260421.mbx

260421.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 21, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 79 Headlines ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.3MM ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Castillo Bid for Conditional Cert. Tossed AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Devices' Disabled Software Updates AMAZON.COM INC: TEI Sues Over Illegal Use of Copyrighted Videos AUTOZONE INC: Loewen Sues Over Termination, Denied Benefits AZ&G INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Huang Suit Claims BAMBU SYSTEMS: Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines Sought BERKADIA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cyberattack BETTER MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dominguez Due August 5 BIG WALL: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 4 CALABASAS BEVERAGE: Bacos Sues Over Mislabeled Tequila Products CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANT: $3.85M Deal Final OK Hearing Set Aug. 18 CETERA FINANCIAL: Faces Wood Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CETERA FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Goodson Says CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Castaneda Says CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL: Harris Balks at Illegal Background Check COSTAR GROUP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit Over Data Monopoly COVE SURF: Faces Laich Suit Over Fake Discount Ads CRANE NXT: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages CYRUS FOOD: Emory Seeks Unpaid Wages, Expense Reimbursement DIGINEX LIMITED: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims DULY HEALTH: Judge Grants Final OK of Private Info Suit Settlement EARTH LIMOUSINES: Waring Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FABLETICS INC: Ashford Seeks Refund of Tariff Surcharges FAIRVIEW NURSING: Harewood Sues Over Discriminatory Practices FIGURE LENDING: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hinton Says FOUR WAYS: Illegally Collects Escrow From Drivers, Haywood Says FREEPORT, NY: Whaley Class Action Wins Certification FUEGO SMOKE: Court Endorses Dismissal of Dial Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Cadillac Lyriq Model Defects GET LIQUID: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GITLAB INC: Webb Files Suit Over Share Repurchase Program GLOBE LIFE: Plymouth Named Lead Plaintiff in Derivative Suit GOLDCO DIRECT: Class Settlement in Summerton Gets Final Nod GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Court Narrows Claims in VCH Suit HAVEN RIVERFRONT: Orcel Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users HILTON DOMESTIC: Faces Class Suits Over Third-Party Data Trackers HOBAN & ASSOCIATES: Settles Info Disclosures Suit for $1.4MM HOME DEPOT: Grimes Sues Over Illegal Use of Vehicle Tracking Data HOMETOWN FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Knowles Says HOSPITALITY CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Cespedes Says HRG MANAGEMENT: Order Striking Woodford Class Complaint Affirmed HUNTERDON MEDICAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Hubbard Alleges INMAR INC: Mr. Dees Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid INTERVET INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JSHEALTH VITAMINS: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website K & W PRODUCTION: Holcomb Seeks to Recover Operators' Unpaid OT K.T.G. USA: Court Certifies "Hale" FLSA Collective of Yard Workers KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge KAISER FOUNDATION: Culbert Seeks to Certify Class Action KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Recyclable K-Cups KOCH FERTILIZER: Davis Ehrsam Alleges Fertilizer Prices' Conspiracy LEVAIN BAKERY: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement LUCID GROUP: Bid to Extend Case Schedule Tossed LYONS & DOUGHTY: Class Cert Opposition Due May 29 MAGGIE MCFLY: 7th Cir. Affirms Order Striking Fenton Class Suit MANTA SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, See Suit Says MATCHABAR INC: Morris Files Matcha Product False Ad Suit MEMOIR INC: Gonani Files Suit Over FCRA Violation META PLATFORMS: Milan Court Accepts Facebook Data Theft Class Suit MOSAIC COMPANY: Samuelson Files Suit Over Fertilizer Price-Fixing NELLIS AUCTION: Schaaf Seeks Certification of Two Classes NORTHEAST SPINE: Blackman Must File Class Cert by March 15, 2027 NUTRIEN LTD: Conspires to Fix Fertilizer Prices, Carroll Says OSAIC HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Filling in Gehring Due Dec. 11 OTTER PRODUCTS: Stay of Discovery Extended to May 22 P3 SPECIALIZED: Underpays Commission Officers, Pierson Suit Says PAMELA BONDI: Directed to Release Kumas from Custody PAUL FREDRICK: Faces Lewis Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages PAWN AMERICA: Agrees to Settle 2021 Data Breach Suit for $3.185MM PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Norfolk Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop PEDIATRIC PRODUCTS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PNC BANK: Website Uses Illegal Tracking Tools, Erakat Alleges PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Stafford Bid to Reopen Civil Action Tossed PROTECT ANIMALS: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PUERTO VALLARTA: Judgment Striking Farias Class Complaint Affirmed REALREAL INC: Intercepts Customers' Communications, Curry Says ROBERT GOLDSTEIN: Final Approval of Settlement Sought RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Opposition in McCarrell Modified to May 4 SAN JOSE, CA: Uses Police Cameras to Track Drivers, Suit Claims SECURITAS SECURITY: Ulloa Files Bid for Class Certification SELENE FINANCE: De Conto Files Suit Over Unlawful Fees SERVICE MANAGEMENT: May 5 Class Certification Hearing Vacated SHARECARE INC: Buqueras Seeks to Certify Class of Investors SONIC CAR: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SOUTHERN AIR: Underpays Service Technicians, Godoy Suit Says STABLE STEP: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STATE FARM: Safont Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply STATE FARM: Velasquez Bid for Class Certification Tossed SUPER EGO: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Trucking Practices TAPESTRY INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Nguyen-Wilhite TOYOTA MOTOR: Hamblin Sues Over Defective Vehicle Seat Rails TRADER JOE'S: Agrees to $7.4MM FACTA Class Action Settlement TRANSDEV SERVICES: Faces Allen Suit Over Illegal Background Check TRUGREEN LIMITED: Valenzuela Sues for Invasion of Privacy TRUIST BANK: Edwards Suit Remanded to Common Pleas Ct. UDR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline in Jackson Stayed UNITED STATES: Abdo Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification US BANK: Website Conceals Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says US BANK: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says VIRTU FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action VPA PC: Faces Steele Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages W6LS INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Arbitration Order in Harris Class Suit WATKINS WELLNESS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Hot Tubs WATON FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims WAYFAIR INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading "30-Day Returns" Policy WEBBANK: Fails to Provide Reasons for Credit Denial, Harris Says WEBMD LLC: Intercepts Private Communications, Brown Suit Says WELLS FARGO: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says WESTGATE PALACE: Steines Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd WF HOLDING: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims WISCONSIN: Dismissal of Department of Revenue v. Siebers Affirmed WISDOM COMPANIES: Purscelley Balks at Illegal Tracking Pixels ZENBUSINESS INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Possible Data Breach ********* ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.3MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Absolute Dental Group has agreed to a $3,300,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the dental practice chain failed to protect the private information of patients and employees from a data breach that occurred between February and March 2025. The $3.3 million Absolute Dental Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 10, 2026. The deal covers all living, natural United States residents whose personal information was potentially compromised during the data breach, including all who were sent notice of the incident. Court documents state that approximately 1,223,437 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Absolute Dental Group data breach settlement can be found at AbsoluteDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Absolute Dental settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to two cash payments from the deal. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented losses related to the data breach are eligible to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The settlement agreement explains that class members must provide reasonable documentation, such as bank statements, receipts or invoices, to receive compensation for these expenses, which include those related to obtaining credit reports, credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, as well as bank fees, cell phone charges, travel, postage, and more. In addition to, or instead of, a documented-loss payment, class members may file a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment, which the agreement describes as an equal share of the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs, lead plaintiff service awards and documented-loss reimbursements. The website adds that settlement class members who resided in California at the time of the Absolute Dental Group data breach can receive a cash fund payment that is twice as large due to state-specific consumer protections. To file an Absolute Dental data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Absolute Dental Group settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 18, 2026. Finally, as part of the class action settlement, Absolute Dental Group has agreed to implement enhanced cybersecurity measures to better protect the personal information in its care. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Absolute Dental Group settlement following a hearing on July 30, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Absolute Dental Group class action lawsuit claimed that the Nevada-based chain of dental practices failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the confidential patient and employee information stored on its systems, leading to a data breach that lasted from around February 19, 2025 to March 5, 2025. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised during the breach included names, addresses, dates of birth, contact information, Social Security numbers, driver's license and state ID numbers, provider information, insurance information, diagnosis information, medical records, billing records, and other health information. [GN] ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Castillo Bid for Conditional Cert. Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RINALDYS CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE INC., MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, and MONTEFIORE MEDICINE ACADEMIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order denying Castillo's motions for conditional certification, equitable tolling, and notice, all without prejudice. All deadlines related to the Defendants' anticipated motion for summary judgment remain stayed pending mediation. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at dockets 73 and 74. The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following collective: "All persons who were/are employed by the Defendants as "Study Coordinators" and/or similar positions, such as "Research Coordinators," during the past three years prior to the commencement of this action through the present who were/are not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek." The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to pay study and research coordinators for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Albert Einstein is a private medical school in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JdYk3 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Devices' Disabled Software Updates ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Bill Merewhuader filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC. Why: Merewhuader claims Amazon misled consumers by selling Fire TV Stick devices that were unlawfully disabled through software updates. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. Amazon is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it intentionally rendered older Fire TV Stick devices unusable by discontinuing software support while continuing to market the products as offering "instant" streaming capabilities. According to the complaint, Amazon promoted its first- and second-generation Fire TV Stick devices as providing instant access to hundreds of thousands of movies and television shows across major streaming platforms. The lawsuit claims those advertised features were central to consumers' purchasing decisions. Plaintiff Bill Merewhuader alleges Amazon later removed or limited critical software functionality, causing the devices to become slow, difficult to use or effectively inoperable. The class action lawsuit describes this practice as "bricking," meaning the devices lost their primary functionality despite the hardware remaining intact. Merewhuader says he purchased two second-generation Fire TV Stick devices in 2018 but began experiencing significant performance issues within a few years. He alleges the devices eventually became unusable, forcing him to purchase newer versions in 2024. The lawsuit claims Amazon stopped providing software updates for first-generation devices in December 2022 and discontinued support for second-generation devices shortly thereafter, despite allegedly representing that support would continue through 2024. Amazon allegedly reduced device features to push consumers to upgrade Merewhuader argues Amazon failed to disclose that the devices' core streaming functionality could be reduced or eliminated before the end of the hardware's useful life. The class action lawsuit further alleges Amazon did not offer refunds or compensation to affected consumers and instead encouraged them to purchase newer models. The lawsuit alleges Amazon's practices amount to "software tethering," where a product's functionality depends on ongoing software support controlled by the manufacturer. According to the class action, Amazon maintained the ability to limit or discontinue features after purchase, effectively shortening the usable life of the devices and pushing consumers to upgrade. The lawsuit cites concerns raised by federal regulators about the risks of companies using software updates to restrict products consumers already own. Merewhuader asserts claims under California consumer protection laws as well as breach of contract and related claims. He seeks to represent nationwide classes of consumers who purchased first- or second-generation Fire TV Stick devices, along with California subclasses. The class action lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and an order requiring Amazon to compensate affected consumers. Meanwhile, two Florida residents recently sued Amazon.com and Amazon.com Services, alleging the companies unlawfully charged and collected sales tax on purchases of tax-exempt items. The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Sophia Goren Gold of KalielGold PLLC and Annick M. Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei LLP. The Amazon class action lawsuit is Merewhuader v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: TEI Sues Over Illegal Use of Copyrighted Videos --------------------------------------------------------------- TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MATT FISHER, and GOLFHOLICS, INC., each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01134 (W.D. Wash., April 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant unlawfully circumventing technological protection measures to access millions of copyrighted videos from the online video viewing platform, YouTube, in order to feed, train, improve, and commercialize Defendant's large scale generative artificial intelligence model named "Nova Reel." Nova Reel is a text-to-video AI model conceived and marketed as Amazon's dedicated video generation platform. Amazon Nova Reel is commercially available through Amazon Bedrock, Amazon's managed AI services platform, where Amazon charges enterprise customers per second of video generated. According to the complaint, the Defendant used automated video downloading programs combined with virtual machines that rotated IP addresses to avoid detection and blocking, enabling the mass unauthorized access and extraction of videos at the scale necessary to train Nova Reel. The Defendant then used Plaintiffs' and Class Members' intellectual property for their own commercial gain in developing and commercializing Nova Reel. In doing so, the Defendant has violated the law and YouTube's Terms of Service, which were intended to protect Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a nationwide class of YouTube creators whose works were scraped, ingested, and trained on without authorization, seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and all other remedies allowed by law pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, seeking an injunction and damages commensurate with the scope of Defendant's massive and ongoing infringement. More particularly, the Defendant's conduct violates the provisions of the DMCA regarding anti-circumvention by bypassing technological protection measures that control access to YouTube videos. Plaintiff Ted Entertainment, Inc. (TEI) is an independent California based media company and content creator with over 5,800 original videos on YouTube, with a combined total of over 4 billion views. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janelle Bailey, Esq. WASHINGTON INJURY LAW 1905 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 960-4522 Facsimile: (206) 960-4502 E-mail: Litigation@WashingtonInjuryLaw.com - and - Jarret Lee Ellzey, Esq. Tom Kherkher, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Tyler Yagman, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jellzey@eksm.com AUTOZONE INC: Loewen Sues Over Termination, Denied Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA LOEWEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02361 (W.D. Tenn., April 1, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant for declaratory relief and recovery of benefits due under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, rather than working with a store manager who enjoyed exemplary performance on the job for over four years to transition to a part-time role due to increasing family demands, Defendant AutoZone summarily terminated Plaintiff's employment. Allegedly, the Defendant even retroactively terminated Plaintiff's health insurance benefits, to be effective the day prior, and denied Plaintiff insurance coverage for medical treatment, after accepting Plaintiff's premium payment for the entire coverage period. To provide redress for Defendant's reprehensible conduct and recover the benefits she is due, the Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel and bring the instant action, both on behalf of herself and all other AutoZone plan participants who are owed benefits, says the suit. The Plaintiff had been Defendant's store manager for approximately four years. AutoZone, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Richard S. Fisk, Esq. BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC 8645 College Blvd. Suite 250 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 339-6888 E-mail: rfisk@bkwflaw.com AZ&G INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Huang Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ RICKY ESTIVEN LIU HUANG, LUNNY CHAN, and MICHAEl LI, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AZ&G INC. D/B/A NIKUSHOU SAKAI, CHUNZI GU A/K/A "GUS," and DAN CHEN A/K/A "RACHEL," Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01947 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2026) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a willful and deliberate policy and practice of denying Plaintiffs wages owed, unlawfully withholding gratuities, and retaliating against them, in violation of the state and federal laws. They engaged in unlawful tip pooling by distributing tips to non-tipped or non-service employees and wrongfully deducted and withheld a portion of the tips earned by employees, including Plaintiffs, from their total earned tips, adds the complant. While failing to notify employees of the tip credit and failing to maintain required tip records, the Defendants unlawfully claimed tip credits they were not entitled to, and thus paid employees, including Plaintiffs, lower cash wages than required. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiffs with notices of pay rate and accurate wage statements that complied with the requirements of the NYLL, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Liu Huang was employed by Defendants' buffet business from June 2025 until January 6, 2026. During the first five months of his employment, the Defendants asked him to work as an acting manager and also a server; from October 27, 2025, the Defendants promoted Plaintiff Liu Huang to manager position. AZ&G Inc. owns and operates a buffet business serving Japanese cuisine in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jiaxin Na, Esq. Ziyi Gao, Esq. GAO & NA, LLP 3418 Northern Blvd. Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (212) 899-5598 E-mail: jna@gnlaws.com zgao@gnlaws.com BAMBU SYSTEMS: Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YULEIDIS CARRASCO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. BAMBU SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81384-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting approximately a sixty-day extension of the following deadlines as follows: a. Feb. 24, 2026. The parties shall file motions to amend pleadings or join additional parties. PROPOSED DEADLINE: April 24, 2026. b. March 30, 2026. The parties exchange expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class certification. PROPOSED DEADLINE: May 29, 2026. c. April 17, 2026. Parties exchange rebuttal expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class certification. PROPOSED DEADLINE: June 15, 2026. 10. If Defendant timely serves responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the proposed schedule will still accommodate the remainder of the scheduling order. The modifications requested herein will not delay resolution of this class action, and ensure both Parties receive procedural fairness and an adequate opportunity to submit informed expert reports in support of or opposition to class certification. This Motion is made in good faith, is not made for any improper purpose or to burden the Court, and neither the Court nor any party will be unfairly prejudiced by said relief. 16. Accordingly, there is good cause under Rule 16(b). Extending the deadlines will promote a fair and accurate certification decision and resolution. The Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this putative class action on November 6, 2025, alleging Defendant terminated her and more than 100 other employees without proper notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Bambu is an electronics, and manufacturing company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ziTeQv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel K Gladney, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 669-0976 E-mail: sgladney@stranchlaw.com - and - Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 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 The Defendant is represented by: Traci H. Rollins, Esq. Roger W. Feicht, Esq. GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A. 777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500 East West Palm Beach, FL Telephone: (561) 655-1980 E-mail: trollins@gunster.com crossdivita@gunster.com rfeicht@gunster.com lhagan@gunster.com BERKADIA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cyberattack ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA Mag, reports that Berkadia Commercial Mortgage, the nation's top Freddie Mac lender by volume, is facing a proposed class action over an alleged cyberattack that may have compromised the data of thousands of individuals. The suit (Todd v. Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03017) was filed on April 13, 2026, in the Southern District of New York by Rick Todd, a former Senior Manager of Information and Application Security at the company. Todd alleges that on or about March 20, 2026, cybercriminal group ShinyHunters breached Berkadia's systems and made off with an unknown quantity of highly sensitive data belonging to employees and customers alike. The stolen data was allegedly posted on the dark web for sale or ransom following the breach. Berkadia, headquartered in New York, describes itself as a company that sells, finances, and services commercial real estate, supporting the entire life cycle of its clients' assets. It operates offices across the United States and provides investment sales, mortgage banking, and loan servicing solutions nationwide. In short, it sits at the center of the commercial mortgage world -- and now, at the center of a data security controversy. The data allegedly compromised is extensive: full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses, driver's license and passport numbers, employment usernames and passwords, employment histories, banking information, sensitive business documents, and tax information. For a company that handles complex commercial mortgage transactions, that kind of exposure raises immediate questions about how client and employee data is being protected across the industry. The suit also takes aim at Berkadia's cybersecurity infrastructure. It alleges the firm failed to meet the minimum standards of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and the Center for Internet Security's Critical Security Controls -- both described in the filing as existing and applicable industry standards in the financial services industry. It further points to Berkadia's own privacy policy, which states the company maintains a comprehensive information security management system with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. According to the suit, those protections were not effectively in place when ShinyHunters struck. What may concern mortgage professionals most is what allegedly did not happen after the breach. The suit claims that as of the filing date -- more than three weeks after the incident -- Berkadia had not notified affected individuals, had not reported the breach to state attorneys general, and had not offered any identity theft monitoring or protection. Todd is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief including improvements to Berkadia's data security systems and future annual audits, and not less than ten years of credit monitoring for affected individuals. The amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars. No determination has been made on the merits. Berkadia has not yet responded to the allegations. Still, for an industry built on trust and sensitive financial data, the case is a pointed reminder that cybersecurity is no longer just an IT issue -- it is a legal and reputational one. [GN] BETTER MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dominguez Due August 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO DOMINGUEZ, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 8:20-cv-01784-MRA-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani entered an order as follows: March 17, 2026: Meet and Confer Deadline Re: Rule 26 discovery plan; March 24, 2026: Deadline to file Rule 26(f) report; March 31, 2026: Rule 26 Initial Disclosures and discovery plan due; April 7, 2026: Scheduling Conference; Aug. 5, 2026: Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification The Plaintiff is ordered to file a motion for approval of the collective action and PAGA settlement by May 1, 2026. The Defendant operates as an online mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dq0GBr at no extra charge.