260423.mbx

260423.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 23, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 81 Headlines AOSOM LLC: Deinnocentes Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Business Info BANK3: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach Claims CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Illegal Debt-Collector Licensing Assessments CIRCLE INTERNET: Drift Investors Sue Over $280MM Exploit Losses COLLECTORS HOLDINGS: Faces Rasmussen Suit Over Illegal Monopoly CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Minifridges' Hazard Risks D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action DELOITTE CONSULTING: Discriminates Against Women Workers, Suit Says FOREWARN LLC: Elliott Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Parties in Wyman Seek OK of Status Conference GREAT AMERICAN: Lee Seeks to File Unredacted Exhibit Under Seal GREAT AMERICAN: Tavakolian Seeks to Certify Class Action HEALTH FIRST: Powers Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice HILTON DOMESTIC: Embeds Illegal Third-Party Trackers, Erakat Says KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Dixon Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Pods LAS VEGAS: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot MEDVI LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, E P Says METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Parking Suit for $8.75MM NESTLE USA: Hohl Files Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response PLANET FITNESS: Phillips Files Suit Over FCCPA Violation RISEBORO COMMUNITY: Martinez Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Law Violation STADIUM CASINO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Coleman Says UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response UPSTART HOLDINGS: Dunn Sues Over Share Price Drop WALMART INC: Bauer Files Suit Over Mislabeled Milk Products ZUMBA FITNESS: Reset of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought ********* AOSOM LLC: Deinnocentes Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aosom LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00459 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.aosom.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff Deinnocentes searched online for outdoor swing beds for her yard space and came across the Defendant's website. However, while navigating the website using the keyboard and screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase independently. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Aosom LLC operates the website that offers a selection of home, outdoor, and lifestyle products including furniture, pet supplies, fitness equipment, garden items, and children's toys.[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 BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Business Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reflector reports that Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. ("B&W" or the "Company") (NYSE: BW) securities between November 5, 2025 and March 11, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) B&W's largest shareholder, BRC, stood on both sides of the Power Generation Contract and had close ties to B&W's counterparty; (ii) Applied Digital did not need the products and services that B&W would purportedly supply pursuant to the Power Generation LNTP and Contract; (iii) the foregoing, at the very least, would raise questions about the parties' actual intent behind entering into the Power Generation LNTP and Contract, including whether the Company is likely to recognize revenues from these agreements; (iv) accordingly, the business and financial prospects of the Company were overstated; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. [GN] BANK3: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Bank3 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 Bank3 data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Bank3 Security Incident: What Happened? Bank3, headquartered in Tennessee with eight branches in the state and one in Mississippi, has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized access to its systems. A sample notification letter states that on August 20, 2025, Bank3 identified suspicious activity. An investigation with cybersecurity experts showed that an unauthorized actor accessed the bank's systems at various times between July 25 and August 7, 2025. During this period, the actor viewed or copied certain information. Bank3 conducted a review to determine which data was affected, finding that the information compromised in the Bank3 data breach included names, dates of birth, driver's licenses or state IDs, Social Security numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, financial account details, payment card information, and health insurance details. What You Can Do After the Bank3 Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Bank3 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 Bank3 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] CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Illegal Debt-Collector Licensing Assessments ------------------------------------------------------------------ A.J. S. Dhaliwal, writing for The National Law Review, reports that on April 7, two trade associations and a licensed debt collector filed a putative class action in the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco alleging that the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation's annual debt-collector licensing assessments violate the Debt Collection Licensing Act, Proposition 26, and the California Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint also alleges that the assessment scheme fails to provide a clear, adequately disclosed formula for calculating annual fees. The class action challenges DFPI's 2025 annual assessments for licensed debt collectors and seeks relief on behalf of a proposed class of about 1,243 licensees statewide. Specifically, the suit alleges that DFPI's fee regime is unlawful because: The annual assessments exceed reasonable regulatory costs. The complaint alleges the fees constitute unlawful taxes in violation of Proposition 26, which requires that state-imposed charges not exceed the reasonable cost of regulation and bear a fair relationship to each payor's burden on, or benefit from, the regulatory scheme. The suit alleges those charges are disproportionate and materially higher than comparable charges in other states. The assessment formula was not adequately disclosed. The suit alleges DFPI did not clearly explain the calculation methodology in its regulations or rulemaking materials. The advisory process was deficient. The complaint alleges DFPI did not meaningfully consult the Debt Collection Advisory Committee regarding the proposed fee schedule or the mechanics of implementation. Putting It Into Practice: Recent California enforcement developments have continued to focus on whether companies are properly licensed to operate in the state's consumer financial services market. The outcome of this case could affect how California structures licensing fees and assessments for debt collectors and other licensees going forward. Companies operating in the state should monitor the litigation and consider whether changes to licensing costs or related requirements could affect compliance planning. [GN] CIRCLE INTERNET: Drift Investors Sue Over $280MM Exploit Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- Timmy Shen, writing for the Block, reports that Circle Internet Group is facing a class action lawsuit from Drift Protocol investors who lost money in the $280 million exploit that occurred on April 1. The lawsuit alleged that Circle failed to act swiftly to freeze the stolen USDC tied to the attack. Circle is facing a class action lawsuit from a group of Drift Protocol investors who lost money in the $280 million exploit on April 1, one of the largest hacks in DeFi history. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, April 14, by law firm Gibbs Mura, accused Circle Internet Financial of failing to act swiftly to freeze the stolen USDC tied to the attack. "Circle allegedly took no action to freeze the funds, despite having the technical and contractual authority to do so," the lawyers said in a statement on Wednesday, April 15. Drift Protocol, a Solana-based decentralized exchange, suffered an exploit after an attacker gained unauthorized access to the platform, introduced a malicious asset, and removed withdrawal limits to drain the funds, the Drift team said. The incident gained more traction after Drift revealed the perpetrators had spent six months posing as a quantitative trading firm. Onchain investigator ZachXBT has criticized Circle for not freezing USDC linked to the exploit quickly enough. "[Six] hours is how long Circle had to freeze stolen funds from the $280M+ Drift hack," ZachXBT wrote, alleging that the attacker moved over $230 million worth of USDC from Solana to Ethereum via Circle's cross-chain transfer protocol. The lawsuit further alleged that, nine days earlier, Circle had frozen 16 unrelated wallets in a separate civil case, "demonstrating both the capability and willingness to act." Moral quandary In a press conference earlier this week, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire defended the company's decision, saying that the company only freezes USDC wallets at the direction of law enforcement or the courts. Allaire added that taking action outside established legal processes in private matters could become a "significant moral quandary." "If there are others that believe that Circle should just step away from what the law says and do its own, make its own decisions, I think it's a very risky proposition," Allaire said. The Block has reached out to Circle for comment on the class action lawsuit. Meanwhile, Drift said Thursday, April 16, that it has secured a proposed recovery package of up to $127.5 million from Tether and $20 million from other partners. "The structure is intended to support user recovery following the April 1 exploit and facilitate Drift's relaunch as the largest USDT-based perpetual DEX on Solana," said the Drift team. [GN] COLLECTORS HOLDINGS: Faces Rasmussen Suit Over Illegal Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- Bob D'Angelo, writing for Sports Collectors Daily, reports that an Arizona man is filing a class action suit against the parent company of PSA, alleging that its recent acquisitions of Beckett Grading Services and SGC have created an illegal monopoly against collectors seeking to have cards and memorabilia graded. Attorneys for Michael Rasmussen, of Phoenix, filed the suit on April 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Defendants in the complaint are Collectors Holdings Inc., of Santa Ana, California, the parent company of PSA; Professional Sport Authenticator, also of Santa Ana; Sports Card Guaranty Corporation, of Boca Raton, Florida; and Beckett Grading Services, of Plano, Texas. Rasmussen has requested a jury trial. He is also seeking damages and forced divestment as remedies for the alleged antitrust violations he outlined in his complaint. Collectors Holdings has yet to respond to the filing. The issue centers around card grading services and who controls the market. Rasmussen asserts that the acquisitions of SGC and Beckett by Collectors Holdings have "substantially lessened competition" in the grading services market. Those purchases have allowed Collectors Holdings to "unlawfully maintain its monopoly in the Relevant Market," the complaint states. The plaintiff believes those two actions were in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was passed in 1890; and Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which became law in 1914. Rasmussen filed the complaint against Collectors Holdings "for violations of federal antitrust laws based on Defendants' anticompetitive business practices that have harmed Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated consumers." Rasmussen's complaint concedes that of the four grading systems that were available to collectors, PSA was the dominant player, controlling approximately 72% of the market. SGC controlled 5%, and Beckett held a 3% market share, court documents state. Certified Guaranty Company, which is not a party in this lawsuit, managed 18% of the market. Despite PSA's dominance, Rasmussen states that SGC and BGS "served important roles as growing competitors that offered lower prices and higher quality services." "As a result, they provided significant downward competitive pressure on prices and upward competitive pressure on service quality for consumers," the complaint states. The plaintiff stated that Collectors Holdings acquired both companies – SGC on Feb. 29, 2024, and BGS in December 2025, giving the company an approximate 80% share of the market — and overwhelming control. "Rather than compete on the merits, Collectors responded to the increased competition from SGC by acquiring it," court documents state. According to the filing, the plaintiff is seeking statutory treble damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages. By ordering Collectors Holdings to divest the assets of SGC and Beckett, those companies would be able to function as independents, the lawsuit states. Rasmussen has an ally in U.S. Rep Pat Ryan. In December 2025, the New York Democrat formally urged the Federal Trade Commission to open an antitrust investigation into Collectors Holdings, arguing the company's acquisitions of PSA, SGC and Beckett have created a monopoly that threatens competition in the trading card industry. But in a January podcast, Collectors Holdings president Ryan Hoge said that SGC and Beckett would remain fully independent operations with their own grading standards, teams, and brand identities. Rasmussen disagrees. "By acquiring SGC and BGS, Collectors has cut the number of major independent competitors in the Relevant Market in half, reducing the number from four to two," the lawsuit states. "It has also eliminated two independent competitors that were offering lower prices and better services than PSA, meaning the Acquisitions eliminated downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on quality of services. "Collectors has been able to profitably and repeatedly increase prices and degrade service quality for PSA, SGC, and/or BGS," the suit states. "SGC began to bleed market share precipitously due to its higher prices, slower turnaround times, and reallocation of assets to PSA. In July 2025 (when Collectors announced it was scaling down operations at SGC), SGC was grading roughly 150k cards per month. By September 2025, SGC was grading only 63k cards per month (more than 58.5% decrease from July). By October 2025, SGC was grading only 50k cards per month (a 66% decrease from July)." Rasmussen is being represented by California attorneys Daniel J. Mogin and Timothy Z. LaComb of the Mogin Law firm of La Jolla, which handles antitrust lawsuits. [GN] CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Minifridges' Hazard Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Elena Nacarino filed a class action lawsuit against Curtis International Ltd. Why: Nacarino claims Curtis International failed to adequately address fire and burn hazards associated with Frigidaire-branded minifridges that were recalled last year. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that Curtis International failed to adequately address fire and burn hazards associated with Frigidaire-branded minifridges recalled last year. Plaintiff Elena Nacarino claims Curtis International made false and misleading representations regarding the safety of its Frigidaire minifridges, which, she argues, have a defect that can cause them to catch on fire. Nacarino argues Curtis International recalled around 964,000 minifridges in July 2025 and January 2026 due to the alleged defect, but the company failed to address any property damages or other damages due to actual fires caused by the products. "Defendant's refunds and proposed remedy are ineffective and inadequate," the Frigidaire class action lawsuit says. Nacarino wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who purchased affected units of the Frigidaire minifridges. Frigidaire minifridges have a ‘critical safety-related defect,' plaintiff claims Nacarino argues Curtis International "actively and intentionally" misrepresented the qualities and characteristics of the Frigidaire minifridges, which, she claims, the company implied were suitable and reasonably safe to use. "Defendant failed to disclose that the products had defective internal electrical components that can short circuit and ignite the surrounding plastic housing, posing fire and burn hazards," the Frigidaire class action lawsuit says. Nacarino claims Curtis International is guilty of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, consequential, statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. The plaintiff is represented by Brett R. Cohen of Leeds Brown Law P.C. The Frigidaire minifridge class action lawsuit is Nacarino v. Curtis International Ltd., Case No. 4:26-cv-01736-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] D'ONOFRIO GENERAL: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and similarly situated people, Plaintiff V. D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, ALL STATE 12 GENERAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., DOE CORPORATE ENTITY, and NORWING REYES, in his personal and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-0286 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2026) asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law, to hold the Defendants accountable for discrimination, retaliation, gender-based violence, and denial of proper wages. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Jane Doe was the lone female flagger on a team of male construction workers at D'Onofrio General Contractors Corporation. After she rebuffed her supervisor Norwing Reyes's repeated sexual demands, Mr. Reyes pushed her out of the company. As Ms. Doe learned from her former foreman, the company declined to rehire her after a temporary turnover, though it rehired her colleagues, because Mr. Reyes had lied to the company's owner, telling him that she had pursued a relationship with Mr. Reyes. This was the culmination of harassment that began even before Ms. Doe's first day on the job. When he learned Ms. Doe was joining, Mr. Reyes stalked her social media and sent her messages. After she began, he constantly commented on her clothing and explicitly ordered her male coworkers to ignore and isolate her. When he eventually demanded sex in exchange for her job security and Ms. Doe refused, Mr. Reyes lied to the company's owner, characterizing Ms. Doe as a "homewrecker" to ensure she was fired while every one of her colleagues was retained, relates the complaint. The Defendants have discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff based on her gender in violation of the NYSHRL, by, among others, harassing her in the workplace, discriminating against her by prohibiting her from interacting with her colleagues, terminating her employment, and discriminating against her in paying her compensation, says the suit. D'Onofrio General Contractors Corporation provides construction services. The Company offers to build marine and harbor structures, roofing, building restoration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Crain, Esq. Shane Seppinni, Esq. Megan Jones, Esq. Isha Doshi, Esq. SEPPINNI LAW, PLLC 40 Broad St. Floor 7 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 859-5085 E-mail: john@seppinnilaw.com shane@seppinnilaw.com megan@seppinnilaw.com isha@seppinnilaw.com DELOITTE CONSULTING: Discriminates Against Women Workers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE BARELA, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03051 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendant's policies and practices of discriminating against all former and current women employees who take parental, pregnancy, or pregnancy-disability leave. The complaint alleges that Deloitte's compensation policies and practices have the effect of disadvantaging workers who take parental, pregnancy, or pregnancy-disability leave in violation of federal and California law. Deloitte's performance assessment and compensation systems violate the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ("PWFA"); the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law ("PDLL"); the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"); and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff notes that Deloitte compares persons who took parental leave in a year with persons who worked a full 12 months that year. Specifically, persons who took parental, pregnancy, or pregnancy-disability leave receive lower performance review scores than persons performing similarly well, and, as a result, receive lower salary increases and lower bonuses in the years when they took parental leave. Plaintiff Joanne Barela worked at Deloitte in its Human Capital Consulting practice for 13 years from 2013 to December 30, 2025 and was promoted three times during that period from Consultant to Senior Consultant, Senior Consultant to Manager, and Manager to Senior Manager. During the relevant time periods, she took protected leave, including parental and pregnancy-related disability leave, and was, thus, subjected to Deloitte's biased performance impact assessment system, negatively impacting her compensation, adds the complaint. Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP provides audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk, tax, and legal services. It is one of the "Big 4" professional services networks, serving a vast majority of Fortune 500 companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Finberg, Esq. Eve H. Cervantez, Esq. Marisa C. Lowe, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: jfinberg@altber.com ecervantez@altber.com mlowe@altber.com - and - John T. Mullan, Esq. Michelle G. Lee, Esq. Jessica P. Spierer, Esq. RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-9800 Facsimile: (415) 434-0513 E-mail: jtm@rezlaw.com mgl@rezlaw.com jps@rezlaw.com FOREWARN LLC: Elliott Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------- MAXWELL ELLIOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOREWARN, LLC, and RED VIOLET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80404-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Forewarn's pervasive practice of compiling and commercially disseminating the cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents without their explicit, affirmative consent. The complaint relates that the Defendants market their Forewarn App as a "real-time identity verification" and safety tool for real estate agents and other interested professionals. In reality, Forewarn operates as a data broker, gathering and then re-selling consumers' personal information. It provides a business-to-business "people search" for real estate agents and others by compiling vast amounts of information about individuals from diverse sources, including public records and proprietary sources. The platform is sold on a subscription model to more than 300,000 users, many of whom gain access through bulk-purchased partnerships with realtor associations. The Defendants openly collecting and listing personal information, including phone numbers, addresses, age, vehicle records, possible criminal/infraction records, and court records, without explicit consent. This data, sourced from various public records and third-party data brokers, is made readily available to anyone with internet access. Forewarn monetizes this personal data, including the cell phone numbers of Colorado residents, through its publicly accessible directory, thereby profiting from the unauthorized disclosure of private information. The complaint alleges that this conduct is not merely a technical violation; it exposes individuals to significant risks. The Federal Trade Commission has long warned about the potential dangers associated with data brokers, including the facilitation of harassment, stalking, identity theft, and vulnerability to fraudulent schemes. Forewarn's readily accessible compilation of personal data, including cell phone numbers, creates a fertile ground for malicious actors to exploit this information for harmful purposes, such as scams, phishing, and doxxing. This is particularly concerning for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, who are frequently targeted by telemarketing fraud, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action to compel Forewarn to cease its unlawful practices, protect the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users, and recover statutory damages provided by the Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. Plaintiff Maxwell Elliott owns the cellular telephone number which was listed by Defendants in their directory, available at Forewarn.com, for commercial purposes. Defendant Forewarn LLC is the entity operating the website Forewarn.com Defendant Red Violet, Inc. is the parent company of Defendant Forewarn LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Mausner, Esq. MAUSNER GROUP INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC 25 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 808 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 344-4878 Facsimile: (305) 800-8677 E-mail: eric@mginjuryfirm.com eservice@mginjuryfirm.com - and - Adam C. York, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 1016 West Jackson Blvd. Ste. 197 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: adam@crosnerlegal.com GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Parties in Wyman Seek OK of Status Conference ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD WYMAN, SPENCER WYMAN, NATHAN WARMAN, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section216(b), v. GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS, LLC, a Florida For-Profit Corporation, JASON WILLIAMS, individually, and RICHARD WILLIAMS, individually, Case No. 9:25-cv-81205-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for status conference. The Parties jointly move the Court for an Order permitting the Parties to attend mediation with Robyn Hankins, Esq. on Friday May 1, 2026, and, if mediation is unsuccessful, for a status conference to be held on or before May 11, 2026, based on the Court’s availability, to determine the Court’s scheduling of pretrial deadlines and Trial period. The Parties conferred on a plan of action regarding this matter now that the opt-in period is closed and the individuals comprising the class is now known. The Parties immediate focus is to seek resolution while promoting judicial economy and prevent the unnecessary accumulation of attorneys’ fees and costs. To achieve this goal, the Parties have agreed to mediate with Robyn Hankins, Esq. If the Parties are unable to resolve the matter at private mediation, then the Parties respectfully request that the Status Conference be held on or before May 11, 2026 to then discuss pre-trial deadlines and Trial period. On Nov. 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the certification motion. Glassfronts works on commercial glazing projects. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LAZi3B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. PERERA LAW GROUP, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, #4107 Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: (786) 485-5232 E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com brody@pba-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com GREAT AMERICAN: Lee Seeks to File Unredacted Exhibit Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLEN LEE and CHUNG LEE; Individually, and on Behalf of the Class; v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal unredacted versions of Exhibit 8 in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, which contain information designated as confidential by Defendant GALIC pursuant to the Protective Order. The Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal the following exhibits to the Declaration of Alex Tomasevic in support of their Motion for Class Certification: -- Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Craig Nicholas -- Exemplar printout from the Excel spreadsheet produced by GALIC entitled "2023.10.20 Ex A to ROG2 No. 24 CONFIDENTIAL Updated Policy Information Spreadsheet.XLSX" wherein GALIC identified over 10,000 specific policies issued or delivered in California before January 1, 2013, that lapsed or terminated on or after January 1, 2013, for nonpayment of premium, including approximately 100 policies with a confirmed death. GALIC contends that the information contained in the above-listed documents, is non-public, sensitive, confidential, proprietary, and/or contains third party private information and therefore needs to be treated as confidential under the Protective Order. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJfxGz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP Alex Tomasevic (SBN 245598) 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 Email: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com sball@einsurelaw.com - and - Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. Michelle M. Meyers, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com GREAT AMERICAN: Tavakolian Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Tavakolian v. Great American Life Insurance Company, ELLEN LEE and CHUNG LEE; Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying, as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, their request for a judicial declaration that Defendant violated California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that: Certifies their declaratory relief claim (only) as a class action with the Class defined as follows: All owners of Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that Defendant lapsed or terminated for non payment of premium in or after 2013 without first applying Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. Appoints Plaintiffs Ellen Lee and Chung Lee as the Class Representatives; and Appoints the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as Class Counsel. Great American is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TYRQBl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP Craig M. Nicholas Alex Tomasevic 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball., Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com sball@einsurelaw.com - and - Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. Michelle M. Meyers, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com HEALTH FIRST: Powers Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class without prejudice. Individualized issues in this case predominate as scrutinizing records to determine who has standing "would involve a lengthy and particularized inquiry—in essence, a series of mini-trials—for countless individual plaintiffs." Therefore, a class action is not a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The case stems from the Plaintiffs' claims that Defendant, a Brevard County, Florida hospital corporation, monopolized the acute care hospital market and allegedly violated antitrust laws. Due to various purported exclusionary practices, barriers to entry, and its ability to raise prices above competitive levels, Plaintiffs allege Defendant possesses monopoly power in the relevant market and bring claims for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wNOMYU at no extra charge.[CC] HILTON DOMESTIC: Embeds Illegal Third-Party Trackers, Erakat Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GADEER ERAKAT, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. HILTON DOMESTIC OPERATING COMPANY INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00588 (E.D. Cal., April 7, 2026) alleges that Defendant deploys interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used hilton.com and stories.hilton.com -- websites that Defendant provides for public access and use. During her use of the websites, the Plaintiff navigated several pages, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the content of her communications. The complaint alleges that the Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the website, including the page URLs identifying what she was browsing, search terms, page titles and content categories associated with those URLs, and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. "The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent," the suit alleges. The Plaintiff was in California when she visited the website, which occurred during the class period including but not limited to on March 2, 2026. Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and controls the website, an online platform through which Hilton offers hospitality services, hotel reservations, destination content, and loyalty program information to consumers across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Dixon Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Pods -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Dixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02172-GPC-BJW (S.D. Cal., April 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act arising from Keurig Dr Pepper's misrepresentations concerning its plastic single-serve coffee pods. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells plastic single-serve coffee pods nationwide in retail stores and online stores such as Amazon. However, the Defendant deceptively labels and advertises its K-Cup single-use beverage pods as "recyclable," despite the fact that a vast majority of consumers are unable to recycle K-Cup pods. The complaint alleges that 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. This deceptive marketing strategy allows Keurig to exploit consumer demand for environmentally responsible products. If Plaintiff had known that the products were not recyclable, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the products and would have instead sought out single-serve pods or other coffee products that are otherwise compostable, recyclable, or reusable. At a minimum, the Plaintiff would not have paid as much as he did if he had known the products could not be recycled, says the suit. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc. engages in the production and marketing of non-alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600-6051 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 550-4005 Facsimile: (619) 550-4006 E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com LAS VEGAS: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK MYERS, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00562-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Navarro entered an order denying as moot without prejudice and with leave to refile Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court further entered an order that the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response, is denied as moot. The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied as moot without prejudice and with leave to refile. The Court thus denies Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class as moot without prejudice and with leave to refile. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZKdxwk at no extra charge.[CC] MEDVI LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, E P Says ------------------------------------------------------- E.P., J.S., and M.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. MEDVI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03796 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action to enjoin Medvi's unlawful practices, to obtain damages and other relief for the invasion of privacy, and to require Medvi to disclose the full scope of its data sharing practices and the identities of all recipients of users' private information. The complaint relates that Medvi represents to users that their information is "never shared" and is "protected by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA")." In reality, Medvi secretly transmits users' information--including identifying information such as email addresses and details reflecting their participation in a medical intake process--to third parties, including Google, through embedded tracking technologies. It does so without users' knowledge or valid consent. Each time a user completes Medvi's intake process on its website, www.medvi.org, Medvi causes the user's browser to send information to Google-controlled advertising and analytics endpoints, including through Google's remarketing infrastructure. These transmissions occur contemporaneously with the user's interaction with the Website and include the full URL of pages visited--URLs that, as configured by Medvi, contain the user's email address in plaintext, along with information reflecting that the user has completed a medical