- JULIE BRITT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MRO CORP., MEDICOPY SERVICES, INC., and DEACONESS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00612-JRS-KMB (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with their sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant DHS publicly disclosed in March 2026. According to Defendant DHS, as well as public reports, an unauthorized actor accessed MRO's cloud-based file-sharing platform and downloaded an unspecified number of files on January 13, 2026. The data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Private Information from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class members' private information that Defendants collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class members. MRO is a Norristown, Pennsylvania-based entity that provides management, administrative, and operating expertise and services primarily to the healthcare industry. DHS is an Evansville, Indiana-based provider of health care services which serves southwestern Indiana, western Kentucky and southeastern Illinois.[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 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com NACOGDOCHES MEMORIAL: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Parker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NACOGDOCHES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-00255 (E.D. Tex., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on January 15, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital Corporation is a hospital based in Nacogdoches, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Batton Appeals Injunction Order to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYA BATTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Mya Batton, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00430, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the federal antitrust laws. On Feb. 25, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which Judge LaShonda A. Hunt denied on Mar. 5, 2026. The appellate case is captioned as Mya Batton, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 26-1644, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MYA BATTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. George A. Zelcs, Esq. Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com rcortazar@koreintillery.com - and - Steven M. Berezney, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. Carol O'Keefe, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Email: sberezney@koreintillery.com mklenov@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Margaret MacLean, Esq. Noelle Forde, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com nforde@lowey.com Defendants-Appellees THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al. are represented by: Jack R. Bierig, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5511 Email: jack.bierig@afslaw.com - and - Leonard A. Gail, Esq. Brigid Carmichael, Esq. MASSEY & GAIL 50 East Washington Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 283-1590 (312) 379-0953 Email: lgail@masseygail.com bcarmichael@masseygail.com - and - Adam J. Diederich, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 South Wacker Dr., Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 Email: adiederich@schiffhardin.com - and - Chiseul Kylie Kim, Esq. Matthew Miles Collette, Esq. MASSEY & GAIL LLC 1000 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 780-0385 (202) 795-3326 Email: kkim@masseygail.com mcollette@masseygail.com - and - Michael Bonanno, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 Facsimile: (202) 538-8100 Email: mikebonanno@quinnemanuel.com NEW YORK, NY: Esparza Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- OLIVER CASEY ESPARZA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Oliver Casey Esparza, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3815, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs are cyclists who brought this putative class action against the City of New York, New York Police Department Commissioner Jessica Tisch, and individual NYPD officers for false arrest after they were stopped and issued traffic tickets/summonses by NYPD officers for crossing into intersections. On Nov. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 18, 2025. On Mar. 6, 2026, Judge Denise L. Cote entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judgment is entered for the Defendants on the Section 1983 claim. The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to being refiled in state court. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is captioned as Casey Esparza v. City of New York, Case No. 26-823, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants OLIVER CASEY ESPARZA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Gideon Plaskow Goldenberg, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 111 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Steven Banks, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEWREZ LLC: McKernan Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Trevor McKernan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NewRez, LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 26-C-21 was removed from the Wayne Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on April 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00246 the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Class Action Fairness Act. Newrez LLC -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is an American residential mortgage lender and servicer offering residential mortgages through correspondent, wholesale, and consumer direct channels.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Benjamin Sheridan, Esq. Jed Robert Nolan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN 3566 Teays Valley Road Hurricane, WV 25526 Phone: (304) 562-7111 Fax: (304) 562-7115 Email: ben@kleinsheridan.com jed@kleinsheridan.com - and - Jason E. Causey, Esq. KATZ KANTOR STONESTREET & BUCKNER 206 South Walker Street Princeton, WV 24740 Phone: (304) 431-4050 Fax: (304) 431-4060 Email: jcausey@kksblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth M. Thomas, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS Fifth Third Center, Suite 3000 201 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 373-8060 Fax: (704) 353-6190 Email: ethomas@mcguirewoods.com - and - Jordan McMinn, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL 707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 357-9938 Email: jordan.mcminn@dinsmore.com NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Sues Over NPK Fertilizers Price-Fixing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ Casey Carroll, Plaintiff v. Nutrien Ltd; Nutrien Ag Solutions; CF Industries Holdings, Inc.; Koch Inc., f/k/a Koch Industries, LLC; Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, LLC; Koch Fertilizer Wever, LLC; Koch Fertilizer, LLC; Koch Agronomic Services, LLC; Yara International ASA; Yara North America, Inc.; and The Mosaic Co., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-3745 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (potash) (NPK Fertilizers) beginning on or about January 1, 2021, and continuing until such unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects are resolved. The complaint relates that during the Class Period, Defendants sold NPK Fertilizers to Plaintiff and other Class members at artificially inflated prices. Due to fluctuating economic and market conditions, Defendants needed to continually renew, monitor, and adjust their price-fixing agreement. This resulted in multiple, coordinated price supports and price increases throughout the Class Period. Each of these activities resulted in new overt acts that injured Plaintiff and members of the Class, thus creating a new cause of action for purposes of the statute of limitations, adds the complaint. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants effectively, affirmatively, and fraudulently concealed their unlawful combination and conspiracy from Plaintiff and Class members by means of secret meetings and surreptitious communications. The Defendants engaged in a continuing antitrust violation throughout the Class Period. Accordingly, the claims of Plaintiff and the other Class members are not time-barred, says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Casey Carroll purchased NPK Fertilizer directly from one or more of the Defendants at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. The Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com - and - Kyle J. Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 N. Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 470-4333 E-mail: kjpozan@locklaw.com - and - H. Samuel Prim, III, Esq. PRIM & MENDHEIM, LLC P.O. Box 2147 (36302) 103 Jamestown Boulevard Dothan, AL 36301 Telephone: (334) 671-9555 E-mail: samuelprim@gmail.com NZXT INC: Settles Deceptive Marketing Class Suit for $3.45-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Zak Killian. writing for Tom's Hardware, reports that after months of mounting pressure, PC component manufacturer NZXT and its billing partner Fragile Inc. have agreed to a $3.45 million preliminary settlement in a California District Court to resolve a class-action lawsuit, Gamers Nexus reports. The settlement, made public Tuesday, April 7, 2026, alleges that the companies' "Flex" PC rental program defrauded nearly 20,000 customers through deceptive marketing, bait-and-switch hardware tactics, and aggressive debt collection. The case, brought under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, was settled before going to trial, with relief payouts and debt forgiveness expected to roll out after final judicial approval this September. The controversy surrounding the NZXT Flex program has been brewing since 2024, largely thanks to a massive, multi-part investigation by GN, which was heavily referenced in the court filings. The channel labeled NZXT's program a "predatory evil scam" designed for people who couldn't afford an outright PC purchase. Those are strong words, but the core of the lawsuit targeted a few incredibly shady business practices. First, NZXT and Fragile were accused of misleading marketing, often targeting children with the promise that they could rent a PC for a month, win a Fortnite tournament, and use the winnings to buy the rig outright. Influencer campaigns also heavily implied the program was "rent-to-own," when in reality, it was an indefinite lease with no path to ownership. Worse, when customers actually signed up, NZXT allegedly engaged in bait-and-switch tactics, silently swapping out premium parts for worse components while keeping the advertised price the same. When customers tried to bail out of the confusing contracts, Fragile Inc. allegedly unleashed aggressive debt collectors on them, sometimes attempting to collect on debts that had already been paid. The behavior was severe enough that the plaintiffs brought the suit under the RICO Act, citing mail and wire fraud. Gamers Nexus delved into the dense legal filings, shedding light on exactly how the $3.45 million will be distributed among the 19,322 affected class members. The class includes subscribers from October 19, 2023, to March 30, 2026. Here is how the relief is structured: Debt Forgiveness ($923,117.92 pool): Customers currently being hounded by debt collectors will have up to $5,000 of debt forgiven per person. This is expected to happen automatically for those who are more than 90 days delinquent. Hardware Ownership ($1.21 million pool): Customers who have been paying into the program for at least two years and fill out a form stating they believed it was a rent-to-own program will finally be granted full ownership of their PCs. Cash Payouts: Customers who rented, returned their PCs, and owe no debt are entitled to a cash payout. The exact amount depends on how many people file valid claims, but estimates suggest payouts of around $450 to $500 if 10% of the class files. The alleged actions of NZXT and Fragile in this saga are reprehensible, but the hefty payout will be a huge blow to NZXT, one of the few companies serving the struggling PC DIY market. If you were an NZXT Flex customer between October 2023 and March 2026, keep a close eye on your inbox. Make sure to whitelist "NZXT," "Fragile," and "Flex" so settlement notices don't land in your spam folder. According to the filings, the official settlement website and phone number are required to go live within 21 days of the document becoming public. Since the filings were released on April 7, you can expect the portal to open around April 28th. From there, it's a waiting game. The final approval hearing isn't expected until sometime after September.[GN] OLLY METABOLISM: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Gummies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings are falsely advertised in that the apple cider vinegar supplements do not deliver any of the touted health benefits. The 29-page lawsuit contends that Olly Public Benefit Corp. has misled consumers by overemphasizing the purported health benefits of the gummies in an effort to capitalize on growing demand for apple cider vinegar (ACV) supplements, which are supposedly beneficial for managing blood sugar, promoting weight loss and aiding digestive health. Though Olly labels its ACV gummies with claims related to metabolism and lean body mass, cellular energy and digestive health benefits, the complaint alleges that the supplement does not contain sufficient amounts of the active ingredients responsible for those benefits, and is instead composed primarily of sugar. Importantly, the case relays that apple cider vinegar itself is made through a multi-stage fermentation process that yields the key components acetic acid, the compound associated with the health benefits of ACV, and the "mother," a living, unpasteurized substance. According to the complaint, independent testing commissioned by the plaintiff's counsel found that Olly's Metabolism Gummy Rings contain a minuscule amount of acetic acid and are manufactured using heating, cooling and dehydration processes that ultimately denature any of the beneficial enzymes and bacteria found in the "mother." Per the lawsuit, the testing showed that each Olly gummy contains 7.80 milligrams of acetic acid, which amounts to 2.6 percent of its total contents. The suit says that about half of each Olly Metabolism Gummy Ring is added sugar by weight. Amid the rapid growth of the nearly $725 million apple cider vinegar market, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance for the labeling and marketing of vinegar products. The lawsuit cites an FDA Compliance Policy Guideline stating that natural vinegar products diluted with water must contain at least four grams of acetic acid per 100 milliliters, or 4 percent acetic acid, in order to be labeled as an apple cider vinegar product. "Representing that a product contains apple cider vinegar where it is comprised of less than 4% acetic acid is false, misleading and deceptive in violation of the law," the filing states. The lawsuit asserts that even though the gummies' acetic acid content is below the four-percent threshold, Olly continues to misleadingly market the gummies as an apple cider vinegar supplement that "supports metabolism and lean body mass." The Olly class action lawsuit seeks to represent all California citizens who purchased its Metabolism Gummy Rings in California within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint on March 31, 2026, and do not claim any personal injury from using the product. [GN] ONYX EQUITIES: Faces Watts Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- HARRY WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONYX EQUITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03633 (D.N.J., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on November 25, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Onyx Equities, LLC is a real estate investment and property services based in Woodbridge, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com PINDER SECURITY: Ingram Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTOINE INGRAM, Plaintiff v. PINDER SECURITY SYSTEMS, a.k.a. PINDER ELITE SECURITY, W.S.C. OF N.Y., INC. and ZAKIA PINDER, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02712 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premium pay. The Plaintiff alleges on his behalf and other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants that Defendants willfully violated the New York Labor Law by (i) failing to pay the statutory minimum wage; (ii) failing to pay overtime premium pay; (iii) failing to timely pay wages; (iv) failing to provide the Notice and Acknowledgment of Payrate and Payday, and (v) failing to provide an accurate wage statement. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class Members seek to recover from Defendants their unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff ANTOINE INGRAM worked as a security guard for Defendants Pinder Security Systems, Inc. a.k.a. Pinder Elite Security and W.S.C. of N.Y., Inc. Defendant PINDER SECURITY SYSTEMS, a.k.a. PINDER ELITE SECURITY is a security company with an office in Monroe, New York. Defendant W.S.C. OF N.Y. is a security and protection agency. Defendant ZAKIA PINDER is the owner and operator of Pinder Security and responsible for hiring, scheduling, and terminating employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: 212-392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com rebecca@lipskylowe.com PRESSLER FELT: Duong Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ THANG DUONG is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Thang Duong, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pressler Felt & Warshaw LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05630, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On July 30, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Karen M. Williams granted on Feb. 28, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Thang Duong v. Pressler Felt & Warshaw LLP, Case No. 26-1705, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THANG DUONG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 Defendant-Appellee PRESSLER FELT & WARSHAW LLP is represented by: Michael J. Peters, Esq. PRESSLER FELT & WARSHAW 7 Entin Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (973) 753-5100 - and - Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER 458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371 Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (732) 328-9480 PRIME BUYERS: Joint Status Report Due May 6 ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., v. PRIME BUYERS CLUB LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02233-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lasnik entered an amended order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement: Upon agreement of the parties and for good cause shown, the Court extends the following initial case scheduling deadlines: Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: April 22, 2026 Initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): April 29, 2026 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery May 6, 2026 Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and LCR 26(f): All counsel and any pro se parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (the “Report”) by May 6, 2026. If settlement is achieved, counsel shall immediately notify Victoria Ericksen, Deputy Clerk, at victoria_ericksen@wawd.uscourts.gov. The parties are responsible for complying with the terms of this Order. The Court may impose sanctions on any party who fails to comply fully with this Order. Prime Buyers is a licensed home daycare facility. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f6FAdP at no extra charge.[CC] REALREAL INC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Curry Says ----------------------------------------------------- KRISTA CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE REALREAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02929 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for allowing third-party companies to track customers' actions on its website, www.therealreal.com even after customers asked not to be tracked. The complaint relates that the Defendant implements tracking codes on its website that enabled third parties Meta Platforms, Inc. and Pinterest, Inc. ("Pinterest"), to collect and intercept customers' communications with Defendant. The Defendant leads its consumers to believe it values their privacy by claiming to give them a "right to control" how their data is collected and giving visitors the option to "Reject All" cookies that track their behavior on the Website. But this is a sham, asserts the complaint. When consumers like Plaintiff click the "Reject All" button on this banner, Defendant continues to allow the third-parties to track them anyway. In fact, immediately after a consumer clicks the Reject All button, Meta receives a "subscribedbuttonclick" event telling it the consumer has opted out of data sharing. And yet, the RealReal and Meta continue tracking their activities thereafter, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all individuals who browsed for products on the Website, opted out of Defendant using tracking cookies, and whose electronic communications were nonetheless intercepted or recorded by the Third Parties. Furthermore, Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of individuals who had their browsing information on the https://www.therealreal.com/ website (including the names of buttons clicked, the searches made, and the clothing items selected for purchase) disclosed to Meta and Pinterest in violation of various California state and federal privacy laws. Plaintiff Krista Curry is a citizen of the state of California and resides in Riverside County, California. She has visited Defendant's website dozens of times in the last few years. Defendant The RealReal, Inc. operates an online clothing store that specializes in being a reseller and authenticator of luxury clothing and accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com ROAR BEVERAGES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROAR BEVERAGES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02477 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.roarorganic.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Variety Pack With Strawberry Lemonade (12 Pack) from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Roar Beverages, Inc. operates the website that offers organic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ROKU INC: Else Sues Over Smart Televisions' Software Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRI ELSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROKU, INC., and TTE TECHNOLOGY, INC., d/b/a TCL NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00748 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2026) arises out of Defendants' deceptive and unfair acts and practices in the design, marketing, sale, and ongoing operation of Roku-powered smart televisions, including both Roku-branded TV products and licensed partner models such as TCL Roku TVs and other related TV products. According to the complaint, the Roku Products are advertised as consumer-friendly, reliable, and competitively priced within the market for integrated smart televisions. Roku consistently touts its operating system as the "#1 selling TV operating system" in the United States, highlighting its functionality, scale, and household penetration as core business strengths. Roku Products are heavily marketed throughout the United States as "thoughtfully designed Smart TVs" with "vivid picture quality" that will operate for years with minimal issues, seamlessly streaming content and receiving reliable software updates to enhance user experience. The complaint asserts that software updates are a vital component to Roku's business because digital platforms could not otherwise continue to run without addressing consistent concerns related to security, user experience, and the device's features. However, Roku's software updates are repetitively defective, materially impairing the functionality of Roku Products, rendering many consumers' televisions either entirely unusable, blacked out, or otherwise substantially degraded in terms of device performance, says the suit. As such, Plaintiff Else, on behalf of herself and the proposed classes of consumers who purchased the Roku Products with the same or substantially similar defect in materials and workmanship, seek recovery for damages suffered as a result of Roku's Products during the statutory period. Roku, Inc. is an American streaming technology company. Founded in 2002 by Anthony Wood, it produces digital media players and TVs, distributes streaming services and operates an ad business on its platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Susan G. Taylor, Esq. Summer Wright, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com staylor@sshhzlaw.com swright@sshhzlaw.com ROSCO PRODUCTION: Olaguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE OLAGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSCO PRODUCTION LA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DANIEL A. WORTHINGTON, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03314 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2026) a