[CC] BIG WALL: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ TARA NICOLE MUELLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Wall Decor LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00649-JRS-TAB (S.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://bigwalldecor.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Mueller and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 17, 2026, Plaintiff Mueller was searching online for large wall décor and home decor items for her living room and discovered the Defendant's website. She decided to explore the website further with the intention of making a purchase after reading customer reviews. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the transaction. Specifically, she became disoriented when an automatic pop-up window appeared on the webpage. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Mueller 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. Big Wall Decor LLC operates the website that offers wall decor and home accents, including photography prints, canvas and framed art, metal and sculptural pieces, murals and wallpaper, and curated themed collections.[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 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX) and reminds investors of the May 4, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: the true state of Boston Scientific's U.S. EP segment; notably, that management was aware that the segment's growth rate was unsustainable and that it was approaching an earlier tipping point than the market was anticipating. Due to Defendants' statements of confidence and lofty expectations, investors and analysts were left surprised by Boston Scientific's net income miss and underwhelming guidance for the first half of fiscal 2026. On February 4, 2026, Boston Scientific published a press release announcing fourth quarter and full year 2025 results, including a pertinent disappointment in U.S. EP sales, and issued guidance for fiscal 2026 that fell well below expectations. The Company attributed its results and dismal guidance on a combination of slower than expected market growth alongside increased competition, despite management's previous claims of a "growing" EP business and assertions they "have a very good understanding of what competition we will face and in what time frame." On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $16.12, or 17.6%, to close at $75.50 per share on February 4, 2026, thereby injuring investors. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Boston Scientific's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Boston Scientific class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/BSX or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] CALABASAS BEVERAGE: Bacos Sues Over Mislabeled Tequila Products --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BACOS, ALIN POP, and ANDREI TOMESCU, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALABASAS BEVERAGE COMPANY, LLC and K&SODA INC d/b/a 818 SPIRITS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03706 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2026) is a consumer class action brought by the Plaintiff arising from the Defendants' alleged deceptive, unfair, and misleading promotion of 818 Tequila products in the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendants represent on product labels, third-party websites, and marketing materials that the 818 Tequila products are made from "100% agave" or "100% Blue Weber agave." These representations convey to reasonable consumers that the alcohol content of the products is derived solely from fermented sugars of the blue Weber agave, consistent with legally recognized tequila production standards, and that the product complies with applicable regulatory requirements associated with "100% agave" tequila, including the expectation that no non-agave sugars or undisclosed additives are used to influence the character, flavor, or composition of the tequila. Also, the Defendants represent on product labels, third-party websites, and marketing materials that 818 Tequila is "handcrafted" and made in "small batch." The term "small batch" refers on a tequila label signaling craftsmanship and careful, hands-on production rather than mass manufacturing. Contrary to representations suggesting small-batch production, 818 is produced through large-scale industrial operations located in the Mexican state of Jalisco, says the suit. The Plaintiffs allege that these representations were material to their purchasing decisions and enabled Defendants to charge premium prices. As such, Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief under state law, on behalf of themselves and, as class representatives, on behalf of those similarly situated. Calabasas Beverage Company, LLC is a tequila brand operating within the alcoholic beverage industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dragos Butucea-Boscoianu, Esq. ACCESS LAW GROUP 1480 Renaissance Dr., Suite 308 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (312) 880-7279 E-mail: Drey@AccessLaw.us CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANT: $3.85M Deal Final OK Hearing Set Aug. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Cardiovascular Consultants Ltd. (CVC) agreed to pay a $3.85 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumers from a 2023 data breach. The Cardiovascular Consultants settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in the Cardiovascular Consultants data breach in September 2023. On Sept. 29, 2023, Cardiovascular Consultants experienced a data breach that compromised sensitive personal and health information, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, contact information, driver's license numbers, health insurance information and medical information. The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim CVC failed to protect their information from the data breach and could have prevented the incident through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Cardiovascular Consultants is a medical practice that provides cardiovascular care to patients in Arizona. CVC has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.85 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Cardiovascular Consultants settlement, class members can receive both cash payments and medical monitoring benefits. Class members can receive a pro rata share of the net settlement fund. Based on the number of claims filed, each class member is estimated to receive $75. However, this amount may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed. Class members can also receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the data breach. This includes reimbursement for identity theft, fraud, credit monitoring, credit report expenses and other losses. All class members, regardless of whether they experienced out-of-pocket losses, can receive two years of medical monitoring benefits. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 1, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Cardiovascular Consultants data breach class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 18, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 1, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals residing in the United States whose personal information was potentially compromised in the Cardiovascular Consultants data breach discovered in September 2023, including those who received notice of the data breach. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses or a pro rata payment of $75 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses and expenses, such as credit card statements, phone bills or credit monitoring or identity theft monitoring expenses. Handwritten receipts are not sufficient on their own to receive reimbursement but can be considered to add clarity to or support other documentation. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/01/2026 Case Name Stroup, et al. v. Cardiovascular Consultants Ltd., Case No. CV2023-020048, in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County Final Hearing 08/18/2026 Settlement Website https://www.CVCDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator - 83376 c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 447-9408 Class Counsel Cristina Hesano PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC Nickolas J. Hagman CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP Defense Counsel Justin M. Holmes GORDON, REES, SCULLY & MANUSUKHANI LLP [GN] CETERA FINANCIAL: Faces Wood Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CETERA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03523 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive the personal identifying information of Plaintiff and Class Members that was compromised in a data breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Cetera Financial Group, Inc. is an independent financial services provider and wealth management network in the United States, supporting over 11,000 financial advisors and managing over $640 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.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 CETERA FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Goodson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DANA GOODSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CETERA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-3376 (C.D. Calif., April 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive the personal identifying information of Plaintiff and Class Members that was compromised in a data breach incident. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The PII compromised in the data breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves, alleges the suit. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach. Cetera Financial Group, Inc. is an independent financial services provider and wealth management network in the United States, supporting over 11,000 financial advisors and managing over $640 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com 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-02924 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its customers, including Plaintiffs'. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. An unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's systems on April 1, 2026. Thus, cybercriminals had unfettered access to Defendant's network and the files stored therein and caused a widespread outage in Defendant' services, says the suit. The Plaintiffs allege that 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. The Defendant's failure to promptly and properly notify Plaintiffs and Class Members of the data breach exacerbated Plaintiffs and Class Members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their PII and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the data breach, the suit contends. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL: Harris Balks at Illegal Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL SCOTT HARRIS, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a GREENTECH RENEWABLES, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00406-P (N.D. Tex., April 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. The Defendant's actions in violation of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals, asserts the complaint. As such, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this class action complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. The Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Greentech Renewables, is engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of solar, electrical, and renewable energy products in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney C. Washington, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 107 S. McGraw Ave. Forney, TX 75126 Telephone: (972) 349-1906 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: cwashington@sirillp.com COSTAR GROUP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit Over Data Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ DiCello Levitt LLP, along with co‑counsel Webster Book LLP and Sperling Kenny Nachwalter, LLC, has filed the first antitrust class action challenging CoStar Group, Inc. and CoStar Realty Information, Inc.'s alleged monopolization of the commercial real estate ("CRE") online listing and information services markets. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of commercial real estate brokers and other market participants who paid supracompetitive fees for CoStar's listing and data products. The complaint alleges that CoStar -- the dominant provider of CRE listing and information platforms, including LoopNet and CoStar -- unlawfully restrained customers' ability to work with CoStar competitors and maintained monopoly power in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. "We filed this case because commercial real estate brokers and firms are being squeezed by a system that leaves them with no real choice," said Partner Greg Asciolla, Chair of DiCello Levitt's Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice. "We believe CoStar used its dominant position to lock up customer data, shut out competition, and raise prices. This is the first class action to challenge that conduct and restore fairness and choice to the commercial real estate industry." According to the complaint, CoStar controls roughly 80% of the national markets for internet‑based commercial real estate listing and information services and used a multi‑pronged scheme to entrench that dominance. The suit alleges CoStar imposed non‑negotiable restrictions preventing customers from sharing their own listings and data with CoStar competitors, coerced major brokerages into long‑term non‑competition agreements, and enforced those restraints through digital watermarks, IP blocks, threats, and scraping competitor websites -- leaving customers with little choice but to pay inflated prices. The complaint further alleges that CoStar's conduct has raised barriers to entry, foreclosed competition from emerging and innovative platforms, and harmed thousands of brokers and firms nationwide who rely on CRE data and listing services to conduct their businesses. Plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of a nationwide class, as well as injunctive relief to restore competition to the commercial real estate data and listings markets. The case is Shapiro Hospitalities LLC d/b/a Grand & Co. v. CoStar Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26‑cv‑01027, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A copy of the complaint is available here. The DiCello Levitt team on the matter is led by Steven Groopman and includes Greg Asciolla, Jonathan Crevier, Geralyn Trujillo, and Corey Lipton. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through antitrust, class action, civil and human rights, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, and personal injury litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN] COVE SURF: Faces Laich Suit Over Fake Discount Ads -------------------------------------------------- RUSTLE LAICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVE SURF COMPANY, INC. d/b/a COVE USA, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00789 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Cove lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited time discounts from those regular prices. These include discounts offering "X% off" and "X% off sitewide" that are purportedly time-limited and limited to a particular period, such as the holidays or the New Year. These discounts are often automatically applied to the apparel products sitewide or are made by using a discount code. The Defendant also advertises that its products have a lower discount price as compared to a higher, "regular price," or a price shown in grey and/or strikethrough font. Far from being time-limited, however, the Defendant's discounts are routinely available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is fake. The regular prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because its products are consistently available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discounts the customer is receiving and are often not discounts at all. Nor are the purported discounts time-limited—quite the opposite, they are consistently available, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and the other customers who purchased Defendant's products. Cove Surf Company, Inc. markets apparel through the Cove brand and on the website www.shopcoveusa.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (601) 270-0197 E-mail: tyler@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com CRANE NXT: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ RAUL MARTINEZ, individually and for others similarly situated v. CRANE NXT, CO., Case No. 1:26-cv-11564 (D. Mass., April 2, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, Crane employed Plaintiff Martinez as one of its hourly employees in Illinois. The Plaintiff and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek but Defendant Crane does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, Crane automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit and to the hourly employees' detriment. Additionally, Crane pays Plaintiff Martinez and the other hourly employees' non-discretionary bonuses that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Crane's rounding policy violates the IWPCA by depriving Martinez and the other hourly employees of earned wages, at their agreed hourly rates, for all hours worked, says the suit. Plaintiff Martinez worked for the Defendant as a quality control associate from approximately May 2018 until August 2025 in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. Crane NXT, Co. is an industrial technology company. The Company offers patented micro-optic technology that protects brands from counterfeiters and fraud, integrated detection and sensing systems, and connectivity solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP LLP 585 Boylston St Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 Facsimile: (617) 536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CYRUS FOOD: Emory Seeks Unpaid Wages, Expense Reimbursement ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN EMORY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYRUS FOOD SERVICE, INC. d/b/a CRENOS SOUTH Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00408-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 6, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Wage Act and Ohio's Wage-Payment Statute to recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully withheld wages, and related damages. This is an action for Defendant's uniform, company-wide failure to reimburse delivery drivers for the reasonable costs of using their personal vehicles to make customer deliveries. The Defendant required Plaintiff and hundreds of other hourly workers (the vast majority of whom served as delivery drivers) to maintain and operate their own automobiles as an essential condition of employment, yet provided zero reimbursement, vehicle allowance, or mileage payment of any kind, asserts the complaint. Because Defendant provided zero reimbursement or allowance, every mile driven by Plaintiff and the class members constituted an unreimbursed out-of-pocket expense that reduced their effective hourly wage below the minimum wage required by the federal and state laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid delivery driver from approximately April 2023 through approximately May 2023. Cyrus Food Service, Inc. operates the Crenos South pizza restaurant based in Nashport, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW, LLC 8 N. Court St. Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com DIGINEX LIMITED: Rosen Law Probes 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 Diginex Limited (NASDAQ: DGNX) resulting from allegations that Diginex may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Diginex 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=59655 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 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DULY HEALTH: Judge Grants Final OK of Private Info Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Almeida Law Group announces that Honorable April M. Perry of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted final approval of a class action settlement in Mayer v. Duly Health and Care, Case No. 1:23-cv-03132. In a final approval order issued on April 7, 2026, Judge Perry certified the class for settlement purposes, approved the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court found that Plaintiffs adequately represented the class and confirmed the appointment of David S. Almeida and Britany Kabakov Wessan of Almeida Law Group LLC and James B. Zouras and Michael J. Casas of Stephan Zouras LLP as Class Counsel. The litigation involves allegations that Midwest Physician Administrative Services LLC, doing business as Duly Health and Care, unlawfully disclosed users' private information to third parties through tracking technologies embedded in its website between July 2020 and April 2023. Almeida Law Group is proud to serve as co-counsel in this matter and remains committed to protecting consumer privacy by holding companies accountable for the misuse of sensitive personal data. [GN] EARTH LIMOUSINES: Waring Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE WARING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARTH LIMOUSINES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01029 (D. Nev., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nevada Revised Statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members at a rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Member have suffered economic loss that includes lost wages and interest, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 3, 2026 to January 12, 2026 as a Chauffeur/Limousine driver. Earth Limousines, LLC is in the business of providing limousine services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com FABLETICS INC: Ashford Seeks Refund of Tariff Surcharges -------------------------------------------------------- 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 against the Defendants for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Last year, the Trump Administration imposed a sweeping set of tariffs pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 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. According to the complaint, the Defendants had 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. Yet Fabletics has refused to make any such commitments, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are Fabletics customers who paid tariff surcharges in connection with the IEEPA tariffs. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seeking restitution and disgorgement of all tariff surcharges they paid to Fabletics, prejudgment interest, and other equitable relief. Fabletics, Inc. operates as an online fashion retailer. The Company offers shoes, handbags, jewelry, clothing, denims, and other related products. TechStyle Fashion Group serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented: 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 FAIRVIEW NURSING: Harewood Sues Over Discriminatory Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND HAREWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRVIEW NURSING CARE CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01951 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2026) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff, and as an action for those similarly situated, for violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that Defendant has engaged in intentional disability discrimination against Plaintiff and other individuals with mobility impairments who must use scooters to ambulate, by forbidding them entry into its facility. These deliberate and systemic actions deny Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, equal access to, and full enjoyment of, Defendant's facility. As a result, mobility-impaired individuals are unjustly excluded and deprived of the terms, conditions, privileges, and services that Federal, State, and City laws require of Defendant, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant's discriminatory practices which violate the federal and state laws. He also seeks a declaratory judgment, and equitable and injunctive relief for Defendant's discrimination as well as punitive damages against each Defendant for its reckless and/or callous indifference to Plaintiff's rights under the FHA, and NYHRL, and NYCHRL. Fairview Nursing Care Center, Inc. owns and operates Fairview Rehab & Nursing Home, a 24-hour rehab center and nursing home located in Forest Hills, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710-1940 Telephone: (646) 290-8258 E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com FIGURE LENDING: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hinton Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT HINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGURE LENDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00418 (S.D. Ohio, April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, including full names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, loan account numbers, and loan information. The complaint relates that as a condition of obtaining Defendant's lending services, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their Private Information. On January 28, 2026, a hacking group using the online moniker "ShinyHunters" infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive PII that was being stored there. ShinyHunters later posted on its dark web data leak website, stating that Defendant refused to pay a ransom, and published approximately 2.5 gigabytes of stolen data, which included Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's conduct has injured Plaintiff and Class Members through invasion of privacy and theft of PII; the lost or diminished value of their PII; costs and lost time associated with mitigating the consequences of the breach; lost benefit of their bargain; emotional distress; and a substantial and ongoing risk of identity theft and financial fraud that, given the categories of data compromised, may persist for years or decades. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief the Court deems proper. Plaintiff Scott Hinton is an applicant or borrower of home equity lines of credit and other lending products from Defendant. Defendant Figure Lending LLC is a financial technology lending company specializing in blockchain-enabled home equity lines of credit, mortgage refinancing, and crypto-backed loans, and provides technology and loan administrative services to other lenders and business partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D Flick, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: firm@attorneyzim.com FOUR WAYS: Illegally Collects Escrow From Drivers, Haywood Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENE HAYWOOD and HAYWOOD LOGISTICS LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FOUR WAYS LOGISTICS II, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03640 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2026) alleges that Defendant illegally collects escrow and wrongfully withheld wages of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers, in violation of the Truth in Leasing Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. This action is brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf a class of similarly situated truck drivers and independently owned trucking companies. The Defendant collects escrow, typically $2,500, from which it unlawfully deducts amounts that are not set forth in its contract and that are otherwise arbitrary and unwarranted, including but not limited to charging drivers who do not give two-weeks notice $1,000 even though no such term appears in the equipment lease. Four Ways fails to pay interest on the escrow amounts and deducts other amounts that are not set forth in the lease, thereby violating TILA and the state law, asserts the complaint. Further, the Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights and other drivers rights by deducting sums from drivers' wages without their written authorization at the time of the deduction and by not paying drivers all agreed-upon wages due and owing to them, says the suit. Haywood Logistics LLC is a single-member limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal place of business and headquarters in Ellenwood, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 230 Northgate Street, Suite 103 Lake Forest, IL 60045 Telephone: (847) 877-2970 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com FREEPORT, NY: Whaley Class Action Wins Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Whaley and Erick Svensson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Village of Freeport, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02720-DG-JMW (Court), the Hon. Judge entered an order certifying class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), with the class defined as follows: "All vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized and/or impounded by the Village of Freeport Police Department (FPD) as "scofflaw vehicles" having been deemed "scofflaw vehicles by the Village of Freeport for unpaid / albeit unadjucated parking tickets and were seized by the FPD without warrants, executions, and/or any judicial orders, within period from May 14, 2022." A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=capWNN at no extra charge.