260424.mbx

260424.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 24, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 82 Headlines ABSOLUTE CAREGIVERS: Elliott Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AIP LLC: Revere Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ALDEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Nursing Facilities' Understaffing AMAZON.COM INC: Srinivas Sues Over Systemic Discrimination AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ANNE ARUNDEL: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Suit for $2.4-Mil. ARTIS SENIOR LIVING: Wilcoxon FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. ASHIMARY INTERNATIONAL: Miniefield Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas AURORA, CO: Hassni Sues Over Hijab Policy in Pre-Detention Booking AYA HEALTHCARE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in O'Dell Suit Flipped BABCOCK & WILCOX: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 15 BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Birmingham Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BEEF JERKY OUTLET: Zangana Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania BEST BABY: Ford Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website BIG O TIRES: McPhee Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. BLACKSTONE VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $525,000 BON SECOURS COMMUNITY: Schlaugies Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri BURMA INC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAFENATED COFFEE: Matos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARSON OPERATING: Verdin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTURION INDUSTRIES: Dull Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CERNER CORPORATION: Ufko Sues Over Failure to Protect Data CHAMA GAUCHA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hussein Alleges CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Radiology Group Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHUBBY CATTLE BBQ: Vu Sues to recover Unlawfully Withheld Wages CITY OF NEWARK: Smallwood Sues Over Failure to Pay for Overtime COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Burge Files Motion to Merge Related Actions CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Hidalgo Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. CROCS INC: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages DANUBENET INC: Alcantar Files Suit in D. New Jersey DECORATIVE PAVING: Kramer Files Suit in S.D. Ohio EB5 AFFILIATE: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Broker-Dealer Deals ELEEO BRANDS: Faces False Ad Class Suit Over Dapple Baby Products ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ERIC GERARD REALTY: Rush Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kontodiakos Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia FABLETICS INC: Singh Suit Removed to N.D. California FCA US LLC: Tanner Suit Removed to E.D. California FCA US: Tanner Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. FEDEX CORPORATION: Weinberg Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee FIRE APPARATUS: Chelsea Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin FIRE APPARATUS: Roseland Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin FREIGHT BREAKERS: Wilbon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FRONTIER DOOR & CABINET: Carlson Sues Over Unpaid Wages FUJI EASTGATE INC: Stephens Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages GAP INC: Bell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Respond on 401(k) Suit Rehearing by April 27 GIVAUDAN ROURE: Velasco Suit Removed to D. New Jersey GREATER BETTER: Discloses Patients' Private Info to Meta, Doe Says GREEN CIRCLE: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims GRUBBS INFINITI: Smith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Moore Suit Removed to E.D. California HIGHTOWER HOLDING: Manaker Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info INFINITE CAMPUS INC: Carver Files Suit in D. Minnesota INTEL CORPORATION: Loy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INTER-CON SECURITY: Quach Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation INTERCARE HOLDINGS: Conway Suit Removed to E.D. California IQVIA HOLDINGS INC: Rose Suit Removed to E.D. California J.B. HUNT: Watson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. J.R. SIMPLOT: Westbrook Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. JEWELERS MUTUAL INSURANCE: Lynch Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin JJA PARTNERS HOLDCO: Wright Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JONATHAN ADLER: Johnston Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California JSET AUTOMATED: Layne Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation KOCH AG: Long Branch Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme LAMPERT'S GARAGE: Provides Deficient Towing Services, Files Says LINKEDIN CORP: Ganan Sues for Invasion of Privacy LOUISIANA FISH: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Suit Says MAC TRAILER: Gibson Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations MACERICH COMPANY: Pruitt Files Civil Suit in Calif. State Court MANCHEGO TAPAS BAR: Urdaneta Sues Over Unpaid Wages MEAD JOHNSON: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud MEMORIAL HEART: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3.75MM METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Eagan Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Suit Filed in Minn. Judicial Ct. MMD INC: Faces Munoz Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts MONSANTO COMPANY: Willis Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSON LAW: MMA Seeks Relief From Racketeering Activity in Texas MUBI INC: Agrees to Settle Auto