civil action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking unpaid wages, damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees as well as reimbursement of costs and such other relief pursuant to the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to timely pay all wages accrued upon separation from employment, failure to provide wage statements, failure to provide proper compensation for improper rest breaks and meal periods, failure to pay proper minimum wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, as well as breach of implied employment contract. The Plaintiff was temporarily employed by the Defendants during the week ending March 29, 2025 as cast and crew. Rosco Production LA LLC is a California Corporation, and a full service production company based in London, Paris, Los Angeles, and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com RSM ENTERPRISES: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RSM Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chelsea T. Lopez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RSM Enterprises, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV008287 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." RSM Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Run Silks -- https://rsmsilksonline.com/ -- is a boutique specializing in handmade silk products, offering a unique selection of scarves, clothing, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justen A. Lipeles, Esq. 1060 Aviation Blvd, 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: 310-322-2211 SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Olga M. Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;, Case No. CVRI2600516 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03571. On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Class Action Complaint against Defendant. On March 5, 2026, Securus was served with the summons and complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 2108 N Street, #15185 Sacramento, CA 95816 Phone: (786) 924-2900 Facsimile: (646) 392-8842 Email: ingo@fnf.law - and - Colleen Smeryage, Esq. 1815 Purdy Ave. Miami Beach, FL 33139 Phone: (786) 924-2900 Email: csmeryage@fnf.law SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Wilson --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET WILSON, v. SKOPOS FINANCIAL, LLC, doing business as Reprise Financial, Case No. 6:25-cv-00376-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. McShane entered an order denying in part and granting in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Because Plaintiff's claim turns on the purpose of the text messages he received from Defendant, which constitutes a disputed material fact, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, is denied in part and granted in part. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, there exists a triable issue of fact—the purpose of the messages—on which the Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff acknowledges that Brian was the intended recipient of the text messages. The Plaintiff also acknowledges that Brian entered Plaintiff’s number into LendingTree’s online form, which is how Defendant obtained it. The Plaintiff fails to produce evidence, however, to establish that the Defendant knowingly sent unsolicited text messages to him. Nothing in the record could lead a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the Defendant knowingly or willfully sent messages to Plaintiff's number in violation of the statute. The Defendant is entitled to summary judgment against the Plaintiff's claims for treble damages. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action in March of 2025, alleging violations of the TCPA. The Defendant is an Irving, Texas-based specialty auto lender. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RlIKVl at no extra charge.[CC] SKYMOUNT PROPERTY: Stockdale Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ KRISTI STOCKDALE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Kristi Stockdale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skymount Property Group, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01282, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment. On Sept. 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Patricia A. Gaughan granted on Mar. 3, 2026. The appellate case is captioned as Kristi Stockdale v. Skymount Property Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-3267, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTI STOCKDALE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Ste. 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (737) 310-3210 Defendants-Appellees SKYMOUNT PROPERTY GROUP, LLC, et al. are represented by: Ryan Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA 75 14th Street, N.E., Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: (404) 782-0695 SMITH COLLEGE: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay Unused Personal Time ----------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF SMITH COLLEGE d/b/a SMITH COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 26CV197 (Mass. Super., Hampden Cty., March 26, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff unused personal time upon separation from employment as required by the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Trustees of Smith College d/b/a Smith College maintains a policy and practice of providing some employees with paid time off designated as "personal time," which can be used for time away from work for any reason. However, upon separation from employment, the Defendant does not pay its employees for their unused personal time as required by the state law. Consistent with its unlawful policy and practice, the Defendant terminated Plaintiff Diaz's employment in November 2025 but failed to pay him for any portion of his 37 hours of accrued paid personal time, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a maintenance worker/custodian from October 2019 until his termination on November 10, 2025. The Trustees of Smith College is the governing body of Smith College, a private institution of higher education located in Northampton, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rdinsmore@haybcrlawfirm.com rguers@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Francis J. Bingham, Esq. BINGHAM HOPKINS LLC 20 University Road, Suite 500 Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 798-2303 E-mail: bingham@binghamhopkins.com SMSBIOTECH INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Stewart Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMSBIOTECH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02140-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal., April 6, 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 text messages to the cellular 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 inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, says the suit. SMSbiotech, Inc. is a clinical-stage regenerative medicine company based in San Marcos, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com SOAPOLOGY NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Johnson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOAPOLOGY NYC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02713 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website, www.soapologynyc.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Richard Johnson visited www.soapologynyc.com to browse and purchase natural bath and skincare products, including a Lavender Vanilla Shower Gel and a Dead Sea Salt Scrub - Lavender Vanilla Small. Plaintiff sought to use the Website's product listings, shopping cart, and checkout features to independently complete purchases. However, persistent accessibility barriers -- including non-descriptive alternative text, empty headings, broken ARIA roles, inaccessible form controls, and low-contrast elements documented in SortSite audits -- prevented him from navigating or transacting on the Website without assistance. As such, Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class and subclass based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to adopt, implement, and maintain accessible web design practices consistent with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Plaintiff RICHARD JOHNSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind individual who requires screen-reading software to access website content. Defendant SOAPOLOGY NYC LLC operates a consumer-facing retail business through its interactive e-commerce Website, www.soapologynyc.com.