[CC] FUEGO SMOKE: Court Endorses Dismissal of Dial Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARE P. CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-AGM-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to dismiss Count IV of class action complaint and response in opposition to class certification request as it relates to Count IV. For the reasons that follow, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The Complaint should also be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Finally, the "political question" doctrine bars Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive relief that would prohibit smoke shops nationwide from selling N-O products. This litigation arises out of the "regulatory vacuum" pertaining to the sale of nitrous oxide ("N-O") products. In the absence of legislation or administrative rules regulating the sale of such products, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief "preliminarily and permanently enjoining" Defendants, and a putative "smoke shop defendant" class "from selling N-O Products on their premises or online." The Plaintiff's claim fails to state a cause of action as a result of which Count IV should be dismissed, and class certification should be denied. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a bilateral class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all members of a Plaintiff Class, including the Subclass, defined in the Complaint in paragraph 53. 6. Plaintiff also seeks the certification of a Defendant Class, defined in the Complaint at paragraph 57. Fuego is a retail establishment, specializing in a wide range of smoke and vape products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DjGQhJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth L. Minerley, Esq. Ashley Adras, Esq. MINERLEY FEIN, P.A. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 362-6699 Facsimile: (561) 447-9884 E-mail: Ken@minerleyfein.com ashley@minerleyfein.com fileclerk@minerleyfein.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Cadillac Lyriq Model Defects ------------------------------------------------------------------ George Barta, writing for GM Authority, reports that CarComplaints reports that a new class action lawsuit targeting the Cadillac Lyriq alleges that serious electrical defects have left some owners with vehicles that cannot start, charge, or operate. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the complaint centers on claims that the Lyriq's complex electronic architecture is prone to failure. The lawsuit names General Motors as the defendant and argues that faults within the crossover's software, battery management systems, and vehicle control networks can trigger a cascade of communication breakdowns. Because the Lyriq is fully electric, the plaintiffs contend these failures are critical faults that render the vehicle unusable. Plaintiff Wendy J. Cochran describes her vehicle as having suffered a "catastrophic electrical system failure," while plaintiff Charlene Riddle alleges "catastrophic, ongoing electrical system failures" that made her Cadillac Lyriq "entirely unreliable for daily use." Riddle further claims she was told a software fix was necessary but unavailable at the time. Both plaintiffs cite damages including "loss of vehicle use, diminished value, out-of-pocket costs and overpayment for a defective vehicle." Notably, the complaint lacks certain specifics. It does not identify the model years involved or clarify whether the vehicles were purchased or leased. Even so, the allegations outline a pattern: vehicles that require towing, extended stays at the dealership, and repeated repair attempts. The suit also asserts that GM was aware of these electrical issues prior to launch but proceeded with sales regardless. That claim, if substantiated, would raise questions about pre-release validation and internal testing protocols. GM has not publicly responded to the filing at the time of writing. Cadillac has positioned the Lyriq as a cornerstone of its transition to electrification, emphasizing refinement and advanced technology. This lawsuit challenges that narrative directly, arguing the vehicle is "worth substantially less" due to unresolved defects. As with any class action, the burden of proof will determine its trajectory. For now, the case introduces another layer of scrutiny to a high-profile EV program still in its early lifecycle. [GN] GET LIQUID: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM BROWN and DIEGO LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. GET LIQUID FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80170-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time and extending the filing deadline for the response to the motion to certify class to 10 days following Magistrate Judge McCabe's declaring of an impasse to the settlement efforts. The parties are currently working to exchange documents and present the continuation dates to Magistrate Judge McCabe. In the event the matter can be resolved, it will be an unnecessary expense for the Defendant to prepare a response to the Motion to Certify Class. To avoid that unnecessary expense, the Defendant is seeking an extension of time to file that response. The Plaintiffs commenced this action on Feb. 18, 2026. On Feb. 23, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to appear before Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a settlement conference. The Defendant is a company that specializes in providing personalized foreclosure assistance. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UqNAyt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gina Marie Cadogan, Esq. Madison A. Heckman, Esq. CADOGAN LAW 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 370 Plantation, FL 33324 E-mail: gina@cadoganlaw.com madison@cadoganlaw.com tyler@cadoganlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Arthur Schofield, Esq. ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. Via Jardin Building 330 Clematis Street, Suite 207 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-4211 Facsimile: (561) 655-5447 E-mail: aschofield@flalabor.com GITLAB INC: Webb Files Suit Over Share Repurchase Program --------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH WEBB, individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of GITLAB INC., Plaintiff v. SYTSE SIJBRANDIJ, WILLIAM STAPLES, SUNDEEP BEDI, KAREN BLASING, SUE BOSTROM, DAVID HENSHALL, MATTHEW JACOBSON, MERLINE SAINTIL, GODFREY SULLIVAN, and GITLAB INC., Defendants, Case No. 2026-0449 (Chancery Ct., Del., April 3, 2026) arises from Sijbrandij's exerted influence over the Company's Board to secure authorization of a $400 million share repurchase program (the "Repurchase Program"). GitLab Inc. is a software company incorporated in Delaware. Sytse "Sid" Sijbrandij, William Staples, Sundeep Bedi, Karen Blasing, Sue Bostrom, David Henshall, Matthew Jacobson, Merline Saintil, and Godfrey Sullivan have served as members of the Company's Board. The Plaintiff, Kenneth Webb, is a current GitLab stockholder. He seeks immediate judicial intervention to prevent Defendants from using GitLab's corporate treasury to facilitate Sijbrandij's imminent acquisition of control. The complaint relates that based on recent trading prices, Sijbrandij is likely to regain outright voting control over GitLab. And unlike what other companies' boards have done when approving stock repurchase plans that have the potential to install a majority stockholder, GitLab's Board did not negotiate to limit Sijbrandij's power or implement limitations on management's execution of the Repurchase Program that would impede Sijbrandij's reacquisition of majority control. Accordingly, the Repurchase Program threatens to give Sijbrandij control of the Company without compensating GitLab's public, minority stockholders for this change of control, the complaint notes. Moreover, by reducing the outstanding Class A shares, the Repurchase Program will also delay the sunset of GitLab's Class B shares, which will automatically convert to Class A shares immediately upon constituting less than 5% of the Company's total equity, says the complaint. Four of the Board's nine directors--Bedi, Saintil, Sijbrandij, and Sullivan--are conflicted with respect to the Repurchase Program because they own Class B shares and are directly interested in prolonging their super-voting power, the complaint alleges. The Individual Defendants have not conditioned the Repurchase Program on the approval of disinterested stockholders. Nor have Defendants disclosed any details concerning how the Repurchase Program came about or how management will carry out the Repurchase Program, adds the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Douglas E. Julie, esq. W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP 157 East 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (929) 415-1020 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. Alexander M. Krischik, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (888) 715-1740 GLOBE LIFE: Plymouth Named Lead Plaintiff in Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as In re Globe Life Inc. f/k/a Torchmark Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-993 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted Plymouth County Retirement Association's motion to appoint it as lead plaintiff and to revise the appointment of lead counsel, and denied the Catherine M. Sugarbaker Family Trust's motion to vacate the current leadership structure and appoint new co-lead counsel. The consolidated suit arises from alleged misconduct on behalf of Globe Life Inc.'s board of directors and executive officers. Plymouth sought appointment of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as sole co-lead counsel, with Steckler Wayne & Love PLLC as liaison counsel, and requested to be named lead plaintiff. The Sugarbaker Trust preferred Robbins LLP and Sbaiti & Company PLLC as co-lead counsel, and argued that a lead plaintiff was not required. The Court applied eight factors drawn from Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23.1(c)(3)(A) to determine the structure that would best serve the interests of Globe Life and its shareholders: counsel's competence and experience; access to necessary resources; quality of the pleadings; counsel's performance in the litigation to date; the proposed leadership structure; the derivative plaintiff's relationship to and interest in the entity; conflicts between counsel or the derivative plaintiff and the entity; and any other pertinent matter bearing on adequate representation. On competence and experience, the Court found that Scott+Scott recently secured a mid-trial settlement of $190 million in the first Caremark oversight claim to reach trial in Delaware history. The Court gave this factor only moderate weight because all firms demonstrated sufficient competence. On quality of the pleadings, the factor slightly favored Sugarbaker, as its complaint made specific demand-futility allegations against each director by name, while Plymouth's did not. The demand-futility analysis applies on a director-by-director basis. On counsel's performance, Plymouth intervened in a parallel Texas Business Court proceeding and successfully obtained a stay, demonstrating that its counsel would vigorously prosecute the case. It also filed suit in Delaware to enforce its Section 220 demand and obtained a settlement. This factor favored Plymouth. On leadership structure, Scott+Scott and BFA had previously litigated together in two prior matters, while Sugarbaker's briefing did not specify whether Robbins and Sbaiti had litigated together. A last-minute joint proposal submitted by Sugarbaker and Plaintiff Jui Cheng Hsiao after full briefing and two weeks after oral argument was not considered an indicator of effective collaboration. This factor favored Plymouth. On the derivative plaintiff's relationship and interest, Plymouth, a Massachusetts public employee retirement system established in 1937 managing more than $1.5 billion in investments, identified its stock ownership in Globe Life, including when it first acquired stock. Sugarbaker failed to specify when it acquired Globe Life stock and provided limited information about its experience and capabilities. This factor favored Plymouth. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plymouth County Retirement Association is appointed sole lead plaintiff; Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP are appointed sole co-lead counsel; and Steckler Wayne & Love PLLC is appointed sole liaison counsel. The prior leadership structure from the January 3, 2025 order was vacated. Plaintiffs' counsel were further ordered to submit a proposed schedule for filing a consolidated complaint within fifteen days, and the parties to meet and confer on a schedule for defendants' responses within thirty days of entry of the order. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPIONION AND ORDER is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c1H2Bf from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiffs Gautam Jadhav and Jui Cheng Hsiao are represented by Stuart Lee Cochran, Esq., at CONDON TOBIN SLADEK THORNTON NERENBERG Defendants M. Shane Henrie, Mary E. Thigpen, Frank M. Svoboda, David A. Rodriquez, Darren M. Rebelez, Thomas P. Kalmbach, Steven P. Johnson, Robert W. Ingram, Larry M. Hutchison, Globe Life Inc. f/k/a Torchmark Corporation, James Matthew Darden, Gary L. Coleman, Alice S. Cho, Jane M. Buchan, James P. Brannen, Mark A. Blinn, Cheryl D. Alston, Marilyn A. Alexander, Linda L. Addison, and Charles E. Adair are represented by: Paul Richard Bessette, Esq. Michael John Biles, Esq. Frances Reka Fink, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP Tel: 612-618-3858 Emails: pbessette@kslaw.com mbiles@kslaw.com ffink@kslaw.com GOLDCO DIRECT: Class Settlement in Summerton Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN SUMMERTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLDCO DIRECT LLC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00238-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Conley entered an order granting final approval to class action settlement and final judgment. 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court finally certifies the Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who, during the four years prior to the filing of this case (1) received more than one text message from the Defendant during any 12-month period; (2) which was transmitted by the Defendant utilizing the Call Loop, Inc., texting software; (3) after requesting to not receive text messages from the Defendant by responding with a "stop" or "unsubscribe" request; (4) whose number was listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry when the messages were received; and (5) who did not re-opt in to receive text messages prior to receipt of the text messages." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the district judge and magistrate judge presiding over this case, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them; (2) individuals who are or were during the class period agents, directors, employees, officers, or servants of the Defendant or of any affiliate, or parent of the Defendant; (3) Plaintiff's Counsel, and their employees; and (4) all persons who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the settlement class in accordance with section III(D) of the settlement agreement. 2. The Court finally designates the Plaintiff Jan Summerton, as the class representative. 3. The Court finally appoints Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A; and Michael Eisenband of Eisenband Law, P.A. as class counsel. Goldco is a privately held firm specializing in wealth and asset protection. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nu1cI5 at no extra charge.[CC] GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Court Narrows Claims in VCH Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALLEY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP WELFARE PLAN, an employee welfare benefit plan, Case No. 1:24-cv-00643-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thurston entered an order granting in part motion to dismiss. 1. The motion to dismiss is granted in part in that the failure-to-reimburse claim is dismissed without leave to amend. 2. The motion to dismiss is denied in part to the extent that the plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days or a notice of dismissal. Failure to timely file either document will result in dismissal of his case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Valley Children's Hospital brings this action under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(1)(B), asserting rights they claim were assigned to them by their patient, Patient O. They allege Defendants Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. and Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. Administrative Group Welfare Plan wrongfully denied and failed to pay benefits in the amount of $1,797,767.20 owed for Patient O's treatment at the Hospital. The Hospital alleges that Defendants "failed to comply with their obligations under the Appeals Process." But these procedural allegations—along with accompanying procedural remedies—are not reflected in Plaintiffs’ singular claim for relief, nor in their Prayer for Relief. In an abundance of caution, the Court will allow the Hospital an opportunity to amend its complaint to assert a procedural claim to the extent they can, consistent with Rule 11, articulate one that is not barred by the anti-assignment provision. Grimmway grows, produces, and supplies agricultural products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iRBAUN at no extra charge.[CC] HAVEN RIVERFRONT: Orcel Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAVEN RIVERFRONT RESTAURANT AND BAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03455 (D.N.J., April 1, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.havenedgewater.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 14, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home with the intention of making a reservation at the Defendant's restaurant but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. The suit asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff 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. Haven Riverfront Restaurant and Bar, LLC operates the website that serves as a restaurant offering a contemporary American menu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HILTON DOMESTIC: Faces Class Suits Over Third-Party Data Trackers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Action reports that consumers filed class action lawsuits against Hilton, LinkedIn, PNC Bank and Wells Fargo. Why: Plaintiffs allege the companies used pixel tracking and similar technologies to intercept users' online communications without consent. Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in federal courts in California. Four companies -- Hilton, LinkedIn, PNC Bank and Wells Fargo -- are facing class action lawsuits alleging they secretly tracked users' online activity through pixel trackers and other hidden technologies. According to the complaints, the companies embedded third-party tracking tools on their websites that allegedly intercepted users' communications in real time and transmitted that data to outside companies for advertising and profiling purposes. The class action lawsuits claim this tracking occurred automatically during page loads, capturing information such as page URLs, search activity and persistent identifiers without users' knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs argue the alleged conduct violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act, which prohibit the unauthorized interception of electronic communications. Hilton class action alleges third-party trackers intercepted browsing data Plaintiff Gadeer Erakat claims Hilton embedded tracking tools operated by third parties that allegedly intercepted users' browsing activity, including page URLs and search behavior, and transmitted that information during the page-load process. The complaint alleges these trackers enabled identity resolution and cross-session profiling for targeted advertising purposes without user consent. Erakat further claims Hilton did not provide a consent banner or otherwise notify users before deploying the tracking technologies. LinkedIn class action targets browser scanning and fingerprinting A separate class action lawsuit against LinkedIn alleges the company used hidden scripts to scan users' browsers for installed extensions and transmit that data to third parties. According to plaintiff Nicholas Farrell's complaint, this tracking could reveal sensitive personal information, including political views, religious beliefs and employment status, all tied to users' real identities. The class action lawsuit claims the tracking occurred silently each time users loaded a page and was not disclosed in LinkedIn's privacy policy. PNC Bank sued over pixel tracking on financial pages PNC Bank is accused of embedding pixel trackers, including tools operated by Pinterest, LinkedIn and X, that allegedly captured users' browsing activity on personal finance pages. Plaintiff Shahd Erakat claims these trackers transmitted full URLs and persistent identifiers to third parties, allowing them to build advertising profiles based on users' financial interests. Erakat says this tracking occurred in real time without any consent mechanism in place. Wells Fargo class action claims Google and Adobe trackers intercepted data Wells Fargo faces similar allegations that it used tracking technologies operated by Google, Adobe and others to monitor user activity on its website. According to the class action lawsuit, also filed by Shahd Erakat, these trackers allegedly transmitted detailed browsing data -- including visits to debt-related pages -- along with persistent identifiers that enabled cross-session tracking. Erakat claims the tracking occurred automatically during page loads and without user authorization. Lawsuits center on consent and real-time interception Across all four cases, plaintiffs argue the companies used pixel tracking technologies to intercept communications as they occurred, rather than merely collecting data after the fact. The complaints emphasize that users were not informed or given the opportunity to consent before their data was allegedly shared with third parties for advertising and monetization purposes. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, statutory penalties and injunctive relief to stop the alleged tracking practices. Earlier this year, Northwell Health agreed to a class action settlement to resolve allegations it disclosed patient information to third parties without consent. Shahd and Gadeer Erakat are represented by Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates APC and Ross Cornell of Law Offices of Ross Cornell APC. Farrell is represented by Scott R. Drury of Drury Legal LLC and Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC. The pixel tracking class action lawsuits are Erakat v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case 2:26-cv-01353-DAD-CSK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; Erakat v. PNC Bank, National Association, Case 2:26-at-00581, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; Erakat v. Hilton Domestic Operating Co. Inc., Case 2:26-cv-01387-DC-CSK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; and Farrell v. LinkedIn Corp., Case 4:26-cv-02953, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] HOBAN & ASSOCIATES: Settles Info Disclosures Suit for $1.4MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Hoban & Associates has agreed to a $1,400,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the property management company collected information about prospective tenants without providing certain required disclosures, in violation of Washington state law. The $1.4 million Hoban & Associates class action settlement received preliminary court approval on February 6, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who, from April 28, 2017 to February 10, 2023, applied to rent any property that was managed or owned by Hoban & Associates (or where the company was a landlord) located in the state of Washington and paid a tenant screening fee to Hoban, were screened by RealPage, Inc. (which does business as On-Site), and did not receive all of the prospective tenant screening disclosures required under RCW 59.18.257. Settlement documents state that attorneys expect there to be no more than 30,963 settlement class members. The court-approved website for the Hoban & Associates class action settlement can be found at HobanCoastSettlement.com. According to the agreement, class members do not need to do anything to receive a cash payment of approximately $27.56. Class members whose contact information has changed can update their information on this page. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the Hoban & Associates settlement must mail a signed letter to the settlement administrator with their name and contract information. All requests for exclusion must be postmarked no later than May 15, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Hoban & Associates settlement final approval following a hearing on June 26, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Hoban & Associates class action lawsuit alleged that the Washington property management company, which does business as Coast Property Management, Coast Screening Services, Coast Collection Services, Coast Management Company, Inc. and/or Canyon Bluffs Investors VII-1, LLC, obtained information about prospective tenants and charged them a tenant screening fee without first providing a written or posted notice, in violation of state law. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Grimes Sues Over Illegal Use of Vehicle Tracking Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY GRIMES and LAUREN MORRILL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 26CV008224 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 3, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Automatic License Plate Readers Law; invasion of privacy under the California's Constitution; common law invasion of privacy; and common law unjust enrichment. Flock Group, Inc. is a technology company that specializes in automatic license plate recognition systems, commonly referred to as Automatic License Plate Readers. ALPRs are advanced camera systems that can automatically detect and record an individual's "Vehicle Tracking Data," and then aggregate and use that information to track an individual's movements. According to the complaint, the Defendants installed Flock's ALPRs across many, if not all, of its properties in California, resulting in Plaintiffs and Class Members being tracked by Flock's mass surveillance network. However, the Defendants failed to properly and timely inform Plaintiffs and Class Members that their Vehicle Tracking Data was being captured, time-stamped, and recorded, and additionally failed to notify Plaintiffs and Class Members that the resulting data being aggregated enabled the long-term tracking of Plaintiffs and Class Members' individual movements. Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that Defendants had installed Flock ALPRs on Home Depot premises which recorded their Vehicle Tracking Data, and transmitted that data, including pictures of their vehicles, other automatically-generated information relating to their vehicles, the identities of their associates, and their time-stamped location, to Flock, where it was then aggregated and catalogued in Flock's voluminous vehicle tracking records. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com aasciutto@sirillp.com HOMETOWN FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Knowles Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETOWN FOOD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02663 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.birchbenders.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 March 16, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Birch Benders Organic Blueberry Quick Bread and Muffin Mix from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Hometown Food Company operates the website that offers pancake & waffle mix.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HOSPITALITY CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Cespedes Says --------------------------------------------------------------- YASUANI CESPEDES, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE HOSPITALITY CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60947 (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages from the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed services and worked more than the maximum hours provided by FLSA. Yet, the Defendant made no provision to properly pay them at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek as provided in federal law, says the suit. Plaintiff Cespedes was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately November 1, 2022 to December 22, 2024. However, the relevant employment period is from April 2, 2023 to December 22, 2024, or a total of 90 weeks. The Hospitality Center is a staffing agency providing personnel to the hospitality industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com HRG MANAGEMENT: Order Striking Woodford Class Complaint Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELLE WOODFORD, v. HRG MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., AC 47708 (Conn. App.), the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting of the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's putative class action complaint. The appeal is a companion case to Farias v. Rodriguez, 238 Conn. App. 287, A.3d (2026). Plaintiff Woodford brought this putative class action1 complaint, individually and on behalf of others who were similarly situated as employees of Wood-n-Tap restaurants, alleging violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. Specifically, she alleged that the Defendants violated (1) Section 31-62-E35 (old E3) of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (2015 regulations) by, inter alia, failing to properly record the amount claimed as a percentage of the minimum fair wage (tip credit) they would otherwise be required to pay with respect to each server, and (2) Section 31-62-E47 (old E4) of the 2015 regulations by improperly deducting a tip credit from her earnings and paying her and other similarly situated employees less than the minimum wage for the performance of "nonservice" work. The Plaintiff was employed by Wood-n-Tap, primarily at its Orange and Hamden locations, from approximately September 17, 2018, until approximately May, 2022, as a server and hostess. She alleged that the Individual Defendants are co-owners of all Wood-n-Tap restaurants in Connecticut and that the Defendant Entities operate several Wood-n-Tap locations in Connecticut. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendants function as a single, integrated enterprise and collectively have the status of her single employer pursuant to Connecticut wage laws. At all relevant times, the Defendants maintained a common practice at all of their Wood-n-Tap Connecticut restaurants to take the full tip credit against the wages of their servers and bartenders. Accordingly, they paid their servers $6.38 per hour, and their bartenders $8.23 per hour, rather than the full minimum wage. The Defendants assigned the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated servers and bartenders, nonservice duties, which included setting up before the restaurant is opened to the public, and side work that they were required to perform during their serving shifts and after they had finished their shifts. On October 20, 2022, the Plaintiff commenced the present putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of herself and other Wood-n-Tap servers and bartenders employed during the alleged class period, for violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. Her operative amended complaint, filed on January 24, 2023, contains two counts. In count one, she alleged that the Defendants violated old E3 by failing to record properly the amount claimed as credit in the wage record for her and other servers on a weekly basis, and by failing to obtain tip statements on a weekly basis confirming that she received sufficient tips to satisfy the tip credit that the defendants took each week. In the second count, she alleged that the defendants violated old E4 by failing to segregate her and other similarly situated servers' service and nonservice duties. She alleged an applicable claim period for her class action claims under old E3 and old E4 from April 2, 2018, until September 23, 2020. In February, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to strike both counts of the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-39, together with an accompanying memorandum of law. On March 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to strike, along with exhibits, including, inter alia, relevant legislative history and certain of Governor Lamont's executive orders. On June 26, 2023, the parties appeared before the court for oral argument. On January 2, 2024, the court issued a memorandum of decision, in which it granted the Defendants' motion to strike. As to count one, alleging violations of old E3, the court concluded that it was bound by the Appellate Court's decision in Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, supra, 219 Conn. App. 678. Hence, the Defendant's noncompliance with those requirements does not invalidate the tip credit and does not give rise to a private cause of action. As to count two, alleging violations of old E4, the trial court agreed with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's complaint was legally insufficient. On January 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reargue, to which the defendants objected. The court denied the motion to reargue, and the Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on June 27, 2024, and the plaintiff filed an amended appeal. The issues presented in this appeal are identical to those presented in Farias. It therefore reached the same conclusions in the present case. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court correctly determined that (1) General Statutes Section 31-689 does not provide a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation under old E3 of the 2015 regulations, (2) No. 22-134 of the 2022 Public Acts (P.A. 22-134) did not retro actively take away the Plaintiff's cause of action under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (minimum wage act), General Statutes Section 31-58 et seq., and (3) applying P.A. 22-134 to her claims did not violate due process. The Appellate therefore affirmed the judgment of the court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/bfgqOWF3y. Richard E. Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- for the appellant (plaintiff). James T. Shearin -- jtshearin@pullcom.com -- with whom were Dana M. Hrelic -- dhrelic@pullcom.com -- and, on the brief, Ryan A. O'Donnell -- rodonnell@pullcom.com -- for the appellees (defendants). HUNTERDON MEDICAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Hubbard Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE HUBBARD, individually and for others similarly situated v. HUNTERDON MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 3:26-cv-03502 (D.N.J., April 1, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft Act, and New Jersey Wage Payment Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Hubbard and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week. But Hunterdon does not pay Plaintiff Hubbard and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, Hunterdon automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from Hubbard's and the other hourly employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break. Additionally, Hunterdon did not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees for the time spent changing clothes, donning and doffing PPE, and showering before and after their shifts, says the suit. Plaintiff Hubbard worked for Hunterdon as a registered nurse from approximately July 2017 through July 2023. Hunterdon Medical Center is a 178-bed, not-for-profit teaching hospital based in Flemington, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: eceliesius@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com INMAR INC: Mr. Dees Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v. INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, CAROLINA SERVICES, and CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00141-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. H in this antitrust case alleging a market and customer allocation as well as a price fixing conspiracy between Defendants Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer’s Services, Carolina Services, and Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. (“Defendants”) and International Outsourcing Services (“IOS”). The Plaintiffs propose two alternative manufacturer class definitions to address those "certification pitfalls," specifically: 1. Manufacturers that paid shipping fees to CCC or IOS during the class period (April 11, 2001 through March 28, 2007) and that can rely on the same common evidence of injury and damages as class representative Mr. Dee's Inc. insofar as they are included in Dr. Grace's Appendix A, which includes manufacturers for which Dr. Grace's regression showed observable harm. 2. Manufacturers that paid shipping fees to CCC or IOS during the class period, excluding the 2,533 manufacturers that have been found to be uninjured. Both proposed definitions remedy the pitfall of "fail[ing] to define a class at all." These proposals define the proposed class and identify the commonalities between class members. Limiting a class definition to members who can rely on the same common evidence, as in the first proposed definition, is appropriate. The Plaintiffs also request that their counsel, Kotchen & Low LLP and Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, be appointed class counsel, as they are experienced and knowledgeable in antitrust class actions and have done substantial work identifying, investigating, and litigating claims in the action over the past eighteen and seven years respectively. Inmar develops software for health care sector. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0gsgOJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Low, Esq. Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com dkotchen@kotchen.com - and - Kearns Davis, Esq. BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD LLP Greensboro, NC 27420 Telephone: (336) 373-8850 Facsimile: (336) 378-1001 E-mail: kdavis@brookspierce.com INTERVET INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Intervet Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03636 (C.D. Ill., April 1, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.surepetcare.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff Cole was searching online for smart pet care products and devices to support his cat's feeding, activity, and home access needs, when he discovered Defendant's website. After reading reviews, he decided to explore the website further with the intention of making a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the transaction. Specifically, he encountered a webpage where a "Skip to content" link was not implemented. As he navigated through the interactive elements using the Tab key, the assistive technology failed to read them aloud, leaving him unaware of which items he had skipped. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Cole 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. Intervet Inc. operates the website that offers smart pet care products and accessories organized into categories including microchip pet doors, automatic pet feeders, pet activity monitors, app-connected devices, and feeding and access control solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law JSHEALTH VITAMINS: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JSHEALTH VITAMINS US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02664 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.jshealthvitamins.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 March 16, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Hair + Energy Formula from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. JSHealth Vitamins US, Inc. operates the website that offers vitamins and supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal K & W PRODUCTION: Holcomb Seeks to Recover Operators' Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN HOLCOMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. K & W PRODUCTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00091-DLH-CRH (D.N.D., April 1, 2026) is a class lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from K & W Production Services under the Fair Labor Standards Act. K & W paid Plaintiff and the workers like him a day rate -- a flat amount for each day worked -- without regard to how many hours they worked each week. Plaintiff Holcomb and the other workers like him were typically scheduled for at least 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, and they routinely worked several weeks without time off. So they worked well in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, K&W improperly paid these workers a single day rate for all hours worked each day, even when they were working more than 40 hours in a week. K & W's policy of paying these employees a day rate, with no overtime pay, violates the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff Holcomb worked as an operator for K&W from April 2025 to January 2026. K & W Production Services, LLC provides oilfield support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law K.T.G. USA: Court Certifies "Hale" FLSA Collective of Yard Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Dameon M. Hale, et al., Plaintiffs, v. K.T.G. USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00076-RPC-RP (N.D. Miss.), a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, granted Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Collective Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiff Dameon M. Hale filed this action on March 14, 2025, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and related damages allegedly owed to him and other workers similarly situated. He brought the action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). From approximately April 2023 to November 2024, Hale worked as a yard driver for Defendants at a shipping yard in Southaven, Mississippi. His primary duties were to organize tractor trailers within the space of the yard and to ensure that semi-trailer truckers and trailers were in a position for unloading, loading, and transport. Despite working 80 hours per week up to seven days per week, Defendants willfully failed to pay Hale and similarly situated employees at least one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff contended that he is owed in excess of $60,000.00 in unpaid overtime wages and sought related liquidated and punitive damages. Plaintiff's Motion requested that the Court: (1) find that Plaintiff and the proposed collective are similarly situated within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); (2) certify the collective; (3) authorize the issuance of notice to the collective members in a form approved by the Court; (4) direct Defendants to provide the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers of all proposed collective members; and (5) grant such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. Defendants did not oppose certification but argued that only conditional certification was appropriate, with the possibility of later decertification. The Court declined to apply that framework, noting that the Fifth Circuit had abandoned the two-step method derived from Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. Under the standard set forth in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, courts in the Fifth Circuit must rigorously scrutinize the realm of similarly situated workers from the outset of the case. The Court found that Plaintiff demonstrated a factual nexus binding the claims together so that hearing all the claims in one proceeding is fair to all parties and not beset with individual inquiries. The proposed collective included hourly yard employees performing specific tasks at specific locations. Defendants applied the Motor Carrier Act exemption categorically to yard-based operational employees, presenting a common legal defense appropriate for collective resolution. Fairness and procedural considerations also favored certification, as the primary objectives of the proposed collective are best served in a single proceeding. Accordingly, the Court certified the following collective: all current and former hourly employees of Robert L. Ruth, Jr. d/b/a RBT Transportation who performed yard operations, including moving, positioning, staging, or shunting trailers or equipment within the Southaven, Mississippi, or Memphis, Tennessee locations at any time from March 14, 2022, through the final disposition of this matter. Defendants were ordered to produce the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of all prospective collective members in usable electronic form within 14 days of the Order. Plaintiff's request for social security numbers was granted in part and denied in part: Plaintiff may request only the last four digits for individuals whose mailed notice is returned as undeliverable and for whom other reasonable efforts to provide notice have proven unsuccessful. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and submit a proposed notice and consent form within 28 days of the entry of the Order, on or before May 13, 2026. Following approval, the Court will establish deadlines governing dissemination of notice and the opt-in period. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uf7aUi from PacerMonitor.com Defendants K.T.G. USA, Inc., and Robert L. Ruth, Jr., are represented by: Danielle N. Rassoul, Esq. George Hite McLean, III, Esq. GLANKLER BROWN PLLC Email: drassoul@glankler.com; hmclean@glankler.com Bradley W. Eskins, Esq. ESKINS, KING & MARNEY, P.C. Email: beskins@eskinsking.com Plaintiffs Dameon M. Hale, Stevie Bernard, Darry B. Douglas, Sr., Robert V. Harper, and Javeon Delano Martin are represented by: Joseph Anthony Murphy, Esq. SMITH, MURPHY, AND DOBBS LLC Email: joseph@smithmurphylaw.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Culbert v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01231 (D. Colo., Filed April 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion to certify class action filed by Jennifer Culbert to Magistrate Judge. The nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations. Kaiser offers medicare and health insurance services.[CC] KAISER FOUNDATION: Culbert Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CULBERT, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF COLORADO, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, and COLORADO PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a Colorado Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01231-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders, by failing to include shift differential rates for their hours worked on a holiday and for their hours worked on a sixth or seventh consecutive day of work in the calculation of their regular rate. The Plaintiff seeks to represent two Classes of individuals, under the referenced state wage and hour law, consisting of (1) hourly United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7 (UFCW) professional health care employees who worked in non- supervisory positions in Kaiser Centers throughout Colorado who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek or more than 12 hours in a day during workweeks in which they also worked more than five days; and (2) hourly UFCW professional health care employees who worked in non-supervisory positions in Kaiser Centers throughout Colorado who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek or more than 12 hours in a day during workweeks in which they also worked on a company designated holiday, who worked anytime between March 25, 2022, to the present The Plaintiff also seeks the Court's leave to send the Notices as attached to this Motion to all potential class action members in both (sub)classes. The Defendants are health care providers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGJfwp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent R. Taylor, Esq. David H. Miller, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 551-7663 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Recyclable K-Cups ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verdant Law reports that a California consumer has launched a putative class action against Keurig Dr. Pepper, alleging that the beverage giant's single-serve coffee pods are deceptively labeled as "recyclable" because most recycling centers are unable to accept them. According to the complaint, filed April 7, 2026, Keurig K-Cups are virtually non-recyclable due to their small size, multi-material design, residual coffee grounds and liquids, and limited economic value in recycling streams. "Despite these facts, Keurig promotes its K-Cup pods as 'recyclable' because they are made from polypropylene #5 plastic," the complaint alleges. "However, the company relies on a purely theoretical definition of recyclability that ignores the fundamental principles outlined in the FTC's Green Guides and does not align with consumer understanding." The challenged representations are allegedly made on product packaging, Keurig's website, online retail listings, and social media alongside the "chasing arrows" recyclability symbol. The complaint further alleges that recycling centers serving at least 60 percent of US consumers do not accept K-Cups—the threshold for making unqualified recyclability claims under the Green Guides, which provide guidance for environmental marketing claims and are incorporated into California law. Qualifying language telling consumers to "check locally" or noting that the pods "are not recycled in many communities" is shown in fine print that is difficult to read, the complaint says. "If Plaintiff had known that the Products were not recyclable, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products," the complaint states. "At a minimum, Plaintiff would not have paid as much as he did if he had known the Products could not be recycled." The lawsuit also notes that Keurig's recyclability claims have previously been challenged. In 2023, Keurig settled similar allegations for $10 million but allegedly made only "minor modifications" to its marketing. The complaint also references a civil penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because the company failed to disclose recyclability concerns raised by recycling facilities. The plaintiff alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The case is Dixon v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-2172 (S.D. Cal.), filed 4/7/2026. Update (April 15, 2026) On April 10, 2026, an almost identical putative class action was filed against Keurig in New York. That case is Sulli v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-6420 (W.D.N.Y.), filed 4/10/2026. [GN] KOCH FERTILIZER: Davis Ehrsam Alleges Fertilizer Prices' Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVIS EHRSAM FARMS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; CF NITROGEN, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02175 (D. Kan., April 3, 2026) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers (NPK Fertilizers) from at least as early as January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. Using their market dominance, the Defendants charged artificially inflated prices for NPK Fertilizers. The parallel nature of Defendants' pricing across all three NPK markets is striking. Defendants' public pricing disclosures and government data show a strong parallel pattern across nitrogen, phosphate, and potash: a sharp, synchronized increase in 2021 to 2022, a coordinated partial decline in 2023, and renewed parallel increases beginning in 2024 and continuing through the present. This lockstep pricing occurred across markets with different supply-demand fundamentals, different input cost structures, and different competitive conditions -- a pattern that is inconsistent with independent competitive behavior but consistent with coordinated action. Further, the Defendants had ample opportunity and motive to conspire through overlapping industry associations, conferences, and direct commercial relationships, says the suit. To provide a remedy for the injury suffered as a result of Defendants' conspiracy and illegal actions, the Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of indirect purchasers of NPK Fertilizers against Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and under common law for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff further seeks damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of illegally-obtained profits and the costs of pursuit of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for the injuries that Plaintiff and Class Members sustained as a result of the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price, and limit, reduce and otherwise manipulate the supply, of NPK Fertilizers. Koch Fertilzier, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, LLC, which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries. Koch Fertilizer and its affiliates are collectively one of the world's largest producers and marketers of fertilizers, including ammonia, urea, UAN, phosphate, potash, and sulfur-based products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com - and - Dave Rebein, Esq. Pablo H. Mose, Esq. REBEIN BROTHERS, PA 1715 Central Ave. Dodge City, KS 67801 Telephone: (620) 227-08126 E-mail: dave@rbr3.com pablo@rbr3.com LEVAIN BAKERY: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEVAIN BAKERY COOKIE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01722-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kelly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the Settlement Class and final approval of the class action settlement agreement. The Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined as: "A national class of individuals who are blind and/or have a visual disability and who use appropriate auxiliary aids and services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, [https://levainbakery.com/] from the United States." The Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglas as representative of the Settlement Class. The Defendant is a cookie company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X21TjA at no extra charge.