Renewals Class Suit for $1.6-Mil. NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: Tautges Files Suit in W.D. Washington NEXT MARVEL: Rushefsky Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NORCO INDUSTRIES INC: Amarillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NOVADORE USA: Echols Sues Over Website's Equal Access to the Blind O'FALLON AUTOMOTIVE: Hillow Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ODIDO CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Massive Data Leak OLYMPIC STEEL: Elliott Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ONE TWO THAI: Bautista Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PERDUE FOODS: Court Orders ESI Sampling, Extends Discovery POSH GROUP INC: Ona Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida POSH GROUP INC: Pedraza Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida POSH GROUP: $1.2MM Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval POST ACUTE: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Leglise Says PRATT INDUSTRIES: Arencibia Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Class Cert. in Valuation Method Suit Denied PROXYCARE INC: Meeks Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info QUALITY BILLING SERVICE: Butler Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. QUALITY BILLING SERVICE: Prout Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. QUELL PEST CONTROL: Bird Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona RAVITSKY BROS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Frost Says RELX GROUP PLC: Wanna Files Suit in Minn. Judicial Ct. RENTOKIL NORTH: Underpays Pest Control Technicians, Forslin Says REVELYST ADVENTURE SPORTS: Tupper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RIZZI GERIATRIC: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ROAM LUGGAGE: Henderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SACRAMENTO DOWNTOWN: Hampton Suit Removed to E.D. California SAM'S WEST: Laplante Files Suit Over Illegal e-mail Campaigns SCOUT DISCOVERIES: Seaman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages SECURE HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach SERENE GARDENS: Beasley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SIMPLENURSING LLC: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Benson" Suit SLIDERS RESTAURANT: Order Striking Vasquez Class Complaint Affirmed STARSHIP LLC: Greer Suit Removed to N.D. California STOCKSTOTRADE.COM: McKaughan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California SUZYQUILTS LIMITED: Faces Ford Suit Over Website's Access Barriers SUZYQUILTS LIMITED: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination TAPESTRY INC: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Reference Prices TARGET CORP: Court Reverses Dismissal of Bed Sheet Class Action TILLAMOOK CREAMERY: Ore. App. Flips Dismissal of Bohr Class Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Seat Rails TRUITT AND WHITE LUMBER: Maya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNION PACIFIC: 7th Cir. Flips 2024 BIPA Sec 20 Amendments Ruling UNITED HEALTH GROUP: Anesis Center Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: CEPD Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: FRMC Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: KidStuff Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: TMC Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota VAIL RESORTS: 2,000 Ski Instructors Join Suit Over Unpaid Wages VALVE CORP: Order Disqualifying Arbitrator in Beer Suit Affirmed VAST INC: Morales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VERANO HOLDINGS: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois VIBRA HEALTHCARE: Strange Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime W.W. GRAINGER: Jackson Suit Transferred to N.D. California WAN CHANG INC: Brinez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. WANDERING BEAR INC: Nichol Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York WARNER BROS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WGW SALES: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Henderson Claims ZILLOW GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Plans New Filing to Resolve Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Seeks Court Declaration Over Legal Costs ********* ABSOLUTE CAREGIVERS: Elliott Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABSOLUTE CAREGIVERS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00710-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., April 10, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages. The Defendant failed to pay Elliott and other non-exempt employees at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA on behalf of himself and the proposed FLSA collective, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective are or were employed by Absolute Caregivers as caregivers. Absolute Caregivers provides caregiver services for its clients' basic needs, including assistance with clients' daily living activities and needs as well as nursing and hospice-type services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Hicks, Esq. HICKS SWANSON 429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 402 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800 Phone: (317)741-4835 Email: rhicks@maceylaw.com AIP LLC: Revere Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as City of Revere, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIP LLC doing business as American Industrial Partners, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-13462 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00572-WCG the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. American Industrial Partners -- https://americanindustrial.com/ -- is an American private equity partnership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California St., Ste. 