intake process. As a result of Medvi's conduct, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information is intercepted, disclosed, and incorporated into Google's data systems, where it is used to build profiles, analyze behavior, and support targeted advertising and other commercial uses, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms and bring causes of action for (i) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (ii) invasion of privacy - public disclosure of private facts under California law; (iii) invasion of privacy - intrusion upon seclusion under California law; (iv) violation of California Constitution; (v) negligence under California law; (vi) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (vii) violation of California Penal Code; (ix) violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; (x) violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; and (xi) unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs E.P., J.S., and M.A. used Defendant's Website to receive telehealth services. Defendant MEDVi, LLC operates an online telehealth platform that invites users to provide sensitive personal and medical information in order to obtain healthcare services, including prescription weight-loss treatments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Wail Jihadi, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 200 Washington DC 20006 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 E-mail: wjihadi@peifferwolf.com METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Parking Suit for $8.75MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Metropolis Technologies Inc. agreed to an $8.75 million settlement with the Tennessee Attorney General's Office to resolve allegations it engaged in deceptive and misleading business practices related to its parking services. The Metropolis settlement benefits consumers who have Tennessee plates and parked for an individual parking session at Metropolis lots in Nashville, Knoxville or Memphis, as well as those who paid for parking at Metropolis-operated lots between July 1, 2021, and Jan. 6, 2026, and believed they were overcharged. Metropolis will notify eligible parkers via email. Metropolis is a California-based parking operator that uses license plate recognition and mobile technology to manage parking payments across thousands of locations nationwide. In Tennessee, the company operates numerous parking facilities, particularly in Nashville, Knoxville and Memphis. According to the Tennessee Attorney General, an investigation launched in October 2023 found that Metropolis allegedly misled consumers through unclear pricing, inadequate signage and misleading communications about parking fees and violation notices. The state also alleged that the company made it difficult for consumers to obtain refunds and failed to clearly disclose pricing and parking terms. Metropolis denies any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the allegations through an assurance of voluntary compliance and a court-approved settlement. Under the terms of the Metropolis parking settlement, Metropolis will provide $2.25 million in parking credits to eligible Tennessee drivers through the Tennessee Parking Program. Each eligible driver may receive up to two $15 parking credits for use at participating locations. In addition to the credits, Metropolis agreed to pay $6.5 million to the state, which may be used for consumer restitution, legal costs and administrative expenses. The Metropolis settlement also requires the company to implement business practice changes, including clearer signage, accurate rate disclosures, a 15-minute grace period at certain lots and improved refund procedures. The parking credits will remain available until the $2.25 million allocation is fully distributed. Who's Eligible Consumers who have Tennessee plates and parked for an individual parking session at Metropolis lots in Nashville, Knoxville or Memphis, as well as those who paid for parking at Metropolis-operated lots between July 1, 2021, and Jan. 6, 2026, and believed they were overcharged. Metropolis will notify eligible parkers via email. Potential Award Up to $30 in parking credits or a refund for past overcharges Proof of Purchase License plate number Claim Form Deadline N/A -- There is no claim form. The program will end once all available credits have been used. Case Name State of Tennessee ex rel. Jonathan Skrmetti v. Metropolis Technologies Inc., Case No. 26-0028-III, in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, for the 20th Judicial District at Nashville Final Hearing N/A Settlement Website Metropolis.IO/Tennessee Claims Administrator Office of the Tennessee Attorney General P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202-0207 Daniel.Lynch@ag.tn.gov Class Counsel Brian T. Phelps, Esq. Daniel Lynch, Esq. OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION Defense Counsel Jerry Kilgore, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR [GN] NESTLE USA: Hohl Files Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge ---------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA G. HOHL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00947 (E.D. Va., April 7, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendant from continuing to profit from its violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This lawsuit challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the Nestle USA NesCARE Plan in a manner that violates the ERISA and the implementing regulations. According to the complaint, Defendant imposes a discriminatory tobacco surcharge without making available, or notifying participants of, a reasonable alternative standard that provides those who satisfy it with the full reward that non-smokers receive, violating federal regulations and depriving employees of benefits to which they are entitled under ERISA. The Defendant's Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants in all Plan materials discussing the surcharge of all available avenues to avoid said surcharge. The Defendant also fails to disclose in all Plan materials discussing the surcharge (i) contact information for accessing the alternative standard, (ii) that participants have access to an alternative standard through which they may qualify for the full reward or (iii) that they have the right to a physician-directed alternative. In doing so, Defendant withholds critical information from participants needed to properly assess their rights and, in effect, shifts Plan costs onto employees based on a health factor without satisfying the requirements needed to take advantage of ERISA's safe harbor. The Defendant cannot qualify for the statutory safe harbor because, while it imposes a health-based surcharge, it does not comply with the requirements for lawful wellness program, notes the complaint. The Plan fails to satisfy the essential regulatory criteria, which "must be satisfied," for a wellness program to be lawful under ERISA, adds the suit. Plaintiff is a former employee of Nestle who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan for herself. Defendant Nestle USA, Inc. is a multinational food and beverage company that operates nationwide through numerous subsidiaries and affiliated entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: cwilliams@sirillp.com NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ KWIATKOWSKI, ASHLEE INSCOE, PUMPKIN SNUGGS, LULUBELL FRAZIER AND TREMAYNE IZZARD, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, and ARTHUR "LES" CAMPBELL, in his official capacity as Medical Director of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, and PHILIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and DESTIN C. HALL, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Case No. 3:26-cv-00098-SCR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them a 4-month extension, until Aug. 3, 2026, to respond to the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctive relief and class certification, and permitting the Defendants to take discovery in aid of those responses. Specifically, the Defendants request a 4-month extension of the response deadlines currently set for April 1, 2026, to August 3, 2026, and for leave to conduct limited discovery in aid of those responses in advance of the required Rule 26(f) conference, including permitting Defendants to issue Requests for Production and to take depositions of Plaintiffs and their expert. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposes this motion In this action, Plaintiffs are challenging a duly enacted statute of the North Carolina legislature, 2025 N.C. Sess. Laws 84 section 3.(a) (HB805), codified at N.C. GEN. STAT. section 143C-6 5.6(b1). Plaintiffs allege that the challenged law violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by generally prohibiting the use of state funds for hormonal and surgical gender transition procedures for prisoners incarcerated in North Carolina state prisons. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PAEsDI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeff Jackson, Esq. James A. Barnes IV, Esq. Tiffany Hoyd, Esq. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Telephone: (919) 716-6786 Facsimile: (919) 716-6761 E-mail: jabarnes@ncdoj.gov thoyd@ncdoj.gov - and – Nicole J. Moss, Esq. David H. Thompson, Esq. Peter A. Patterson, Esq. Clark Hildabrand, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: nmoss@cooperkirk.com dthompson@cooperkirk.com ppatterson@cooperkirk.com childabrand@cooperkirk.com PLANET FITNESS: Phillips Files Suit Over FCCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- KENDALYN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLANET FITNESS FRANCHISING LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-005730 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., April 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On November 13, 2025, the Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (a "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff by sending Plaintiff a collection communication. This Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family or household purposes. On November 14, 2025, the Plaintiff sent Defendant a stop request, requesting Defendant to contacting Plaintiff. Despite this, the Defendant sent another collection communication on December 3,2025, attempting to collect on the debt. In doing so, the Defendant willfully engaged in conduct which could reasonably be expected to abuse or harass Plaintiff. As such, by and through the Second Collection Communication, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff KENDALYN PHILLIPS is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. Defendant PLANET FITNESS FRANCHISING LLC operate fitness training facilities offering exercise machines and free weights, fitness training services, tanning services, related services and ancillary goods in in Hampton, New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com Zane@jibraellaw.com RISEBORO COMMUNITY: Martinez Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAZMINE MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. RISEBORO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02066 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2026) is a class action and a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action brought to remedy violations of federal and state wage-and-hour laws by Defendants. The Defendants (including all unknown defendants legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint) operate a domestic not-for profit corporation offering housing and social services (including senior services, health care, youth development, education, empowerment, community development, arts programming, skills training, homelessness prevention, and access to healthy food) in the New York City area at 90 Beaver Street, Brooklyn, New York 11206 and 535 Bushwick Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11206. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work without pay, including substantial overtime work. The Defendants' common practice of rounding the work time recorded by Plaintiff, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members has resulted in Plaintiff, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members being underpaid for their time worked. The complaint further alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have all been injured in that they have been uncompensated or under-compensated due to Defendants' common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct. Defendants' corporate-wide policies and practices affected all Class Members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each of the Class Members. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages on behalf of the Class Members and FLSA Collective Members pursuant to the New York Labor Law and FLSA. Plaintiff Jazmine Martinez was employed as a non-exempt worker by Defendants in New York from February 2025 to December 2025. Defendant RiseBoro Community Partnership, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for-profit corporation and an employer that employs and/or otherwise engages workers throughout the State of New York, including in the County of Kings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Breanna Small, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com b.small@calljustice.com STADIUM CASINO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Coleman Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CIERRA COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STADIUM CASINO RE, LLC; THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01396-GLR (D. Md., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly compensate non-exempt employees for hours worked. The complaint relates that the Defendants employ a payroll policy and practice of not compensating hourly-paid employees for the time spent donning and doffing uniforms and waiting in line and passing through the metal detectors each workday prior to the start of their shifts and after the conclusion of their shifts. This policy applies to all hourly-paid, non-exempt workers, regardless of the location where those employees work. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant does not pay workers for overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate. The Defendants' policies and practices result in non-exempt workers being denied wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, says the suit. Plaintiff Cierra Coleman was employed by Defendants as a Line Cook from August to November 2025. Defendants Stadium Casino Re, LLC and The Cordish Companies, Inc. are a legal entity that develops, owns, and manages casino hotels and entertainment destinations, primarily in Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Burnett, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 1050 30th St NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: dburnett@schneiderwallace.