[CC] LUCID GROUP: Bid to Extend Case Schedule Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mangino v. Lucid Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02094 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order on the parties' stipulation to extend the case schedule is denied for lack of a sufficient showing of good cause. The parties have had more than a sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery into matters necessary to fully brief class certification. The parties may conduct any additional discovery by agreement if they so choose, but the existing case schedule remains unchanged. The nature of suit states Securities Violation. Lucid is an American automotive company specializing in luxury electric vehicles (EVs).[CC] LYONS & DOUGHTY: Class Cert Opposition Due May 29 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZEMEL v. LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-01219 (D.N.J., Filed Feb. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an order adopting the parties' proposed schedule. The parties' respective motions shall be filed by May 1, 2026. Opposition shall be due by May 29, 2026. Replies, if any, shall be due by June 19, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). Lyons is a creditors' rights law firm.[CC] MAGGIE MCFLY: 7th Cir. Affirms Order Striking Fenton Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KAITLYN FENTON, v. RAYMOND HARPER. ET AL., AC 47711, (Conn. App.), the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting of the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's putative class action complaint. The appeal is a companion case to Farias v. Rodriguez, 238 Conn. App. 287, A.3d (2026). Plaintiff Fenton brought this putative class action complaint, individually and on behalf of others who were similarly situated as employees of Maggie McFly's restaurants, alleging violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. Specifically, she alleged that the Defendants violated (1) Section 31-62-E35 (old E3) of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (2015 regulations) by, inter alia, failing to properly record the amount claimed as a percentage of the minimum fair wage (tip credit) they would otherwise be required to pay with respect to each server, and (2) Section 31-62-E47 (old E4) of the 2015 regulations by improperly deducting a tip credit from her earnings and paying her and other similarly situated employees less than the minimum wage for the performance of "nonservice" work. The Plaintiff was employed by Maggie McFly's at its Manchester location as a server and bartender from approximately October 2018 until approximately July 2019. She alleged that Individual Defendant Harper is the sole owner of all Maggie McFly's restaurants in Connecticut and that the Defendant entities operate several Maggie McFly's locations in Connecticut. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendants function as a single, integrated enterprise and collectively have the status of her single employer pursuant to Connecticut wage laws. At all relevant times, the Defendants maintained a common practice at all of their Maggie McFly's Connecticut restaurants to take the full tip credit against the wages of their servers and bartenders. Accordingly, they paid their servers $6.38 per hour and their bartenders $8.23 per hour, rather than the full minimum wage. The Defendants assigned the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated servers and bartenders, nonservice duties, which included setting up before the restaurant was opened to the public, and side work that they were required to perform during their serving shifts and after they had finished their shifts. In October 2022, the Plaintiff commenced the present putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of herself and other Maggie McFly's servers and bartenders employed during the alleged class period, for violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. Her complaint contains two counts. In count one, she alleged that the Defendants violated old E3 by failing to record properly the amount claimed as credit in the wage record for her and other servers on a weekly basis, and by failing to obtain tip statements on a weekly basis confirming that she received sufficient tips to satisfy the tip credit that the Defendants took each week. In the second count, she alleged that the defendants violated old E4 by failing to segregate her and other similarly situated servers' service and nonservice duties. She alleged an applicable claim period for her class action claims under old E3 and old E4 from July 9, 2018, until September 23, 2020. In February 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to strike both counts of the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-39, together with an accompanying memorandum of law. On March 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to strike, along with exhibits, including, inter alia, relevant legislative history and certain of Governor Lamont's executive orders. On June 26, 2023, the parties appeared before the court for oral argument. On January 2, 2024, the court issued a memorandum of decision, in which it granted the Defendants' motion to strike. As to count one, alleging violations of old E3, the court concluded that it was bound by the Appellate Court's decision in Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, supra, 219 Conn. App. 678. Hence, the Defendant's noncompliance with those requirements does not invalidate the tip credit and does not give rise to a private cause of action. As to count two, alleging violations of old E4, the trial court agreed with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's complaint was legally insufficient. On January 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants' motion to strike, along with exhibits. On June 6, 2023, before oral argument on the Defendants' motion to strike, Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, 219 Conn. App. 648, 296 A.3d 173 (2023) was released by the Appellate Court. On January 2, 2024, the court granted the Defendants' motion to strike. It noted that it was presented with an identical motion to strike in Farias. In its decision in Farias, as to count 2, it agreed with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's complaint was legally insufficient. It concluded that the complaint was legally insufficient in light of the court's determination that Section 31-60(d)(4) mandates that "all actions filed after September 24, 2022, must be adjudicated pursuant to Section 31-60-2 of the regulations." The court also rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the application of P.A. 22-134 constituted a taking of the Plaintiff's vested property interest in violation of due process. On January 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reargue, to which the Defendants objected. The trial court denied the motion to reargue, and the Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the trial court granted the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on June 27, 2024, and she filed an amended appeal. The Appellate Court held that the issues raised by the parties and the merits of the underlying arguments presented in the appeal are essentially identical to those considered in Farias, the companion case to the present appeal. In Farias, it first concluded that Section 31-68 does not provide a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation under old E3. Second, it rejected the Plaintiff's claim that the application of Section 31-60 (d) (4) impermissibly took away her substantive cause of action under the minimum wage act. Finally, it determined that, even if it assumed arguendo that P.A. 22-134 was retroactive as applied; such retroactive application did not violate due process. It reached the same conclusions in the present case. The Appellate Court's conclusions with respect to the issues presented in Farias thoroughly resolve the claims in the present appeal, and there is nothing in the case that would mandate a result different from that which it reached in Farias. It therefore adopted the reasoning and conclusions of that decision in Fenton's case. Accordingly, it concluded that the trial court properly granted the Defendants' motion to strike. The judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/sxI8jLtmy. Richard E. Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- for the appellant (plaintiff). James T. Shearin -- jtshearin@pullcom.com -- with whom were Dana M. Hrelic -- dhrelic@pullcom.com -- and, on the brief, Ryan A. O'Donnell -- rodonnell@pullcom.com -- for the appellees (defendants). MANTA SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, See Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Manta Sleep LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00650-JRO-MKK (S.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://mantasleep.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 21, 2025, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website after searching online for sleep products that would help him. He decided to explore the website and its sleep product collection with the intent to make a purchase. During his visit, the Plaintiff attempted to purchase the Manta White Noise Machine Booster Speaker. However, while browsing the website, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase independently. The Plaintiff contends 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: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff See 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. Manta Sleep LLC operates the website that offers sleep-enhancing products, including classic and advanced sleep masks with adjustable eye cups, Bluetooth(R) sound sleep masks, a white noise machine, earplugs, and related sleep accessories.[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 MATCHABAR INC: Morris Files Matcha Product False Ad Suit -------------------------------------------------------- SONDRA MORRIS and KRISTIN TSUCHIMOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATCHABAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02161-RBM-SBC (S.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. The complaint relates that the Defendant markets, labels, advertises, and sells its Products to consumers with packaging and online product listings prominently representing that the Products are "ceremonial grade" matcha. Reasonable consumers believe, based on the Ceremonial Grade Representation, that the Products are of the highest quality, as compared to other matcha, and fit for use in a Japanese tea ceremony, also known as "sa-dou". Unbeknownst to consumers, and confirmed by independent testing, the Products are of an inferior quality as compared to other matcha. The Products are not of a quality or grade that would be sufficient for use in a Japanese tea ceremony, and they are therefore not "ceremonial grade", adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased the falsely and deceptively labeled Products, for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, and intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff Sondra Morris purchased Defendant's MatchaBar Ceremonial Grade Matcha Powder from Amazon.com on February 22, 2025. Plaintiff Kristin Tsuchimoto purchased Defendant's MatchaBar Ceremonial Grade Matcha Powder from Amazon.com on October 11, 2023. Defendant MatchaBar, Inc. is a matcha company that sells its matcha products through its website, matchabar.co and other third-party retail websites, such as Amazon.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, 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: ndeckant@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com MEMOIR INC: Gonani Files Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Stuart Gonani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Memoir Inc. dba Chapter, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02333-SPL (D. Ariz., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint relates that as part of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant regularly obtained consumer reports on Plaintiff as part of its ongoing background checks. Plaintiff's employment with Defendant subsequently ended, with Plaintiff's last day of employment being May 3, 2024. Despite Plaintiff having been terminated, Defendant continued to obtain consumer reports on Plaintiff monthly including, but not limited to, on March 1, 2025; April 1, 2025; May 1, 2025; June 1, 2025; July 1, 2025; August 1, 2025; September 1, 2025; October 1, 2025; November 1, 2025; December 1, 2025; and January 1, 202. Once Plaintiff ceased his employment, Defendant no longer had any permissible purpose to obtain consumer reports on Plaintiff, asserts the complaint. The Defendant violated the FCRA by using or obtaining Plaintiff's consumer report without a permissible purpose, it adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order which provides, among other things, that Defendant willfully violated the FCRA with respect to Plaintiff and all those similarly situated. The Plaintiff further seeks an award of statutory damages in an amount between $100 and $1,000 and punitive damages pursuant to the FCRA; as well as the costs of the action; a reasonable attorney's fees; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permissible by law; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiff Stuart Gonani was an employee of Defendant. Defendant Memoir Inc. dba Chapter is a for-profit Delaware corporation doing business in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 #492 Scottsdale, AZ 85259 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Milan Court Accepts Facebook Data Theft Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Insurance Journal reports that a Milan court on Tuesday, April 14, accepted a class action brought by a consumer group against Meta Platforms over the theft of personal data suffered by Facebook Italy. According to the court order, the data scraping incident, which took place between January 2018 and September 2019 and was disclosed by Meta in 2021, affected around 533 million Facebook users globally. The CTCU consumer association is seeking compensation on behalf of social media users who lost, or feared losing, control over their personal data in breach of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A legal source estimated that around 35 million Facebook users in Italy could potentially be affected by the data scraping. "We respectfully disagree with the court's decision, which is a procedural ruling only and makes no finding that Meta violated any law," a Meta spokesperson said. "We are confident this meritless action will ultimately be dismissed," the spokesperson added. [GN] MOSAIC COMPANY: Samuelson Files Suit Over Fertilizer Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY SAMUELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION; and THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02970-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants to recover damages, obtain injunctive relief, and restore competition to the market for NPK (Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), and Potassium (K)) fertilizer. The complaint alleges that in 2021, Defendants entered into and participated in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices and to restrict output of NPK Fertilizers sold throughout the United States. Through coordinated conduct across these product markets, Defendants aligned pricing and supply decisions and eliminated meaningful competition. These coordinated actions spanned multiple fertilizer products and producers and were implemented in parallel, reflecting agreement rather than independent conduct. As a result of Defendants' conspiracy, Plaintiff and members of the Class paid significantly higher prices for NPK Fertilizers than they would have paid in a competitive market. These overcharges imposed substantial costs on U.S. farmers, who depend on NPK Fertilizers as essential inputs for agricultural production, contends the complaint. As a result, the Defendants' conduct has generated extraordinary profits while insulating them from competitive pressures. Even as input costs declined and agricultural market conditions shifted, Defendants maintained elevated prices, demonstrating the artificial and coordinated nature of the pricing regime. Through this unlawful conduct, Defendants have restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Act and the laws of unjust enrichment, causing Plaintiff and the Class to pay supracompetitive prices for NPK Fertilizers, says the suit. Plaintiff Bradley Samuelson operates a farm in Coupland, Texas. Defendants are among the largest producers and distributors of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christopher F. Jeu, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. Lauren Devens, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cjeu@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com ldevens@cpmlegal.com NELLIS AUCTION: Schaaf Seeks Certification of Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SCHAAF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NELLIS AUCTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00647-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class all non-exempt workers employed by any Defendant in the state of Nevada at any time from Aug. 1, 2019, until the date of judgment after trial herein (the "Class Period"). Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks certification of the following two classes based on his Second and Third Causes of Action: 1. Overtime Class: "All current and former nonexempt employees of any Defendant who worked overtime in the state of Nevada and earned non-discretionary bonuses, performance pay, or incentive compensation (collectively "Bonus Pay") at any time during the Class Period. 2. Penalty Subclass: "All members of the Overtime Class who, at any time during the Class Period, were terminated or otherwise separated from employment." The Plaintiff further requests appointment of himself (or, in the alternative, opt-in plaintiff Johnathon Bizauskas) as Class Representative, and appointment of Rafii & Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel. This is a straightforward wage-and-hour class action tailor-made for certification. Defendants applied a uniform, centrally-programmed payroll formula to all hourly nonexempt employees that systematically underpaid overtime by failing to include non-discretionary Bonus Pay in the regular rate – an unambiguous violation of NRS 608.018(2) as amended by Nevada SB 8. This uniform overtime violation, and the mechanical damages calculation it produces, is the overwhelmingly predominant issue in this litigation. A class action is not just superior to individual adjudications, it is the only realistic vehicle for vindicating the rights of the hundreds of affected employees. The Plaintiff worked as a nonexempt hourly "Picker" at Nellis Auction's Dean Martin Road warehouse in Las Vegas, Nevada, from April 14, 2022, through April 28, 2023. The Defendants include CRET LLC, a domestic limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION ARIZONA LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION NEW JERSEY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION TEXAS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; SAC TRUST 2, a Nevada trust; SPENCER CHUPINSKY, individually and as trustee of SAC Trust 2; HALCYON THIRD MILLENIUM TRUST, a Nevada trust; KENNETH CHUPINSKY, individually and as trustee of Halcyon Third Millenium Trust; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Nellis is a multi-state online liquidation retailer that purchases retail returns, overstock, and discontinued merchandise from major national retailers and resells them to consumers through a proprietary online auction platform. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jMu3jZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Robert Montes, Jr., Esq. Ciara Alagao, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com NORTHEAST SPINE: Blackman Must File Class Cert by March 15, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BLACKMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTHEAST SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC, COMPASSMSP LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-07022-ZNQ-JTQ (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Quinn entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- The parties' initial written discovery requests—i.e., document requests and interrogatories—must be served by April 21, 2026. -- All depositions shall be completed by Oct. 5, 2026. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join new parties, whether by amended or third party complaint, must be filed by July 31, 2026. -- All fact discovery, including any third-party depositions, is to be completed by Nov. 6, 2026. -- All expert discovery shall be concluded by Jan. 25, 2027. -- The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on May 26, 2026 at 11:30 am. -- The Court will conduct an in-person settlement conference on June 4, 2026 at 10:30 AM. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by March 15, 2027. The Defendant shall file its opposition by April 15, 2027. The Plaintiff's reply brief shall be filed by May 17, 2027. NorthEast is an Alternative Medicine company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VSOzrf at no extra charge.[CC] NUTRIEN LTD: Conspires to Fix Fertilizer Prices, Carroll Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 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-03745 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2026) is an antitrust class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. On March 4, 2026, the press reported that the United States Department of Justice was investigating collusion in the pricing and sale of the primary fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium, together the "NPK Fertilizers"). According to the complaint, the Defendants operated a secret conspiracy to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices in the NPK Fertilizer Market from at least January 1, 2021, until the present. The Defendants designed and conducted their conspiracy to keep it secret, while at least some Defendants misleadingly stated their industry was "highly competitive." The Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been injured and will continue to be injured in their business and property by paying more for NPK Fertilizer than they would have paid in the absence of the conspiracy, asserts the complaint. As a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff Carroll purchased NPK Fertilizer directly from one or more of the Defendants at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Nutrien Ltd. provides crop inputs and services. The Company produces and distributes potash, nitrogen, and phosphate products for agricultural, industrial, and feed customers. Nutrien serves the agriculture industry worldwide.[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 OSAIC HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Filling in Gehring Due Dec. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Gehring, et al., v. Osaic Holdings Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00367-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order as follows: -- The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena and all disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall be May 28, 2027. -- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than May 28, 2027. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, including any expert declarations in support thereof, must be filed by Dec. 11, 2026. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be filed by Jan. 25, 2027. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification must be filed by Feb. 24, 2027. Osaic is a management consultant firm and business intermediary firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nQONIj at no extra charge.[CC] OTTER PRODUCTS: Stay of Discovery Extended to May 22 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Button et al v. Otter Products, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00969 (D.D.C., Filed March 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order granting joint motion for extension of stay. The current stay of discovery, class certification briefing, and consideration of the pending Motion to Dismiss is extended to May 22, 2026. The parties shall file a Status Report on or before that date. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Otter is an American privately owned consumer electronics accessory company.[CC] P3 SPECIALIZED: Underpays Commission Officers, Pierson Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- YANCY PIERSON, individually and for others similarly situated v. P3 SPECIALIZED TRAINING, LLC d/b/a HP SECURITY & PATROL, Case No. 4:26-cv-02669 (S.D. Tex., April 2, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff against P3 Specialized Training to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Pierson and the other straight time employees regularly worked more than 40 hours but the Defendant did not pay them overtime. Instead, HP Security paid Pierson and its other straight time employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those worked after 40 in a workweek. The Defendant applied its illegal straight time for overtime pay scheme to Plaintiff Pierson and its other straight time employees regardless of any individualized factors, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for HP Security as a Commission Officer (also known as a Security Guard) in and around Houston, Texas from approximately November 2023 through November 2025. P3 Specialized Training, LLC d/b/a HP Security & Patrol provides private security services, including armed/unarmed guards, bodyguards, and patrol services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1201 Fannin Street, Suite 202 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 446-9403 Facsimile: (832) 356-2684 E-mail: tjones@hkm.com PAMELA BONDI: Directed to Release Kumas from Custody ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERT KUMAS, v. PAMELA BONDI, Case No. 2:26-cv-00721-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an order granting Petitioner Mert Kumas's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court has reviewed the petition, the submissions in support of and in opposition to the petition, and the balance of the record. The Court entered an order that Respondents and all their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and persons acting on their behalf or in concert with them: (1) Shall immediately release Mr. Kumas from custody on reasonable conditions of supervision; (2) Shall file with the Court a notice within 2 business days confirming Mr. Kumas’s release; (3) Are prohibited from re-detaining Mr. Kumas unless and until providing at least 10 days’ written notice and an opportunity to be heard before an immigration judge to determine whether re-detention is appropriate; and (4) Are prohibited from removing or attempting to remove Mr. Kumas to a third country without at least 10 days’ written notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Accordingly, the Court finds Mr. Kumas's current detention is unlawful under Zadvydas and he is entitled to immediate release. Mr. Kumas is a citizen of Turkey. In July 2024, he fled from Turkey because he feared persecution based on his religious beliefs. He entered the United States in or around October 2024 and was detained by immigration officials shortly after and placed in removal proceedings. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OeYgce at no extra charge.