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 - and - Christian F. Uehlein, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 84 State St., 4th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 720-1333 - and - Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW P.C. One Old Country Road, Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. David Seidel, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM LLP 550 California St-Ste 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP Ste 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 The Defendant is represented by: Edward William Duffy, Esq. Paul Christopher Cuomo, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 700 K St NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (707) 628-0439 Email: ed.duffy@bakerbotts.com paul.cuomo@bakerbotts.com - and - Daniel V. McCaughey, Esq. ROPES & GRAY - MA Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 Phone: (617) 951-7681 Fax: (617) 235-9507 Email: Daniel.McCaughey@ropesgray.com - and - Jane E. Willis, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 Phone: (617) 596-9000 Email: jane.willis@ropesgray.com - and - Kathryn E. Caldwell, Esq. ROPES & GRAY - MA Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 Phone: (617) 951-7335 ALDEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Nursing Facilities' Understaffing -------------------------------------------------------------- Zahida Siddiqi, writing for Skilled Nursing News, reports that Alden Group, an Illinois-based nursing home operator, will face a proposed class-action lawsuit over alleged understaffing at its facilities after a county court ruled the case can proceed. The lawsuit, led by the AARP Foundation and supported by legal and disability-rights advocates, alleges that Alden facilities were chronically understaffed and sometimes operating at about half the legally required staffing levels. The company allegedly concealed this by reporting "ghost" workers and submitting inaccurate data to regulators, it further states. The complaint also accuses Alden of using admission agreements designed to limit residents' ability to sue over harm caused by understaffing. For its part, Alden denied the allegations, citing its long history of care and commitment to quality on its website. Skilled Nursing News reached out to Alden for a comment, but did not receive one by publication time. Six facilities in the Chicago area are specifically named in the suit. The original plaintiffs argue that they paid most of their income for care but received substandard treatment due to insufficient staffing. The lawsuit names Alden Group and Alden Management Services, and the Chicago Tribune reports that about ten residents have formally joined the case so far, all listed anonymously. A Cook County judge found the residents' claims credible enough to investigate, his decision advancing the case into the discovery phase, where Alden must provide internal records on staffing, contracts, and operations. If the claims are proven, the court indicated there is a valid legal basis for the lawsuit, which could potentially include thousands of current and former residents. Associate Judge Myron Mackoff wrote that if the claims are true, residents have a sound legal basis to proceed, the Tribune story noted. As the case now enters the discovery phase process, which could last a year or longer and may lead to settlement talks, residents' lawyers could seek internal staffing schedules, timecards, incident reports and communications that they say would reveal gaps between what Alden reported and the care residents actually received. Plaintiffs argue that understaffing led to preventable injuries, poor hygiene and increased health risks. The case will also test legal issues under Illinois law, including whether contractual clauses limiting residents' right to sue are enforceable. The outcome will depend in part on whether the court formally certifies the case as a class action and how much access plaintiffs are granted to Alden's internal records. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Srinivas Sues Over Systemic Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Gayatri Srinivas and Amy Cisneroz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.com, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01199 (W.D. Wash., April 8, 2026), is brought under the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA") against Defendant Amazon to challenge its systemic discrimination against its female employees, asserting these claims on behalf of themselves and a class of female employees who experienced systemic discrimination by Defendant. Throughout the period covered by this case and throughout its corporate workforce in Washington, Amazon has systematically paid women less than men performing substantially similar work and has limited women's employment opportunities on the basis of gender. Amazon accomplishes this unlawful discrimination by assigning women to lower paying jobs and paying women less for the same jobs, despite similar qualifications and tenure. Amazon has developed a comprehensive, corporate-wide job classification system, reflected in its Leveling Guidelines, to define job roles and structure its job architecture for its corporate employees. Amazon's practice of paying women less than men doing substantiall similar work is systematic, consistent, and pervasive throughout its corporate workforce. The conduct complained of herein is referred to collectively as Amazon's "Compensation Practices." Amazon's Compensation Practices are the result of policies and practices. The Plaintiffs allege, on a class-wide basis, that Amazon has discriminated against them and all Washington Class Members by paying them less than comparable men and limiting their and similarly situated women's career advancement opportunities on the basis of gender, in violation of the laws of Washington, specifically, the EPOA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are women who worked for Amazon. Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in King County, Washington, and doing business throughout Washington State and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 682-6711 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Hannah C. Meropol, Esq. Sophia Jane Balkoski, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 638-8800 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com hmeropol@outtengolden.com jbalkoski@outtengolden.com - and - Adam T. Klein, Esq. Cara E. Greene, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Zarka D. Souza, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 3rd Ave 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-0675 Email: aklein@outtengolden.com cgreene@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com zdsouza@outtengolden.com - and - Jenny Yang, Esq. Jennifer Davidson, Esq. Jon Ostrowsky, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Ave NW, Suite 1200B Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 918-5476 Email: jyang@outtengolden.com jdavison@outtengolden.com jostrowsky@outtengolden.com - and - Noreen Farrell, Esq. Catherine Bendor, Esq. Cassidy Clark, Esq. EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 611 Mission St, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Mailing: 150 Sutter St, P.O. Box #87 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 471-1470 Email: nfarrell@equalrights.org cbendor@equalrights.org cclark@equalrights.org AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a former Ameriprise Financial client is suing the financial services company. Why: The plaintiff claims Ameriprise failed to properly secure and safeguard the personal information of herself and other clients. Where: The Ameriprise class action lawsuit was filed in Minnesota federal court. Ameriprise Financial is facing a class lawsuit alleging it failed to properly secure and safeguard the personal information of its clients from hackers. Plaintiff Betty Lackey claims Ameriprise failed to protect her and other clients' personally identifiable information (PII) from a data breach by the ShinyHunters ransomware group that allegedly occurred in March. Lackey argues Ameriprise has yet to notify victims of the data breach that their PII -- including names, addresses, dates of birth, account information, payment card information, authentication information, financial transaction information, contact information and Social Security numbers -- was compromised and that they are at a significant risk of identity theft. "Most, if not all, class members have no idea that their private information had been compromised, and that they continue to be at a significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social and financial harm," the Ameriprise class action lawsuit says. Ameriprise allegedly failed to adequately enhance data security practices Lackey claims Ameriprise failed to adequately enhance its data security practices to avoid a potential breach despite being aware that companies in the financial industry were susceptible targets. "Ameriprise knew or should have known that its electronic records would be targeted by cybercriminals," the Ameriprise class action lawsuit says. Lackey wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who had their PII impacted as a result of the data breach. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In 2024, Ameriprise was sued over allegations it breached its fiduciary duty by recommending retail and investment customers hold funds in "cash sweep accounts" that benefit the bank rather than its customers. The plaintiff is represented by Bryan L. Bleichner and Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne P.A. and Tyler J. Bean and Tanner R. Hilton of Siri & Glimstad LLP. The Ameriprise data breach class action lawsuit is Lackey v. Ameriprise Financial Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02128, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. [GN] ANNE ARUNDEL: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Suit for $2.4-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Anne Arundel Dermatology has agreed to a $2,400,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the practice failed to protect confidential patient information from a data breach that began in February 2025. The $2.4 million Anne Arundel Dermatology class action settlement received preliminary court approval on February 26, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents who provided sensitive information, e.g., personally identifiable and/or protected health information, to the dermatology provider, or about whom Anne Arundel Dermatology otherwise collected or received personal information, on or before December 9, 2025. The court-approved website for the Anne Arundel Dermatology data breach settlement can be found at AnneArundelPrivacySettlement.com. Per the website, more than 1.9 million people are covered by the Anne Arundel settlement. According to the settlement agreement, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses arising from the data breach. The website says that the losses must have been incurred between February 14, 2025 and July 8, 2026. This settlement benefit is meant to cover losses related to fraud or identity theft and expenses for credit reports and credit monitoring, attorney or accountant fees, bank charges, and more. The agreement states that class members must submit third-party documentation, such as receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead submit