[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 SPANOS CORPORATION: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Spanos Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Leticia Diaz, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. The Spanos Corporation, Pocket Road Apartments, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2026-0002515 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair Business Practice." The Spanos Corporation provides residential construction services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23622 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 320 Calabasas, CA 91302-1574 Phone: 818-225-9040 Email: robert@starrlaw.com STRYKER CORP: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Primer Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICE PRIMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01026-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich., March 27, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information about its current and former employees, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII, the suit alleges. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII, says the suit. Stryker Corporation is an American multinational medical technologies corporation based in Portage, Michigan.[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 - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com SWEET CANDY: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sweet Candy Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03391 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sweetcandy.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On January 5, 2026, Plaintiff Bennett searched online for candy and confectionery products and discovered the Defendant's website. He decided to explore the website to see the available offerings and proceed with a purchase. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader software, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the purchase. He alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Sweet Candy Company operates the website that offers a selection of candy products, such as gummies, sour candies, chocolate sticks, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law SWEET CATCH: Faces Victor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- JEAN VICTOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEET CATCH BROOKLYN LLC d/b/a SWEET CATCH and SWEET CATCH BK, and KAWANA JEFFERSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01841 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2026) is an action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other wage-related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and supporting regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA collective overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek; failed to pay Plaintiff and the NYLL class an additional hour of pay at the applicable minimum hourly rate for each day on which the spread of hours exceeded 10; failed to provide Plaintiff a compliant wage notice at the time of hiring and within 10 business days of his first day of work; and failed to furnish Plaintiff with accurate wage statements with each payment of wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher and cleaner from March 1, 2023 until approximately November 11, 2024, when Defendants terminated his employment. Sweet Catch Brooklyn LLC owns, operates, manages, and controls a restaurant business located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com SYNOPSYS INC: Fails to Keep Personal Info From Unauthorized Access ------------------------------------------------------------------ JERON WONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNOPSYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02946 (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Synopsys, Inc. is an American software company based in Sunnyvale, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com TARGET CORP: Chavez Class Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANET CHAVEZ, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01603-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to transfer venue pursuant to the first-to file rule. 1. The Defendant's motion to transfer venue is granted; 2. The court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California; 3. The court further orders the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento to forward all filings in this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California; and 4. The Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of California shall close this case upon completion of the transfer. The court concludes that transferring this action to the Central District of California is appropriate. On Sept. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff Yanet Chavez filed a complaint initiating this wage and hour action in the Yolo County Superior Court. On June 9, 2025, the Defendant removed this action to this federal court. On June 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Chavez class is defined as "All current and former non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant in the State of California during the four (4) years prior to the filing of this class action until class certification ("Class Period") who were employed in Target's California Distribution Centers on or after Dec. 11, 2023." In the Medina action, plaintiffs seek to represent the following class of employees: "All individuals who are or previously were employed by the Defendant in a California distribution center, including any employees staffed with the Defendant by a third party in a California distribution center, and classified as non-exempt employees (the "CALIFORNIA CLASS") at any time during the relevant period (the "CALIFORNIA CLASS PERIOD")." Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GRyU0o at no extra charge.[CC] TOO LOST: Faces Craig Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN CRAIG AND ERIC MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOO LOST LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02548 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2026) arises out of Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information. At the end of January 2026, Too Lost was contacted by an unauthorized third party and following an investigation, evidence indicated unauthorized access and transfer of data involving Too Lost LLC between July 25, 2025, and September 2, 2025. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that, upon information and belief, contained the private information of Plaintiffs and other individuals. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which it was entrusted, say the suit. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the private information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. Through this complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose private information was compromised and/or stolen during the data breach. Too Lost is a music and technology company, providing software as a service solutions for independent music rights holders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jonathan J. Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jjh@federmanlaw.com TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE: Sued Over Website's Trap-and-Trace Device ------------------------------------------------------------------ FORREST ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE BANK, INC. a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-02894 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for using a trap and trace device, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Defendant uses a website to market its banking services. Individuals can open up personal savings, checking, money market and CD accounts through the website. The complaint relates that the Defendant has installed and deployed data broker software on its website to secretly collect data about visitors to the Website, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track their internet browsing on an ongoing basis. Moreover, the data broker software compiles the collected data and correlates it with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of Website visitors. The complaint alleges that both the Defendant and the data broker behind the software deployed by the Website benefit commercially and financially from this activity. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent or authorization violates the California Penal Code, California's Trap and Trace Law, and the duties Defendant owed to Plaintiff and other visitors to the Website similarly situated under applicable common law, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members, therefore, seek punitive damages, equitable relief, and disgorgement of profits earned by Defendant from its invasion of their privacy interests. Plaintiff Forrest Allen is a citizen of California residing and located within the Northern District of California. Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. Defendant Transportation Alliance Bank, Inc. offers personal and business banking services to individuals, proprietors and businesses. DOE Defendants 1 through 10 are the unknown entities that Defendant directed and controlled to participate in implementing or maintaining Defendant's deployment of data broker software on the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com UNITED STATES: Ruiz Suit Transferred to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Fernando Gomez Ruiz; Fernando Viera Reyes; Jose Ruiz Canizales; Yuri Alexander Roque Campos; Sokhean Keo; Gustavo Guevara Alarcon; and Alejandro Mendiola Escutia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting Director of San Francisco Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 3:25-cv-09757 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02546-JLT-CDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- https://www.ice.gov/ -- is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com cbressman@nka.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq. Kevin Michael Young, Esq. Lennon Haas, Esq. Shannon Cherney, Esq. William B. Hill, Jr., Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 888-1875 Email: bbartlett@seyfarth.com kyoung@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com scherney@seyfarth.com wbhill@seyfarth.com - and - Sharde Skahan, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-5216 Email: sskahan@seyfarth.com - and - Thomas J. Posey, Esq. BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 980-5760 Email: tposey@buchalter.com USAA GENERAL: Madkins Sues for Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------- JAMES MADKINS, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00646-WJC-DPC (E.D. La., March 26, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated insureds, for breach of contract due to Defendant's failure to comply with a policy appraisal clause. The Plaintiff owns a property located at 1599 Ridgecrest Drive, Slidell, Louisiana. The Defendant issued a policy of insurance covering Plaintiff's property. On April 10, 2024, the insured property was damaged directly and/or indirectly due to severe weather conditions, including but not limited to wind and/or hail, for which insurance coverage should be afforded. The Plaintiff further alleges that the damages sustained to the subject property may have been exacerbated by subsequent severe weather events for which a claim is being asserted herein and for which coverage should be afforded. The Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant of such loss and gave Defendant ample opportunity and/or information to fully and accurately adjust Plaintiff's losses and expenses incurred as a result of the severe weather events. To date, the Defendant has not fulfilled its obligations pursuant to the insurance policy. The Defendant has also failed to establish that it had reasonable proof that it was not responsible for the payment of insured damages and/or loss(es) under the terms of the contract of insurance at issue and has failed to pay the requested amounts for repairs and/or replacement, plus applicable interest, pursuant to the terms of the policy of insurance, says the Plaintiff. USAA General Indemnity Company, is a foreign insurance company which is incorporated under the laws of Texas and has its principal place of business in the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Averill, Esq. Brian G. Reaney, II, Esq. Aimee Thibert, Esq. AVERILL & REANEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLC 216 N. Columbia St., Suite A Covington, LA 70433 Telephone: (985) 378-8001 Facsimile: (985) 378-8002 E-mail: maverill@arlawllc.net breaney@arlawllc.net athibert@arlawllc.net driley@arlawllc.net kthomas@arlawllc.net monica@arlawllc.net VALLEY FAMILY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Oarbeascoa Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINO OARBEASCOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY FAMILY HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00184-REP (D. Idaho, March 27, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach occurring in March 2026. On March 7, 2026, notorious ransomware group "Insomnia" identified Defendant as a victim of one of its recent cyber-attacks in a dark web post. The Defendant has not issued individualized notice to those affected by the data breach. The sensitive nature of the data that may have been exposed through the data breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Valley Family Health Care, Inc. is a health center that provides medical, dental, behavioral health, and nutrition services across 12 locations in Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaren Wieland, Esq. MOONEY WIELAND WARREN 512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 401-9219 Facsimile: (888) 234-8543 E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.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 - 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 VALLEY FAMILY: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Denton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICK DENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY FAMILY HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00183-DCN (D. Idaho, March 27, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach occurring in or around March 2026. On March 7, 2026, notorious ransomware group "Insomnia" identified Defendant as a victim of one of its recent cyber-attacks in a dark web post. The Defendant has not issued individualized notice to those affected by the data breach. The sensitive nature of the data that may have been exposed through the data breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Valley Family Health Care, Inc. is a health center that provides medical, dental, behavioral health, and nutrition services across 12 locations in Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaren Wieland, Esq. MOONEY WIELAND WARREN 512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 401-9219 Facsimile: (888) 234-8543 E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.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 - 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 VEGGIE GALAXY: Kuzmich Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Abigail Burns Kuzmich, individually and for all others similarly situated v. VEGGIE GALAXY LLC, VEGGIE GALAXY HOLDING COMPANY LLC, and MICHAEL BISSANTI, in his personal capacity, Case No. 26CV0886 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., April 3, 2026), is brought action alleging that Defendants have violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, the Massachusetts Tips Act, and the minimum wage provisions of the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have: violated the Tips Act, by causing, requiring, or permitting her and other wait staff employees to participate in tip pools through which they remitted tips for distribution to individuals who are not permitted by law to receive distributions from wait staff tip pools; violated the minimum wage provisions Of the Minimum Fair Wage Law, by paying her and other wait staff employees less than the basic minimum wage while causing, requiring, or permitting them to participate In a tip pooling arrangement that does not conform with the requirements Of the Tips Act; and violated the Tips Act by failing to fully distribute all tips and wages owed in a timely manner and by failing to pay her and other wait staff employees whose employment Defendants have terminated their full wages earned on the same day as their discharge, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a wait staff employee at Veggie Galaxy. The Defendants own and operated Veggie Galaxy, a restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brant Casavant, Esq. Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK P.c. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-607-3260 Fax: 617-488-2261 Email: brant@fainvorklaw.com hillary@fairworklaw.com VITAS HEALTHCARE: Dickson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deone Dickson, Individually and for all other persons similarly situated v. VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF ILLINOIS, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2026 CH 01881 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03741. The Complaint alleges two causes of action for alleged violation of Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Gagnon, Esq. Sam Sedaei, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.558.1220 Facsimile: 312.807.3619 Email: matthew.gagnon@ogletree.com sam.sedaei@ogletree.com VIVINT SMART: Website Installs Tracking Pixels, Gonzalez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KENIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIVINT SMART HOME LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a QUOTES.VIVINT.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02103-JLS-BJW (S.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. The complaint relates that the Defendant funds a network of affiliate marketers who blanket Americans with illegal spam. They deploy every deceptive tactic in the proverbial playbook -- falsified headers, spoofed domains, and deceptive subject lines - to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. The harm does not stop at the inbox. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website at VIVINT.COM where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. Both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law. According to the complaint, the Defendant spammed the Plaintiff's e-mail address. The Plaintiff and every Class member who received any violative e-mail are entitled to $1,000 in liquidated damages per e-mail from Defendant and to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs, it adds. Plaintiff KENIA GONZALEZ is a citizen of the State of California who received a misleading spam e-mail from Defendant and visited Defendant's website after engaging with the deceptive spam. Defendant VIVINT SMART HOME LLC is a home security company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com WALLBEDS BY WILDING: Denies Blind Users Website Access, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wallbeds By Wilding, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00407 (N.D. Ind., March 26, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.wallbedsbywilding.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 6, 2026, while searching on Google, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website while looking for wall beds as part of her living space renovation plan. During that website visit, she became interested in The Brittany II Wall Bed, and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to browse products and complete a purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Wallbeds By Wilding, LLC operates the website that offers space-saving furniture products, including wall beds, desk bed units, sofa-integrated models, bunk-style models, cabinet style models, mattresses, and related home office furniture.[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 WARD CHRYSLER: Denial of Bid to Stay Baldwin Class Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LARRY BALDWIN, DEBRA BALDWIN, JAMES WARDEN, VICKI WARDEN, and JEANBULLOCK, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WARD CHRYSLER CENTER, INC., MARK WARD, and RON WARD, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 5-25-0821 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, affirmed the circuit court's order denying the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. On November 21, 2024, Plaintiffs Larry Baldwin, Debra Baldwin, James Warden, Vicki Warden and Jean Bullock filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Ward Chrysler Center, Inc., Mark Ward and Ron Ward for money damages. They alleged that the Defendants violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West2022)), surrounding new Chrysler vehicles purchased by them. More specifically, the Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants concealed the existence of factory-authorized rebates they and other similarly situated purchasers were entitled to receive. The Plaintiffs sought an order of the circuit court certifying a proposed class of similarly situated persons who purchased new Chrysler vehicles from the dealership and did not receive credit, payment or transfer of any authorized manufacturer rebate from Chrysler for each customer's purchase of a new Chrysler vehicle between January 1, 2000, and the date of class certification. The Plaintiffs further requested an award of punitive damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, and an award of interest at the maximum allowable rate. On January 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in the circuit court pending arbitration. They asserted that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate the disputes raised in their complaint pursuant to standalone form arbitration agreements purportedly signed by them arising out of their purchase of vehicles from the dealership. In response, the Plaintiffs asserted that the motion should be denied on the basis of fraud committed by defendants and the unconscionable nature of the arbitration agreements. On March 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint (FAC) premised on the same factual allegations as contained in the original complaint. The FAC asserted that defendants violated the Act and added a new count seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the arbitration agreements. More specifically, they contended that the arbitration agreements were voidable and revocable as they were not properly formed, were fraudulently induced, and were unconscionable. In response to the FAC, on April 14, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to stay pending arbitration. That motion, similar to their prior motion to stay, asserted that the allegations in the FAC concerned a dispute falling under the scope of the arbitration agreements. On July 2, 2025, the circuit court conducted a non-evidentiary hearing on the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings. It stated that it reviewed all of the pleadings and exhibits and after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, it found that the Defendants failed to establish the existence of valid arbitration agreements between the parties. It found that the Defendants did not dispute the affidavits and failed to file counter-affidavits of the signatories on the affidavits or other individuals who may have assisted in the formation of the alleged agreements. After finding that the Defendants failed to establish that the parties entered into valid arbitration agreements, the circuit court denied the motion to stay. The Defendants filed a timely motion to reconsider, or in the alternative, to vacate or modify the circuit court's order and to set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. They advanced the same arguments that had been rejected by the circuit court and took issue with the circuit court's failure to specifically address their judicial admissions argument in its order. They alternatively argued that if the circuit court believed there were no judicial admissions, the Plaintiffs' affidavits created an issue of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing after allowing for discovery. In response, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants failed to present any newly discovered evidence or changes in the law and that there were no errors in the circuit court's application of the law and therefore, the motion should be denied. Construing the allegations in the FAC and affidavits in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Appellate Court held that the circuit court correctly found that the Defendants did not meet their burden of establishing that the parties had valid agreements to arbitrate. It is unable to find the allegations in the FAC to be deliberate, clear, unequivocal statements by the Plaintiffs that the parties entered into valid agreements to arbitrate. Moreover, it cannot conclude the circuit court erred in not finding that the Plaintiffs' pleading allegations and averments amounted to judicial admissions that valid arbitration agreements were entered into between the parties. Having failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary material properly considered in ruling on the Defendants' motion, the Appellate Court held that the circuit court correctly found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. For these reasons, the order of the circuit court of Jackson County denying the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://rb.gy/jvfosm WELLS FARGO: Navarro Appeals Court Order in ERISA Suit to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SERGIO NAVARRO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Sergio Navarro, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03043-LMP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The appellate case is captioned as Sergio Navarro, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. 