[CC] PAUL FREDRICK: Faces Lewis Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAUL FREDRICK MENSTYLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-005576 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 2, 2026) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales Calls that promoted Paul Fredrick and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, further seeks injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes Paul Fredrick text message sales calls. Paul Fredrick Menstyle, LLC designs and sells clothing accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com PAWN AMERICA: Agrees to Settle 2021 Data Breach Suit for $3.185MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Pawn America has agreed to a $3,185,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the pawn shop chain failed to prevent a September 2021 data breach in which consumers' private information was compromised. The $3.185 million Pawn America class action settlement received preliminary court approval on March 6, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who were United States residents at the time of the September 2021 Pawn American data breach and whose private information was potentially compromised in the incident, including individuals who received notification of the data breach from Pawn America. Court documents state that approximately 679,604 people are covered by the Pawn America data breach settlement. The court-approved class action settlement website can be found at PawnAmericaSettlement.com. [GN] According to the website, settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach. This settlement benefit covers losses related to fraud or identity theft, expenses for credit reports and credit monitoring, and more. The settlement agreement states that class members must submit reasonable third-party documentation, such as invoices, bank statements, or receipts, to claim this benefit. Additionally, all settlement class members can submit a claim form to receive a $30 cash payment. No proof is required to claim this payout. Finally, class members who lived in California at the time of the Pawn America data breach can submit a claim form to receive an additional $50 cash payment. This settlement benefit is available to California residents due to state-specific statutory requirements. No proof is needed to claim this benefit, the agreement states. To submit a Pawn America settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the claim ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Pawn America settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by July 6, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Pawn America settlement final approval following a hearing on September 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Pawn America class action lawsuit alleged that the pawn shop chain, along with payday loan companies Payday America, Inc. and PAL Card Minnesota, LLC, failed to prevent a late-September 2021 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. Per the case, information that may have been compromised in the data breach included names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, government identification numbers, dates of birth, and financial account information. [GN] PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Norfolk Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., JAMES ALEXANDER CHRISS, JAMIE S. MILLER, FRANK KELLER, and DIEGO SCOTTI, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02849 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal common stock between February 8, 2024, through February 2, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. This case is about how PayPal misled investors by claiming it had successfully executed substantial improvements of its branded checkout business, which included a redesign, leading to sustainable growth. In reality, PayPal was experiencing severe execution issues in the branded checkout business that were undermining growth, yet these issues were concealed for investors during the Class Period. Investors learned the truth on February 3, 2026, when PayPal disclosed weak branded checkout growth and announced the sudden departure of its chief executive officer. PayPal largely attributed these poor results to "operational and deployment issues" across all regions. On this news, the price of PayPal stock declined from $52.33 per share on February 2, 2026, to $41.70 per share on February 3, 2026, a decline of over 20 percent, says the suit. PayPal Holdings, Inc. is an international company that enables digital payments to simplify commerce experiences. PayPal generates most of its revenue from applying fees on transactions made by its merchant and consumer customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3481 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com PEDIATRIC PRODUCTS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Pediatric Products data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Pediatric Products data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Pediatric Products Security Incident: What Happened? Pediatric Products, which sells nebulizers, compressors, and accessories to physicians and clinics as Xpress Nebs, has announced a data breach potentially affecting medical and personal information. A notice on Pediatric Products' website states that the company discovered suspicious network activity around February 17, 2026. An investigation with cybersecurity experts revealed that unauthorized access to the Pediatric Products network may have allowed the unauthorized individual to access files containing customers' names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnosis codes, insurance information, and identification numbers. Pediatric Products serves Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virginia. What You Can Do After the Pediatric Products Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Pediatric Products data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Pediatric Products to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] PNC BANK: Website Uses Illegal Tracking Tools, Erakat Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SHAHD ERAKAT, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01364-JDP (E.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for embedding a pixel tracker on its website www.pnc.com that monitors user interactions. The complaint alleges that the Defendant received a benefit by permitting Pinterest, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, and X Corp. to deploy their tracking technologies on the Website. In exchange for allowing these third parties to intercept and collect the URL contents of visitors' communications with the Website, Defendant received monetary compensation, data licensing benefits, promotional support, or other commercial value. Defendant's arrangement with these tracking operators enabled it to offer analytics, retargeting, and advertising services that generated commercial revenue and business value, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, the complaint asserts. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff SHAHD ERAKAT was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including on March 2, 2026. Defendant PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is one of the largest banks in the United States, providing retail banking services, personal finance resources, loan products, and financial management tools to individual and institutional customers.[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 PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Stafford Bid to Reopen Civil Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN STAFFORD, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of THOMAS FLEENOR, JR. and JOHN CRABTREE and STEVEN MARTIN and GARY TOLER and ELGIE ADKINS and SABRINA EAGLE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Volk entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen civil action, motion to enforce settlement, and motion to reconsider. Moreover, in the alternative, even if the Court was vested with jurisdiction to decide the issues, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, and, as a result, further denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Civil Action, and Motion to Enforce Settlement. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this written opinion and order to counsel of record, who in turn shall provide a copy to each individual Plaintiff, and any unrepresented party. On Nov. 22 and 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed Motions for Class Certification as to the PrimeCare Defendants and Wexford Defendants, proposing the following class definition: Generally, all current and former pretrial detainees and inmates at Southern Regional Jail from September 22, 2020[,] to present. As to PrimeCare Defendants, the proposed class period is September 22, 2020, to June 25, 2022. As to Wexford Defendants the proposed class period is June 26, 2022, to present. Alternatively, Named Plaintiffs sought certification of the following three issue based classes under Rule 23(c)(4): Issue Class 1 Did [PrimeCare/Wexford] Defendants violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of the Class by being deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs through systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment, and/or procedures? Issue Class 2 Did [PrimeCare/Wexford] Defendants breach the standard of care for correctional medical providers? Issue Class 3 Did the Defendants conspire with one another to violate the class members’ constitutional Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights? The Plaintiffs asserted "these three classes would allow the Court to separately address the differing standards under these counts." The Defendants include PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., and THOMAS WEBER and BRETT BAVINGTON and TODD HESKINS and KRISTA VALLANDINGHAM and MELISSA JEFFERY and BRANDY EASTRIDGE and HELEN PERKINS and JESSICA MILLER and MARY STONE and DANIEL CONN and ELAINE GEDMAN and JOHN FROELICH and HUMAYAN RASHID, M.D., and ANGELA NICHOLSON, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, and AMBER DUNCAN and LISA MULLENS, LPN, and CASSEY BOLEN and JOHN PENNINGTON, MA, LPC, NCC, NCSC, and KENNADI SMITH, LPN, and BRITTANI MARSHALL, RN, and ASHLEY STROUP, LPN, and DONNA DEAN-CHRIVIA and TAYLOR BROOKS and JOHN AND JANE DOE PRIMECARE AND WEXFORD EMPLOYEES, PrimeCare specializes in providing health care services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ajDaZu at no extra charge.[CC] PROTECT ANIMALS: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. PROTECT ANIMALS WITH SATELLITES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00651-JPH-MJD (S.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://www.halocollar.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Mueller and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 17, 2026, Plaintiff Mueller was searching online for a solution to monitor and protect her dog during everyday activities. During her search, she came across Defendant's website and decided to explore it further with the intent of making a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. 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, inaccessible drop-down menus, 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 Mueller 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. Protect Animals With Satellites LLC operates the website that offers a range of products for dog safety, training, and activity tracking which include GPS-enabled smart collars, wireless virtual fencing devices, training beacons, replacement straps, chargers, protective cases, and branded merchandise.[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 PUERTO VALLARTA: Judgment Striking Farias Class Complaint Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANIEL FARIAS, v. ESAUL RODRIGUEZ ET AL., AC 47710 (Conn. App.), the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's judgment granting the Defendants' motion to strike his putative class action complaint. The Plaintiff brought the putative class action complaint, individually and on behalf of others who were similarly situated as employees of Puerto Vallarta restaurants, alleging violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Esaul Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Puerto Vallarta, LLC, Puerto Vallarta Group, LLC, Puerto Vallarta Danbury, LLC, Puerto Vallarta Fairfield, LLC, Puerto Vallarta Orange, LLC, Juan Rodriguez, LLC, and Rodriguez Enterprises, LLC violated (1) Section 31-62-E34 (old E3) of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (2015 regulations) by failing to properly record the amount claimed as a percentage of the minimum fair wage (tip credit) they would otherwise be required to pay with respect to each server, and (2) Section 31-62-E46 (old E4) of the 2015 regulations by improperly deducting a tip credit from his earnings and paying him and other similarly situated employees less than the minimum wage for the performance of "nonservice" work. The Plaintiff worked as a bartender at Puerto Vallarta's Orange and Fairfield locations from 2011 to 2022. He alleges that the Individual Defendants co-own all Puerto Vallarta restaurants in Connecticut, while the Defendant Entities operate multiple locations, and that together they functioned as a single employer under state wage laws. According to him, the Defendants consistently took the full tip credit, paying servers $6.38 per hour and bartenders $8.23 per hour instead of minimum wage. He also claims they required him and other workers to perform nonservice duties, including opening tasks and side work like cleaning, stocking, and preparing items, which were not tied to specific customers. On December 6, 2022,14 the Plaintiff commenced the present putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of himself and other Puerto Vallarta servers and bartenders employed during the alleged class period, for violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. The complaint includes two counts: first, that the Defendants failed to properly record tip credits and obtain weekly tip statements as required under old E3; and second, that they failed to separate service and non-service duties under old E4. The Plaintiff claims these failures led to underpayment under Connecticut’s tip credit rules. The alleged class period runs from August 21, 2018 through September 23, 2020. In April, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to strike both counts of the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-39,17 together with an accompanying memorandum of law. They contended, first, that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted for violations of old E3 and old E4. Second, they asserted that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by the two-year statutory limitation period set forth in General Statutes §52-596. Finally, they argued that the Plaintiff's old E3 claims should be stricken because the minimum wage act, as amended by P.A. 22-134, did not provide a private right of action with respect to those claims. On June 26, 2023, the parties appeared for oral argument, and on December 29, 2023, the court granted the Defendants' motion to strike. For count one under old E3, the court relied on Nettleton, finding that violations did not invalidate the tip credit or create a private right to sue. For count two under old E4, the court found the Plaintiff's claims legally insufficient and rejected his argument that applying P.A. 22-134 violated due process, ruling he had no vested right since the claim had not been reduced to judgment. On January 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reargue, to which the Defendants objected. The trial court denied the motion to reargue, and the Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the trial court granted his motion for judgment on June 27, 2024, and the Plaintiff filed an amended appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the trial court got it wrong on three points. First, he claimed that General Statutes Section 31-68d does allow a private cause of action for recordkeeping violations under old E3. Second, he argued that P.A. 22-134 was not meant to apply retroactively to eliminate his claims under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Third, he maintained that applying P.A. 22-134 to his case improperly changed his substantive rights and violated due process. The Appellate Court rejected the Plaintiff's arguments and upheld the trial court's decision. It found that there is no private right of action for recordkeeping violations under Section 31-62-E3, consistent with its prior rulings, so the motion to strike was properly granted as to that claim. It also agreed that the Plaintiff's complaint was legally insufficient because it was not based on the correct regulation, Section 31-60-2, as required under the legislature's amendment through P.A. 22-134 to the statute governing wage law claims. The Appellate Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that P.A. 22-134 was applied retroactively to take away his rights under the earlier wage regulations. It explained that the law applies prospectively and requires that claims filed after September 24, 2022, like the Plaintiff's, be evaluated under the updated regulation, Section 31-60-2. The Appellate Court also noted that the legislature did not create any exception for claims that had accrued earlier but were not filed within the required time frame. Finally, the Appellate Court held that the trial court correctly determined that any retroactive effect of P.A. 22-134 on the Plaintiff's statutory cause of action did not violate his federal and state constitutional rights to due process, as he did not have a vested property right in his cause of action. For these reasons, the trial court in the present case correctly determined that there could not have been a deprivation of any cognizable property right that could give rise to a due process claim. Accordingly, the Appellate Court concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court improperly granted the Defendants' motion to strike his complaint. Hence, the judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/JE1WWKEAt. Richard E. Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- for the appellant (plaintiff). James T. Shearin -- jtshearin@pullcom.com -- with whom were Dana M. Hrelic -- dhrelic@pullcom.com -- and, on the brief, Ryan A. O'Donnell -- rodonnell@pullcom.com -- for the appellees (defendants). REALREAL INC: Intercepts Customers' Communications, 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 an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all individuals who browsed for products on Defendant's website, www.therealreal.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by the third-party companies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access and Fraud Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other customers can shop for and buy items through the Defendant's website. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the Defendant implements tracking codes on its website that enabled Meta Platforms, Inc. and Pinterest, Inc. (collectively, the "Third Parties"), 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. Yet, when consumers like Plaintiff do, in fact, click the "Reject All" button on this banner, the Defendant continues to allow the Third-Parties to track them anyway, says the suit. The RealReal, Inc. operates an online clothing store that specializes in being a reseller and authenticator of luxury clothing and accessories.[BN] 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 ROBERT GOLDSTEIN: Final Approval of Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WRIGHT et al., v. ROBERT GOLDSTEIN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Case No. 3:22-cv-11936-MGM (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for final approval of settlement and class certification. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LI1UDi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret A. Little, Esq. NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 4250 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (202) 869-5210 E-mail: peggy.little@ncla.legal The Defendant is represented by: Konstantin Tretyakov, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUREAU One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2489 RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Opposition in McCarrell Modified to May 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCarrell v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00454 (D. Or., Filed March 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amy M. Baggio entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to modify scheduling order: The Court modifies the case schedule as follows: -- Last day for deposition of Plaintiffs expert is March 20, 2026 -- Opposition to motion for class certification and disclosure of responsive class certification expert reports are due May 4, 2026 -- Last day for deposition of Defendants expert is May 19, 2026 -- Reply to motion for class certification is due June 3, 2026 -- Daubert Motions regarding class certification are due June 17, 2026 -- Daubert Oppositions regarding class certification are due July 22, 2026 -- Daubert Replies regarding class certification are due Aug. 5, 2026 -- All other deadlines remain unchanged The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Rugsusa provides flooring products.[CC] SAN JOSE, CA: Uses Police Cameras to Track Drivers, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Collier, writing for NBC News, reports that three drivers in San Jose, California, filed a class action suit against the city and police department over the deployment of nearly 500 cameras operated by Flock Safety, a controversial surveillance tech company that uses AI and dedicated cameras to catalogue vehicles' movements. Organized by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian nonprofit law firm, the suit argues that the city's use of the technology constitutes an unreasonable law enforcement search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Pictures collected from the cameras are added to giant searchable databases that use AI to help law enforcement easily identify when and where particular vehicles have traveled. Flock offers a wide range of surveillance technologies to law enforcement agencies, governments, private companies and homeowners associations, but it is best known for its nationwide fleet of Automatic Licence Plate Cameras (ALPRs), which are mounted by prominent roads to record which vehicles go by and when. Unlike other ALPR companies, Flock offers its customers the chance to share access locally, statewide or across the country. Its databases can be accessed without warrants by officials at participating law enforcement departments. San Jose shares its Flock data with hundreds of other law enforcement agencies in California, but not nationwide. According to a transparency website operated by Flock, the San Jose Police Department has 474 cameras. As of April 15, Wednesday, it had detected almost 2.8 million vehicles within the previous 30 days, and officers had searched the San Jose database 4,099 times. Thousands of government employees across the state access California's databases, according to the lawsuit, and audit logs obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request showed that the Flock San Jose data was searched 2.5 million times in the last six months of 2025, the suit found, or around 13,500 per day. The city of San Jose has acknowledged some criticism of the cameras and location data. Last month, the City Council voted to shorten the data retention period of location information that Flock can hold from one year to one month. A Flock spokesperson said in an email that the suit raises "important questions" but noted that courts have repeatedly found that "using Flock devices is constitutional." A spokesperson for the San Jose Police Department declined to comment. A city spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Flock has been the subject of several lawsuits alleging the technology violates the Fourth Amendment, and it has yet to be found culpable. One of those lawsuits was brought last year by the Institute for Justice on behalf of two residents of Norfolk, Virginia. The court found in favor of Norfolk, but the case revealed some information about how Flock operates, including that it took hundreds of photos of plaintiffs' vehicles over several months. The Institute for Justice's Michael Soyfer, the lead attorney on the case, told NBC News he simply disagreed with that court's decision and has appealed and that he hopes the Northern District of California is more sympathetic. "What we've demonstrated in these cases is that these cameras have the capability to generate data on virtually every route people take when they leave their house. Are they following you door to door? No. Are they generating a few data points on just about every route you take in your car? Yeah, they're clearly capable of that, and with that information police and the government can piece together a lot about you, because they usually know where you live, and they can usually make reasonable inferences," he said. "They can find other information to figure out where you went, especially if that process is repeated over weeks and weeks and weeks." Soyfer said Flock cameras are often near sensitive facilities, heightening the privacy concern that people could be tracked on those streets. "We've seen these cameras in San Jose on the same blocks as hospice care facilities, immigration lawyers offices, hospitals, all sorts of places where you wouldn't want to be monitored and surveilled by the government," he said. The suit asks the court to compel the city of San Jose and the police department to delete all Flock images within 24 hours except when there are warrants. "If the court doesn't go for that, our second-line request is for a warrant requirement to access data," Soyfer said. "But our belief is that it's the collection of data that's really the injury to people's privacy, and not necessarily access. It's the maintenance of this very widely available database." Flock has become increasingly controversial, with communities across the country persuading their local governments to cancel their contracts, though the number is still dwarfed by how many cities renew their agreements with Flock every year. Tony Tan, a software engineer and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said a Flock ALPR is mounted on the intersection of the street he uses to leave or return home, making travel without being tracked impossible. "In the past year or so, with the second Trump administration, I've been involved in some local activism. I'm, for example, volunteering as a legal observer, responding to reports of potential ICE activity," he told NBC News. "And I'm worried that as I go to these calls, every time my license was being captured. What if that data gets into the wrong hands in the future? Even though everything I do I believe is lawful, maybe that could change. Maybe someone wants to retaliate against me anyway," he said. [GN] SECURITAS SECURITY: Ulloa Files Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-ASK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 23, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court for an order certifying the following class: "All persons employed by Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. as non-exempt employees in California at any time from February 26, 2021 until the date notice is mailed to the class; and six subclasses: 1. Meal Period Subclass A: All persons employed by Securitas as non-exempt employees in California at any time during the Class Period, who were members of a union and who worked at least one shift over 5 hours during the Class Period; 2. Meal Period Subclass B: All persons employed by Securitas as non-exempt employees in California at any time during the Class Period, who were members of a union and who worked at least one shift over 10 hours during the Class Period; 3. Meal Period Subclass C: All persons employed by Securitas as non-exempt employees in California at any time during the Class Period, who were not members of a union and who worked at least one shift over 5 hours during the Class Period; 4. Meal Period Subclass D: All persons employed by Securitas as non-exempt employees in California at any time during the Class Period, who were not members of a union and who worked at least one shift over 10 hours during the Class Period; 5. Overtime Subclass A: All persons employed by Securitas as non-exempt employees in California at any time during the Class Period, who were members of a union and who, for at least one workweek during the Class Period, worked in excess of 8 hours in at least one workday but less than or equal to 40 hours in the same workweek that they were paid multiple base hourly rates; and 6. Overtime Subclass B: All persons employed by Securitas as non-exempt employees in California at any time during the Class Period, who were not members of a union and who, for at least one workweek during the Class Period, worked in excess of 8 hours in at least one workday but less than or equal to 40 hours in the same workweek that they were paid multiple base hourly rates; In the event the Court finds the class or any of the subclasses suitable for class treatment, Plaintiff also seeks certification of the following derivative claims: (a) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; and (b) failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements. Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Plaintiff as a class representative and appoint Matern Law Group, PC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eB4HnK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Boulevard, Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com vrodriguez@maternlawgroup.com SELENE FINANCE: De Conto Files Suit Over Unlawful Fees ------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE DE CONTO, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELENE FINANCE LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00386-UNA (D. Del., April 6, 2026) is a putative class action seeking to recover fees and charges improperly imposed and collected by Selene from homeowners with mortgage loans serviced by Selene, including unwarranted fees and charges for forced-placed insurance when Selene knows the property is already covered by insurance, and when the mortgage loan agreements do not authorize such charges. The complaint relates that Selene has unilaterally purchased and charged Plaintiff and the members of the class for a property insurance policy despite having actual knowledge that Plaintiff and class members maintained their own property insurance policy or that their property was already covered by a master policy and therefore not needed. Despite repeated disputes of the erroneous insurance charges, by Plaintiff and the members of the class, Selene refused to reverse the charges it unfairly assessed to Plaintiff's and class members' mortgage loans. As a result of Selene's conduct, Plaintiff and members of the class were forced to pay for the erroneous forced-placed insurance charges assessed by Selene to avoid foreclosure and losing their home. Selene's conduct, including the imposition of excessive escrow shortages, the purchase and cancellation of lender-placed insurance, the issuance of misleading and confusing notices, and the threat of foreclosure based on inflated payment demands, reflects a pattern and practice affecting numerous borrowers serviced by Selene. These practices have caused substantial financial harm, confusion, and risk of foreclosure to Plaintiff and the proposed class, says the suit. Plaintiff Michelle De Conto is a California resident who owns the property at issue located at 6417 La Costa Drive, #204, Boca Raton, Florida 33433. Plaintiff's Home is serviced by Defendant Selene. Defendant Selene Finance LP regularly engages in the business of mortgage lending and/or servicing of mortgages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com SERVICE MANAGEMENT: May 5 Class Certification Hearing Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flores Larios, et al., v. Service Management Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05838 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order that the parties' Class Certification hearing date of May 5, 2026, is vacated. The parties shall provide a joint status report regarding the selection of an arbitrator for Plaintiff Arroliga by June 25, 2026. The Court has received the parties' joint case management statement. The stay shall continue to remain in effect while the parties pursue arbitration. The Court will consider lifting the stay on January 28, 2027. A joint statement regarding the status of arbitration is due January 21, 2027. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on 3/27/2026. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Service specializes in housekeeping and building maintenance services.[CC] SHARECARE INC: Buqueras Seeks to Certify Class of Investors ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BUQUERAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SHARECARE, INC., JEFFREY T. ARNOLD, and JUSTIN FERRERO, Case No. 1:24-cv-02769-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff will move the Court before the Honorable Leigh Martin May, on a date and at such time to be determined by the Court, for an order pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Certifying a Class of investors, defined as: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Sharecare securities between March 29, 2023 and March 28, 2024, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) the officers and directors of Sharecare at all relevant times; (c) members of the Defendants' or the officers' or directors' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, agents, affiliates, successors or assigns; (d) Defendants' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; and (e) any entity in which Defendants or their immediate families have or had a controlling interest; 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as Class Representative; and 3. Appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ZC21j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Horne, Esq. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Henry Bloxenheim, Esq. Yitzchok Fishbach, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: Elrosen@rosenlegal.com jhorne@rosenlegal.com hbloxenheim@rosenlegal.com yfishbach@rosenlegal.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr. Mary Ellen Conner JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com SONIC CAR: Faces Garcia Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ NORMA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIEH YEMINI and SONIC CAR WASH & LUBE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02007 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself, the Class, and the Collective Plaintiffs that they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (i) unpaid wages for overtime work performed, (ii) unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs worked 10 or more hours, (iii) liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, (iv) liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, (v) attorneys' fees, (vi) interest, and (vii) all costs and disbursements associated with this action. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendant as a car washer and car detailer from February 2, 2025 to January 2026. She generally worked about 65 to 70 hours a week. Sonic Car Wash & Lube, Inc. is a car wash, mechanical, and automobile detail center based in Hempstead, New York. Defendant Arieh Yemini is a majority shareholder, an agent of, manager of, has active control of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com SOUTHERN AIR: Underpays Service Technicians, Godoy Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTONIO GODOY individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN AIR, L.L.C., and TRAHAN'S HEATING & COOLING, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00684 (E.D. La., April 1, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with applicable wage laws and to pay its non-exempt service technicians for all time worked -- including overtime, and Defendants' failure to include commissions and other non-discretionary remunerations in the calculation of the employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Plaintiff Godoy worked for the Defendants as a service technician from approximately March 25, 2025 to February 27, 2026. Southern Air, L.L.C. and Trahan's Heating & Cooling, L.L.C. are residential and commercial HVAC, plumbing, and electrical service companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com STABLE STEP: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stable Step, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00446 (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://powerstep.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 November 18, 2025, Plaintiff Deinnocentes was searching online for orthotic insoles for daily activities and came across Defendant's website. She decided to explore the website further with the intent to purchase the PowerStep Pinnacle Low Insoles | Flat Feet Pain Relief Orthotic, Pronation Inserts. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, on the category page, the filter checkboxes were announced by assistive technology only as "blank," failing to convey their function, role, or selection state. Additionally, on the Product page, textual information was presented within images rather than as navigable, readable text, and no alternative text conveying the same meaning was provided, preventing the Plaintiff from accessing and understanding the content. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. 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. Stable Step, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of orthotic insoles and specialized arch supports for all footwear types.[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 STATE FARM: Safont Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them a two-week extension, through and including April 13, 2026, to file their reply in support of class certification, and such other further relief the Court deems proper. To allow the Plaintiffs to fully and timely develop and prepare the Reply, and because the undersigned will be out of town from March 27 through April 4, Plaintiffs seek a 14-day extension of time to file their Reply. This motion and requested extension are made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. If granted, the time extension will not affect trial or other deadlines. On March 16, 2026, the Defendant filed its memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JccUb9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 100 Southeast Second Street Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and - Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. Paulino A. Nunez Jr., Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 Email: frr@rtgn-law.com pan@rtgn-law.com - and - Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745 2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com susan@mikeknecht.com STATE FARM: Velasquez Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ, et al., v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-03128-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza Quiñones Alejandro entered an order denying motion for class certification. The Defendant provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f0zivV at no extra charge.[CC] SUPER EGO: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Trucking Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wimberly Patton, writing for CDLife, reports that a class action lawsuit has been brought against leasing company Super Ego Holding LLC alleging that the company scammed drivers out of their paychecks through deceptive business practices and breach of contract. The class action lawsuit was first filed in 2022 and is currently in the discovery phase, with ongoing legal proceedings. The lawsuit was brought to the forefront of mainstream media this week with the release of a 60 Minutes report that investigated chameleon carriers and other fraudulent trucking practices. According to Fox32, there are only 12 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but 800 others have joined. Any driver who worked for Super Ego or its affiliated carriers between August 5th, 2012 until present day and were paid based on a percentage of the load are eligible to join. The suit alleges that Super Ego "conspired to engage in a widespread, longstanding scheme to defraud semi-truck drivers with whom they contract to steal part of their compensation." "When we dug in further, it turned out that many of the drivers had actually received rate confirmation sheets, which are two-page documents that come from freight brokers and memorialize the price of the load that they hired for Super Ego. They said that they had obtained real rate confirmations from the freight brokers listing one price, and Super Ego sent them a secretly altered rate confirmation sheet reflecting a lower price," said Chris Wilmes, shareholder, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, LTD. "The drivers allege that they were told they would receive 88% of the load price, less a certain truck rental payment, some insurance costs, and that they would have to reimburse Super Ego for the cost of the fuel," Wilmes explained. "The drivers allege that they were paid less than 88%. They also allege that Super Ego charged them more than their contract allowed for the price of fuel." Some drivers say that the fraudulent practices sometimes resulted in negative balances on their paychecks. "They spend all their days crossing the country, hauling and delivering loads. Many of them have been doing it for a long time, and they stay out on the road for weeks and weeks at a time," Wilmes said. "Certain drivers allege that Super Ego would allow them to reset their clocks so they could drive over the DOT limits, and I think there are some drivers that felt the pressure to do that just so they wouldn't end up with a negative paycheck." The suit is still ongoing. 60 Minutes reports that "Super Ego Holdings denies any wrongdoing. Lawyers for Super Ego Holding said it's a leasing company, not a trucking firm, and that it is not responsible for the actions of affiliated carriers and drivers." [GN] TAPESTRY INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Nguyen-Wilhite ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUONG THU NGUYEN-WILHITE, v. TAPESTRY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rochon entered an order granting Tapestry's motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Given that no appellate court (or even a consensus of lower courts), or the FTC, has clarified whether pausing a conditional, non-salaried worker's schedule while a background check result is being contested is an adverse employment action, the Court cannot find that Tapestry negligently or willfully violated the FCRA. Accordingly, because "the FCRA 'is not a strict liability statute,'" Tapestry's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the case is dismissed. In sum, the Court, having analyzed the Safeco factors, finds that Tapestry's reading of the FCRA was not objectively unreasonable, particularly given the lack of clarity of the statutory text and the lack of on-point court of appeals case law and FTC guidance. On this basis, the Court finds as a matter of law that Tapestry's potential FCRA violation was neither negligent nor willful. Tapestry is a retailer of leather goods that owns Coach, which has a storefront location in Scottsdale, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rSB1OW at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Hamblin Sues Over Defective Vehicle Seat Rails ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Hamblin and Juliet Kelsten, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03458 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2026) is a class lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and putative classes of purchasers and lessees of 2025 Toyota Sienna vehicles equipped with defectively manufactured second-row seat rails that were manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, and warranted by Defendants. According to the complaint, the 2025 Sienna is advertised and marketed as a family-friendly minivan that has three rows of seating that can accommodate 7 or 8 people. The Sienna's seating capacity and size is the primary reason why Plaintiffs and class members purchased the Class Vehicles. However, the Class Vehicles' second-row seats were defectively manufactured, placing vehicle owners and their family members at an unacceptably high risk of injury. Specifically, the second-row seat rails which attach the seats to the vehicle body were improperly welded. As a result of the incorrect and substandard welding, Toyota admits that if the Class Vehicles are in a collision they are at an increased risk of experiencing a "loss of structural integrity of the seat system" which "increases the risk of injury." The Plaintiffs and class members were damaged because they purchased vehicles with undisclosed defective second-row seat rails; they would not have purchased the vehicles or would have paid less money for them had they known of the defect, asserts the complaint. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retail and sells new and used automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers, hybrids, hybrid cars, and accessories. Toyota Motor operates worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com TRADER JOE'S: Agrees to $7.4MM FACTA Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Toth of Claim Depot reports that consumers who made a purchase at a Trader Joe's store using a credit or debit card between March 5, 2019, and July 19, 2019, may be eligible to claim an estimated $102.45 from a class action settlement. Trader Joe's Co. agreed to pay $7.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The lawsuit claimed that, during a specific period in 2019, certain Trader Joe's stores printed receipts that displayed both the first six and last four digits of customers' card numbers, potentially increasing the risk of identity theft. Who can file a claim? Individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- They are the account holder of a credit or debit card used in a transaction at a Trader Joe's store between March 5, 2019, and July 19, 2019. -- They received a receipt for that transaction that Trader Joe's payment processing software formatted to display the first six and last four digits of the card number. It's important to note that the class does not include all Trader Joe's stores or transactions. The class includes an estimated 757,663 unique card numbers, representing the same number of class members. How much is the Trader Joe's payout? Pro rata payment: Each eligible class member who submits a valid claim form can receive a payment estimated at $102.45. The actual amount may vary depending on the number of valid claims submitted and final costs for settlement administration, attorneys' fees and expenses and an incentive award to the class representative. If fewer people submit claims, each claimant's share increases. If more submit, the share decreases. The settlement administrator will donate any unclaimed funds after the initial and second distributions as a cy pres award to the Identity Theft Resource Center. How to claim a class action payment Class members can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. They may also call the settlement administrator to submit a claim. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Keim v. Trader Joe's Co. Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 Settlement administrator's phone number: 888-444-7415 To file an online claim, class members must provide the claim ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Electronic deposit -- Check sent by first-class mail (valid for 180 days) $7.4 million settlement fund breakdown The $7,400,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $977,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,466,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $65,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to class members: Remainder of the fund (estimated at $3,881,333.33) Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: June 9, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Aug. 10, 2026 When is the Trader Joe's FACTA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments to eligible claimants within 45 days of the court resolving any appeals and granting final approval to the settlement administrator. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action settlement alleged Trader Joe's printed receipts for certain credit and debit card transactions that displayed the first six and last four digits of the card number. The plaintiff claimed this violated FACTA and increased the risk of identity theft. Trader Joe's denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $102.45 (estimated) Deadline: June 9, 2026 [GN] TRANSDEV SERVICES: Faces Allen Suit Over Illegal Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAYRIE ALLEN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff  v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000430 (Ill. Cir., 18th Jud., Dupage Cty., April 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's conduct of obtaining and using information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on applicants and employees in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated FCRA by denying employment opportunities and terminating Plaintiff based in part or in whole on the results of Plaintiff's consumer report without first providing her notice, a copy of the report, and a summary of Plaintiff's rights. In Count I of her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a FCRA claim on behalf of an "Adverse Action Class" consisting of: All applicants and employees in the United States who were subject to an adverse employment action based in whole or in part on their consumer report but to whom Transdev did not provide notice and a copy of the report before taking the adverse employment action, for the five years preceding the date of this action through the date of final judgment. On behalf of herself and the putative class, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief under the FCRA. Transdev Services, Inc. is a transportation company that provides public transportation in the United States, including bus, paratransit, rail, non-emergency medical transportation, shuttle, and autonomous vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory J. Lamorena, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 332 South Michigan Avenue, #900 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 219-4018 E-mail: gregory.lamorena@forthepeople.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Sophia L. Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com sophia.walker@forthepeople.com TRUGREEN LIMITED: Valenzuela Sues for Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------- SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware entity, d/b/a TRUGREEN.COM, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-01625 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law for unlawful spamming and for invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant funds a network of affiliate marketers who blanket Americans with illegal spam. They deploy every deceptive tactic emails through falsified headers, spoofed domains, and deceptive subject lines to trick recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, the Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website at trugreen.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 which violates state laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff received a misleading spam e-mail from Defendant and visited Defendant's website after engaging with the alleged deceptive spam. Trugreen Limited Partnership is a lawn care 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 TRUIST BANK: Edwards Suit Remanded to Common Pleas Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSSIE ERNEST LEE EDWARDS, III, v. TRUIST BANK, Case No. 2:25-cv-07280-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a judgment granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Plaintiff Rossie Ernest Lee Edwards III filed this consumer class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging that Defendant Truist Bank -- as the financier or assignee of consumer motor vehicle purchases—repossessed class members’ vehicles upon default and thereafter provided untimely or otherwise deficient post repossession notice in violation of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Commercial Code. Mr. Edwards seeks to recover statutory minimum damages. Truist removed the action to federal court pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. section 1441 and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). Before the Court is Edwards Motion to Remand which is premised on the grounds that his Complaint does not seek redress for any injury-in-fact that would confer Article III standing upon him. Truist is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2q5sqH at no extra charge.[CC] UDR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline in Jackson Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON v. UDR, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00351 (D.D.C., Filed Feb. 5, 2026), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order on Motion to Hold in Abeyance. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is STAYED until further order of the Court. The nature of suit states Diversity-Petition for Removal. UDR is an independent real estate investment trust.[CC] UNITED STATES: Abdo Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abdo DOE, Hadeel DOE, Faiz DOE, Ebe DOE, Sam DOE, Ali DOE, and Fahad DOE, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Markwayne MULLIN, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02280-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, on a date to be determined by the Court, for class certification and appointment of class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs file their Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, dated March 26, 2026, and accompanying declarations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sZQyc4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Razeen Zaman, Esq. Helen Anne Schutz Lo, Esq. Dinesh McCoy, Esq. Phi Nguyen, Esq. Niji Jain, Esq. ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 966-5932 E-mail: rzaman@aaldef.org alo@aaldef.org dmccoy@aaldef.org pnguyen@aaldef.org njain@aaldef.org - and - Shayana Kadidal, Esq. Angelo Guisado, Esq. Baher Azmy, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6438 Facsimile: (212) 614-6451 E-mail: kadidal@ccrjustice.org aguisado@ccrjustice.org bazmy@ccrjustice.org US BANK: Website Conceals Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says ------------------------------------------------------------ GADEER ERAKAT, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00583 (E.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website www.usbank.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant received a benefit by permitting The Trade Desk, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, Pinterest, Inc., and Snap Inc. to deploy their tracking technologies on the Website. In exchange for allowing these third parties to intercept and collect the URL contents of visitors' communications with the Website, Defendant received monetary compensation, data licensing benefits, promotional support, or other commercial value. The Defendant's arrangement with these tracking operators enabled it to offer analytics, retargeting, and advertising services that generated commercial revenue and business value. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, asserts the complaint. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, it adds. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff GADEER ERAKAT was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including on February 25, 2026. Defendant U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is a national banking association chartered under federal law that owns, operates, and controls the Website, an online platform through which US Bank offers personal banking products, loan services, personal finance resources, and financial management tools to consumers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - 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 US BANK: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says -------------------------------------------------------- GADEER ERAKAT, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01370-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website www.usbank.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant intentionally deploys interception 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 Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, assets the complaint. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - 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 VIRTU FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Virtu Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03770-NGG-CHK (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and (b)(3); -- Appointing Lead Plaintiff to serve as the Class Representative; and -- Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Virtu is an American high-frequency trading company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3trz6E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Mario Alba Jr., Esq. Robert D. Gerson, Esq. Magdalene Economou, Esq. Joshua D. Forgy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com malba@rgrdlaw.com rgerson@rgrdlaw.com meconomou@rgrdlaw.com jforgy@rgrdlaw.com VPA PC: Faces Steele Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ASIA STEELE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Named Plaintiff v. V.P.A., P.C., d/b/a HARMONYCARES MEDICAL GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11086-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for willful failure to pay Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Named Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant from April, 2025 until the end of March 2026. During her employment, she primarily worked as a "Clinical Partner" and was responsible for assisting medical providers during home-based clinical healthcare appointments throughout central Ohio. The complaint alleges that the Defendant applied policies and/or practices pertaining to the payment of wages, including overtime and other compensation, and timekeeping uniformly to its hourly, non-exempt employees. The Defendant consistently, willfully, and intentionally failed to pay Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and State Law Class for all hours, including overtime hours, worked, at the statutory overtime rate required, says the suit. V.P.A., P.C., d/b/a Harmonycares Medical Group, offers home-based healthcare services and is one of the U.S. largest house call practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com W6LS INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Arbitration Order in Harris Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA HARRIS and DONITA OLDS, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members described herein, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W6LS, INC., doing business as WITHU and WITHU LOANS, and CALIBER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 24-2056 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Defendant offers consumer loans online as WithU Loans. Caliber Financial Services, Inc. manages the underwriting and collection of the online loans given out by W6LS. W6LS and Caliber are corporations organized under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians. The Tribe maintains an ownership stake in the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are two Illinois citizens who took out online loans from WithU in 2022 and 2023. Harris borrowed $600 with an annual interest rate of 498.63%. Olds similarly took out a $600 loan at an annual interest rate of 497.25%. Both of the loans violate Illinois's statutory limits on interest. See 815 ILCS 123/15-5-5. The Loan Agreements for Harris's and Olds's loans contain an Arbitration Agreement. According to the agreement, an arbitrator will decide all "claims or disputes arising from or relating in any way to: the interpretation, applicability, validity, arbitrability, enforceability, formation or scope of any Loan Agreement or this Arbitration Agreement." In plain English, the agreement delegates to the arbitrator the "threshold" questions of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes and whether the claims at issue fall within the scope of that agreement. The Arbitration Agreement states that the arbitrator should use "Applicable Law," which is defined elsewhere in the Loan Agreement as “Tribal Law and applicable federal law,” to resolve these questions. "Tribal law" refers to law enacted by the Otoe-Missouria Tribe or the Otoe-Missouria Consumer Finance Services Regulatory Commission. The Tribe adopted a Tribal Contract Code on May 2, 2024, but this code was not in place at the time the Plaintiffs entered into the Loan Agreements, citing Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Resolution OTMC #0502061 (May 2, 2024) ("Tribal Contract Code"). The Loan Agreement disclaims application of any other law aside from the Tribe's law and applicable federal law. It states that "the Loan and this Agreement are not governed by the law of your state of residence or any other state." Finally, the agreement reiterates that "the arbitrator is bound by the terms of this Arbitration Agreement," and "must apply" tribal law or applicable federal law. Harris and Olds filed a putative class action against W6LS and Caliber for violations of Illinois's rate-cap and other consumer-protection statutes, as well as the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, which the district court denied. The district court's denial turned on the "prospective waiver" doctrine: it found both the delegation provision and the Arbitration Agreement unenforceable because compelling arbitration under exclusively tribal or "applicable federal law" forced the Plaintiffs to prospectively waive their substantive rights under Illinois law. The Defendants immediately appealed the denial as permitted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Seventh Circuit held that both the delegation provision and the Arbitration Agreement failed because both agreements, by selecting then-nonexistent tribal law and inapplicable "federal law" of contract to control their disputes, lacked mutual assent at the time of contracting. We proceed in three steps. First, it determined which law of contract formation applies, concluding that under either Illinois or tribal law, mutual assent is required. Second, it concluded that the delegation and arbitration provisions of the Loan Agreements lacked mutual assent, as they selected non-existent law to govern future disputes. Third, it considered an alternative basis for affirmance: the prospective waiver doctrine. Because it found that the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration failed on ordinary formation principles, it did not reach the untrodden ground of prospective waiver of state-law rights post-Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639, 653 n.5, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179 (2022) and left that question for another day. Hence, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/uFRXvpQrw WATKINS WELLNESS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Hot Tubs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Watkins Wellness LLC and Watkins Manufacturing Corp. face a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that their Hot Spring-branded Highlife Collection hot tubs contain a dangerous jet defect that poses a significant safety hazard to consumers. The 41-page defective product lawsuit alleges that the Highlife Collection spas suffer from a defect in the six-fin hydromassage rotary jets that creates a suction force, potentially entangling users' hair and "submerging their head[s] underwater." Per the suit, the defect results in an "unreasonably dangerous condition" for users and a "serious" drowning risk. Per the filing, this defect exists in all model year 2023 to 2025 Highlife Collection spas, including the Grandee, Envoy, Vanguard, Aria, Prodigy, Sovereign, Jetsetter and Jetsetter LX models manufactured and sold between October 2022 and September 2025. The case says that Watkins issued an "inadequate" recall on February 12, 2026 for the hot tubs at issue, affecting approximately 32,900 spas sold in the United States. The recall notice says Watkins has received at least one report of a consumer's hair becoming entangled in the defective rotary jets, though no injuries have been reported. Owners of defective Hot Spring spas were instructed to "immediately" stop using the recalled jets, but the case says the recall came "far too late," after the hot tubs were already purchased and used by "unsuspecting families." As the lawsuit explains, Watkins Wellness uses a "highly sophisticated" advertising and marketing campaign for its Highlife Collection hot tubs to imply that the spas are high quality, safe and reliable, including by promoting the "therapeutic benefits" of the hot tubs' hydromassage rotary jets and claiming the spas offer "superior relaxation experiences." Additionally, the Hot Spring brand bears the tagline "[e]very day made better," the case says, which "[reinforces] the message that the Products would enhance consumers' daily lives and well-being." The lawsuit states that none of these marketing materials contained a warning that the six-fin hydromassage rotary jets posed a hair entanglement risk. Furthermore, Watkins offers consumers a "comprehensive" five-year warranty that covers the hydromassage rotary jets in Highlife Collection hot tubs, which the filing says led consumers to believe that the spas had been tested and were safe. The defendants additionally positioned themselves as "industry leaders" and emphasized their "decades of experience" in producing spa products, the case says. Consumers reasonably relied on the company's assurances of "superior" quality, safety and reliability, the lawsuit says, and Watkins allegedly "commanded premium prices" based on these representations, with Highlife Collection spas retailing for anywhere between $16,000 to $24,000, which the case says is "far more" than typical prices for hot tubs. Consumers who purchased the Highlife Collection hot tubs had reasonable expectations that the pricey spas would be safe and "free from life-threatening defects," the lawsuit says. The suit explains that the February 12 recall "solely" provided consumers with replacement six-fin hydromassage rotary jets after "an undetermined amount of time" and required them to install the parts themselves through a "cumbersome, multi-step, and time-consuming process." The lawsuit alleges that putting the onus on consumers to fix the company's mistakes is a clear violation of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which stipulates that manufacturers may not require consumers to complete their own repairs when a product is still under warranty. As the defective rotary jets were still covered by the five-year warranty, Watkins should have repaired them, the case argues. To add insult to injury, the lawsuit says the recall provided no monetary compensation to consumers, even with the high price point of the Hot Spring Highlife Collection hot tubs. "The free replacement jet inserts do nothing to compensate consumers for the loss in value of their products, which are now known to contain life-threatening defects that existed from the moment of manufacture and sale," the lawsuit stresses. Recalls without "full refunds or simple remedies" tend to have lower participation rates from consumers, the lawsuit says, claiming the inadequate Highlife Collection spa recall leaves "large numbers" of the dangerous hot tubs remaining in consumers' possession. The Hot Spring hot tub class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who purchased Highlife Collection spas with hydromassage rotary jets (6 fin) in the United States for personal use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] WATON FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Probes 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 Waton Financial Limited (NASDAQ: WTF) resulting from allegations that Waton Financial Limited may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Waton Financial 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=59936 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 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WAYFAIR INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading "30-Day Returns" Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Edward Stansfield filed a class action lawsuit against Wayfair Inc. Why: Stansfield claims Wayfair misleads consumers about the return policy for certain items sold on its website. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Wayfair misleads consumers about the return policy for certain items sold on its website. Plaintiff Edward Stansfield claims Wayfair, an e-commerce company that sells furniture, home decor and household goods, fails to inform consumers when specific items are non-returnable, leading to confusion and potential financial loss for buyers. Stanfield argues this is despite Wayfair's return policy being a "key feature" of its marketing to consumers, with the company prominently advertising a "30-Day Returns" policy throughout its website, including on product pages, in the shopping cart and on the checkout page. "At no point on the product page is the consumer informed that the specific item being viewed cannot be returned," the Wayfair class action lawsuit says. Wayfair obscures that certain merchandise cannot be returned, class action says Stansfield claims Wayfair's practice of advertising a 30-day return policy to consumers while allegedly obscuring that certain merchandise cannot be returned constitutes false advertising. "A return policy is a material term of a consumer transaction, and Wayfair's advertising misrepresents a material term of sale for non-returnable items," the Wayfair class action lawsuit says. The class action lawsuit further argues that the availability of returns is a "significant factor" in online purchasing decisions. Stansfield claims Wayfair is in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law. The plaintiff is requesting public injunctive relief, along with an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In a separate class action earlier this year, Wayfair was sued over claims it misled consumers by advertising fake sale prices. The plaintiff is represented by Thomas D. Warren and Dan Terzian of Warren Terzian LLP. The Wayfair class action lawsuit is Stansfield v. Wayfair Inc., Case No. 26STCV09347, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. [GN] WEBBANK: Fails to Provide Reasons for Credit Denial, Harris Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RENE S. HARRIS, Plaintiff v. WEBBANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02812 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In October 2025, the Plaintiff applied for a home improvement loan from Defendant. On October 16, the Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying his loan application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial. The adverse action letter stated, in pertinent part, that: "WebBank is unable to accept your loan request because the Prosper score is too high." The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial, says the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff was forced to file this action to obtain information he is entitled to under the ECOA. WEBBANK is an online banking institution that provides credit and consumer loans to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com WEBMD LLC: Intercepts Private Communications, Brown Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARY BROWN, MELANIE LYNNE RHINE, and DENISE BOWEN, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEBMD LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-02920 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping and use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. This class action complaint concerns egregious violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. When Plaintiffs and other consumers visit Defendant's website, www.webmd.com the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant assures visitors that they do not have to accept cookies -- they can instead choose to "Manage Preferences" relating to Defendant's use of cookies on the website. Unlike many websites, however, the Defendant affirmatively represented that users could browse the Website without being tracked, followed, or targeted by third-party data brokers and advertisers. Those representations were false, alleges the suit. Contrary to users' express declination or rejection of non-necessary cookies and tracking technologies on the website, Defendant caused cookies, including the Third Parties' cookies, to be sent to Plaintiffs and other visitors' browsers, stored on their devices, and transmitted to the Third Parties along with user data, says the complaint. The Defendant falsely told website users that it respected their privacy choices and would refrain from tracking and data sharing when users rejected cookies. Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, the Defendant ignored those choices and violated state statutes and tort duties owed to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Website users, the suit further asserts. WebMD LLC provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com WELLS FARGO: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAHD ERAKAT, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01353-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for embedding tracking mechanism in its website www.wellsfargo.com that monitors user interactions. The company relates that the Defendant surreptitiously embeds third-party tracking technologies on the Website that permit third parties to 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 Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, asserts the complaint. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff SHAHD ERAKAT was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred on multiple occasions during the class period including on January 28, 2026. Defendant WELLS FARGO & COMPANY is a Delaware corporation law that owns, operates, and controls the Website, an online platform through which Wells Fargo offers personal banking products, loan services, personal finance resources, and financial management tools 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 WESTGATE PALACE: Steines Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM U. STEINES; and MIRANDA L. STEINES, v. WESTGATE PALACE, L.L.C.; WESTGATE RESORTS, INC.; WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., LP; CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC.; WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC; and CFI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-00629-RBD-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. 2. The Court certifies the following liability-only class: "All active-duty servicemembers or their dependents who financed the purchase of one or more timeshare interests via an extension of credit from Westgate Palace, LLC made between Feb. 2, 2017, and Feb. 28, 2025 ("the Class Period"), who paid interest and who did not sign an MLA waiver form in the form of Exhibit I, 2025 MLA Disclosure." To qualify under this definition, either: (1) the covered servicemember must have been continuously active-duty from contract execution through the entire Class Period; or (2) the servicemember or their dependents must have executed their extension of credit on or after February 2, 2020. "Active-duty" means full-time duty in the active military service of the United States, including sustained duty in the Space Force. Such term includes full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty. 3. The Court appoints Adam U. Steines and Miranda L. Steines as Class Representatives. 4. The Court appoints Brian W. Warwick, Janet R. Varnell, Christopher J. Brochu, Pamela G. Levinson, Jeffrey L. Newsome, of Varnell & Warwick, P.A.; Craig E. Rothburd and Dylan J. Thatcher, of Craig E. Rothburd, P.A.; Scott R. Jeeves of Jeeves Law Group, P.A.; and Roger L. Mandel of Jeeves Mandel Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel. 5. The Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude Unterholzner challenging the methodology for calculating setoff is denied as moot. This is a putative class action under the Military Lending Act ("MLA") against the Defendants for their allegedly unlawful timeshare agreement practices. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vEePiW at no extra charge.[CC] WF HOLDING: 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 WF Holding Limited (NASDAQ: WFF) resulting from allegations that WF Holding Limited may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased WF Holding 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=59909 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 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WISCONSIN: Dismissal of Department of Revenue v. Siebers Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARGARET ELIZABETH DOYLE SIEBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETER W. BARCA, RICHARD G. CHANDLER AND STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendants-Respondents, Appeal No. 2023AP2199 (Wis. App.), Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, affirmed the order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint and class action alleging that Wisconsin's unclaimed property laws violate the prohibition on government taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment or the Wisconsin constitution. Siebers filed a claim for unclaimed property with the Department of Revenue, and her property in the amount of $264.74 was returned to her in April 2021 without any earnings, interest or compensation. She believed that Wisconsin's unclaimed property act violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. Relevant to this belief was a Seventh Circuit holding, under a challenge to Illinois' similar unclaimed property act statutes, that owners reclaiming property are entitled to receive the time value of their property (that is, interest or other earnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Siebers first pursued an action in federal court, arguing that the State violated the Fifth Amendment takings clause. That action was dismissed. She then filed this action against Barca, Secretary of Revenue, Chandler, Barca's predecessor as the Secretary of Revenue, both individually and in their official capacities, and the Department (collectively, the DOR). In Siebers' complaint, she alleged a violation of the prohibition on government takings without just compensation in the Fifth Amendment and the similar right in the State constitution, Wis. Const. art. I, Section 13 (The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor.). She alleged that DOR took her property into their custody, used it for public purposes, including investing the property and earning income or interest and using it to fund the State's operations and programs, and then did not give her those earnings when they returned her original principal. Siebers asserted that her claim was brought on behalf of herself and as a class action under Wis. Stat. Section 803.08 (2023-24). The class represented those who had property taken into the custody of the State as abandoned, and upon a claim to the State had the principal returned, but were either not paid the interest the State earned or not paid all of the interest the State earned while the property was in State custody. As relief, she requested class action status, just compensation, and attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The recovery of unclaimed property in Wisconsin is governed by Wis. Stat. ch. 177. At the time Siebers filed her claim and received her payment, the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (the Act) was in effect. In November 2021, the legislature significantly revised Wis. Stat. ch. 177, via the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (the Revised Act), 2021 Wis. Act 87. DOR moved to dismiss, arguing that her action was barred by sovereign immunity. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Siebers' action. Siebers appealed. Siebers argued that she stated a claim that the State's unclaimed property act violates the Fifth Amendment because the statutes did not require the State to convey any interest or earnings the State earned on the property it held when it returned that property. She argued that the circuit court erred when it dismissed her action on the basis of sovereign immunity because the court incorrectly relied upon the Revised Act's judicial review provision, Wis. Stat. Section 177.0906, and its requirements that she follow administrative review procedures under Wis. Stat. ch. 227. Further, she contended that the court erred when it dismissed her action for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 or as a direct action under the Fifth Amendment. The Appellate Court concluded that because Siebers failed to satisfy the statutory procedure to bring an action to review DOR's decision, sovereign immunity applies to bar her action. Moreover, Siebers has not alleged sufficient facts to show that either secretary personally was involved in depriving her of just compensation. Hence, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Section 1983 against the secretaries in their personal capacity, in their official capacity, and the Department. Finally, because Siebers had access to judicial review, DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285, 290, 292 (2024) does not establish that she can bring her action directly in state court without complying with statutory procedures for review of administrative decisions. Therefore, Siebers has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as a direct action under the Fifth Amendment. For the reasons it stated, the Appellate Court concluded that Siebers' claims are barred by statutory immunity and she has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 or directly under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the order dismissing her complaint and class action is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://lnk.ua/KlAjq0mK5 WISDOM COMPANIES: Purscelley Balks at Illegal Tracking Pixels ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PURSCELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WISDOM COMPANIES, LLC, a California limited liability company, d/b/a QUOTES.VASURVEYSITE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02102-CAB-BJW (S.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for unlawful spamming, and for invasion of privacy in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, 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 said harm does not stop at the inbox. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, the Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website, vasurveysite.com where the 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. The Plaintiff, who received a misleading spam e-mail from Defendant and visited Defendant's website after engaging with the deceptive spam, brings this action as both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law. The Wisdom Companies, LLC is a privately-held company that operates in the software and Internet services industry.[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 ZENBUSINESS INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Possible Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the possible ZenBusiness data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information was exposed in the reported incident, including current and former ZenBusiness clients. Reported ZenBusiness Security Incident: What Happened? ZenBusiness, a platform that helps entrepreneurs start and run businesses, has reportedly experienced a data breach involving several terabytes of stolen data. A post made to the dark web scraping website Ransomware.Live listing ZenBusiness as a data breach victim indicates that on March 26, 2026, the group ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for breaching data from platforms such as Salesforce, Mixpanel, and Snowflake. Known for previous high-profile breaches, such as those at Wynn Resorts and Figure Technology Solutions, ShinyHunters set a March 30 deadline for ZenBusiness to respond to its ransom demands. On April 13, 2026, a searchable database reportedly indexing the information compromised in the potential ZenBusiness data breach was posted on DataBreach.com. According to the post, the database contains over 12 million rows of data and includes Social Security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, names, and addresses. What You Can Do After the Possible ZenBusiness Data Breach If your information may have been exposed in the reported ZenBusiness data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force ZenBusiness to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] ********* 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 ***