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Michelle S. Lim, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFINA DOE, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-SLH-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the Defendants requests to grant an extension of their time to file an answer and file an opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel by two weeks (14 days) until April 14, 2026. The Defendants submit this motion to extend their time to file an answer and file an opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel by two weeks (14 days) until April 14, 2026. This request is not made for the purpose of undue delay, and good cause exists for it as follows. On March 17, 2026, the Court adopted the report and recommendation and denied Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss in part and granted Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss in part. This is the first request for extension of Defendants' deadline to file an answer and oppose Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel since the Partial Motion to Dismiss was ruled on, ECF No 129. The request is made for good cause and not for purposes of improper delay, and an extension will not meaningfully delay resolution of this matter. Granting this extension will have no effect on any other previously set deadlines. 8. On March 27, 2027, Defendants emailed Plaintiffs' counsel Shira Wisotsky who indicated that Plaintiffs do not take a position on Defendants' extension request. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the US federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=caw85Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Mary Larakers, Esq. Daniel Schutrum-Boward, Esq. Julian Kurz, Esq. Laurie Wiesner, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-0885 E-mail: laurie.wiesner@usdoj.gov UPSTART HOLDINGS: Dunn Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY DUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC., DAVE GIROUARD, SANJAY DATTA, PAUL GU, and CHANTAL RAPPORT, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02974 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities between May 14, 2025 and November 4, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Model 22 frequently overreacted to negative macroeconomic signals in performing its risk-separation processes; (ii) accordingly, Model 22's overall accuracy and propensity to increase loan approval rates was overstated; (iii) Model 22's overly conservative assessment of credit and macroeconomic conditions was having a significant negative impact on Upstart's revenue results, rendering the Company's previously issued FY 2025 revenue guidance unreliable and/or unrealistic; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on November 4, 2025, when Upstart issued a press release reporting its financial results for the third quarter of 2025. Upstart reported, inter alia, Q3 2025 revenue of $277 million, missing its previously issued Q3 2025 revenue guidance of approximately $280 million, as well as consensus estimates by $2.62 million. The same day, during a related earnings call, the Defendants blamed Upstart's disappointing results on Model 22, which they revealed had "overreacted" to macroeconomic signals in the quarter, reducing borrower approvals and conversion rates, says the suit. Following these disclosures, Upstart's stock price fell $4.49 per share, or 9.71%, to close at $41.75 per share on November 5, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint. Upstart Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based artificial intelligence lending platform to improve access of credit while reducing the risk and costs of lending for bank partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com WALMART INC: Bauer Files Suit Over Mislabeled Milk Products ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA BAUER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., and WALMART APOLLO, LLC., Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01021-JLB-AAS (M.D. Fla., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making false and/or misleading representation of their Bettergoods Milk products. The complaints relates that the Defendants prominently and conspicuously marketed and sold the Products as "Plant-Based" by displaying the phrase "Plant-Based" in large font on each of the Products' front labels, as well as on the side of the packaging for each Product. The Defendants' prominent and conspicuous labeling deliberately led reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, to incorrectly believe that the Products are composed of only ingredients that come from plants. Despite Defendants' labeling, the Products contain several ingredients that do not come from plants, including Calcium Carbonate, Dipotassium Phosphate, and Vitamin A Palmitate. The Plaintiff and the Class purchased Defendants' deceptively-labeled Products on the reasonable, but mistaken belief that the Products only contained ingredients that come from plants. The Defendants' false representations amount to a breach of warranty, which violates Florida's Uniform Commercial Code; Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; Florida's prohibition against false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and sales; and are otherwise grounds for restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy Defendants' deceptive labeling, marketing, and selling of the Products. Plaintiff also seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a jury trial. Defendant Walmart, Inc. is a U.S. discount retailer based in Arkansas. Defendant, Walmart Apollo, LLC owns the intellectual property associated with the Product, including the Bettergoods brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A 3505 E. Frontage Rd., Suite 145 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: 813-321-2348 E-mail: BGeiger@seraphlegal.com Service@seraphlegal.com ZUMBA FITNESS: Reset of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE KUEPPERS; WATANYA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61983-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order resetting the class certification briefing schedule, so that the Parties will have sufficient time to complete relevant discovery before briefing the issue of class certification. The Parties jointly move for the Court to reset the Class Certification Briefing Schedule in order for the Parties to complete discovery, resetting the initial deadline for Plaintiffs to file any motion for class certification to July 30, 2026, resetting the response brief deadline to August 31, 2026, and resetting the reply brief deadline for Plaintiffs to September 21, 2026. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LY6cRc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-Mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry A. Postman, Esq. Matthew A. Green, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1019717 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 110 Tower, 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone (954) 703-3700 Facsimile (954) 703-3701 E-mail: barry.postman@csklegal.com matthew.green@csklegal.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***