26-1620, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 3, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before May 13, 2026; -- Appendix is due on May 26, 2026; -- Appellant's Brief is due on May 26, 2026; and -- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SERGIO NAVARRO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael D. Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 (818) 585-2903 - and - Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN & MILSTEIN 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON & GLUEK 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 - and - Allison Pienta, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. COHEN & MILSTEIN West Tower, Suite 800 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 - and - Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq. COHEN & MILSTEIN 400 S. Fourth Street, Suite 401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 807-1575 Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO & COMPANY is represented by: Joseph Emanuel Clark, Esq. PROSKAUER & ROSE 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-4085 - and - Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq. Sydney Juliano, Esq. PROSKAUER & ROSE 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 - and - Jeffrey Justman, Esq. Kiera Murphy, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 WHITMAN HOSPITAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $500,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Whitman Hospital & Medical Clinics has agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare center failed to protect the sensitive information in its care from a three-month data breach between December 2024 and February 2025. The Whitman Hospital & Medical Clinics class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 20, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose private information was impacted in the Whitman Hospital & Medical Clinics data breach. Court documents state that the private information of approximately 64,401 people was compromised in the data breach. The court-approved website for the Whitman Hospital data breach settlement can be found at WhitmanSettlement.com. According to the website, Whitman Hospital settlement class members who submit with their timely, valid claim form proof of documented losses stemming from the incident can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The settlement agreement explains that class members seeking reimbursement must submit receipts, telephone records, statements or other third-party documentation as proof of their data breach-related losses. Expenses covered under this reimbursement option include postage, faxes, travel, notary charges, cell charges, data charges, bank fees and professional fees, the settlement agreement says. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead file a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment of roughly $60 from the deal, with no proof required. The agreement outlines that each class member’s final payout amount may increase or decrease depending on the total number of valid claims filed. In addition to either benefit, all settlement class members who file a valid claim form are eligible to receive two free years of IDX Identity Protection Services, which includes credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. To file a Whitman Hospital & Medical Clinics settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the settlement claim ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Whitman Hospital settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 24, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Whitman Hospital & Medical Clinics data breach settlement following a hearing on July 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Whitman Hospital & Medical Clinics class action lawsuit claimed that the Washington-based multispecialty hospital and branch of medical centers failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive information stored on its systems, leading to a data breach that occurred between December 26, 2024 and February 28, 2025. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised during the breach includes names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account information, diagnosis information, medications, treatment history, health insurance information and dates of treatment. [GN] WING YIP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Wing Yip Food Holdings Group Limited (NASDAQ: WYHG) resulting from allegations that Wing Yip Food Holdings may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Wing Yip Food Holdings securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=59136 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER A. SALVATORA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Roger A. Salvatora, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. XTO Energy Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01097, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Roger A. Salvatora, Sandra E. Salvatora, D&M Marburger Family Enterprises, L.P., Heasley's Nurseries, Inc., Rodney L. Lang, and Bonita A. Lang initiated this civil action in August of 2019 for alleged breaches of natural gas royalty leases against Defendant XTO Energy Inc. On July 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs and Defendant XTO Energy filed their respective motions for summary judgment. On Aug. 6, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to exclude portions of expert testimony. On Feb. 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant XTO Energy's motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' motions to exclude are recommended to be denied as moot. On Mar. 19, 2026, Judge William S. Stickman adopted Judge Brown's R&R. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied and Defendant XTO Energy's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Defendants' motions to exclude are denied as moot. The appellate case is styled as Roger Salvatora, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., Case No. 26-1640, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ROGER A. SALVATORA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES GREGG CREEHAN & GERACE 20 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 Defendant-Appellee XTO ENERGY INC. is represented by: Nicolle R. Bagnell, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. Colin E. Wrabley, Esq. REED SMITH 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-7112 (412) 288-3838 (412) 288-3548 - and - David R. Fine, Esq. K&L GATES 17 N. Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 231-5820 - and - Elizabeth Tiblets, Esq. PORTER HEDGES 1000 Main Street, 36th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 226-6758 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Nexus' Subsidiary Faces Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- One of FG Nexus Inc.'s subsidiaries is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to FG Nexus. In our experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. FG Nexus has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. "As of December 31, 2025, we have a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.9 million, which represents management’s aggregate estimate of the potential losses related to the settlement of various open proceedings and claims. Management does not expect the resolution of these proceedings and claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/2tfc6e53 ********* 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 ***