a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment, estimated to be $100. There is no proof required to claim this benefit. Court documents state that the final amount of the alternative cash payout may be reduced on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Finally, all class members may submit a claim form to receive an enrollment code for three free years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes identity theft insurance and access to fraud resolution agents. To submit an Anne Arundel Dermatology settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the settlement claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Anne Arundel Dermatology settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than July 8, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Anne Arundel settlement following a hearing on July 16, 2026. Compensation will be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Anne Arundel Dermatology class action lawsuit alleged that the network of dermatology clinics, which has over 60 locations throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, negligently failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect patients’ private health information, leading to a data breach between February 14, 2025 and May 13, 2025. Per the filing, confidential information that may have been compromised in the Anne Arundel Dermatology data breach included names, addresses, dates of birth, patient ID numbers, medical record numbers, health history, and insurance information. [GN] ARTIS SENIOR LIVING: Wilcoxon FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Wilcoxon, individually and for others similarly situated v. Artis Senior Living, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00190 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03915 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Artis Senior Living -- https://artisseniorliving.com/ -- is a leading developer-owner-operator of memory care and assisted living communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris Dewey Butler, III, Esq. Samantha Galina, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD PLLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 648-6814 Email: harris@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com - and - Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. Olivia R. Beale, Esq. ANDREW DUNLAP 5847 San Felipe Street, Ste. 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com obeale@mybackwages.com - and - Zev Hillel Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: zev@butlercurwood.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew H. Sorensen, Esq. Amelia Anne Gilmer, Esq. Morgan P. Fryar, Esq. CAMERON INGERSOLL ROCHE PLLC 4100 Monument Corner Drive, Ste. 420 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 460-9342 Fax: (703) 273-8897 Email: msorensen@cirlaw.com agilmer@cirlaw.com mfryar@cirlaw.com ASHIMARY INTERNATIONAL: Miniefield Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashimary International Trading LLC. The case is styled as Lakeisha Miniefield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashimary International Trading LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01146-E (N.D. Tex., April 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ashimary International Trading LLC -- https://www.ashimaryhair.com/ -- is a New York-based online retailer specializing in human hair wigs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com AURORA, CO: Hassni Sues Over Hijab Policy in Pre-Detention Booking ------------------------------------------------------------------ KHADIJA EL HASSNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF AURORA; TODD CHAMBERLAIN, in his official and individual capacity as Chief of the Aurora Police Department; JOHN and JANE DOE Officers and Detention Staff 1–10; in their individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01498 (D. Colo., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Colorado Constitution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case arises from the Defendants' policy, practice, and custom of requiring Muslim women who wear the hijab, a religious head-covering, to remove it for pre-arraignment booking photographs at the City of Aurora's detention facility in Colorado. According to the complaint, Aurora enforces this policy without accommodation, without regard to religious belief, and without any legitimate penological or public safety need. As a result of the Defendants' policies and practices, the Plaintiff and Class members were forced by officers to remove their hijab during booking, causing humiliation, religious injury, emotional distress, and loss of dignity, says the suit. City of Aurora is a municipal government in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Azra Taslimi, Esq. Matt Cron, Esq. RATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC 2701 Lawrence St., Suite 100 Denver, CO 80205 Telephone: (303) 578-4400 Facsimile: (303) 578-4401 Email: at@rmlawyers.com mc@rmlawyers.com AYA HEALTHCARE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in O'Dell Suit Flipped ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURA O'DELL; HOLLY ZIMMERMAN; LAUREN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-1528 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Aya's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Aya offers work to traveling nurses by pairing them with hospitals. The nurses and other supporting clinicians are employed by Aya, and as a condition of employment, they each sign an agreement with Aya to resolve any employment-related disputes by arbitration rather than in court. In the event a dispute arises over the validity of the arbitration agreement itself, a "delegation clause" in the arbitration agreement provides that an arbitrator (rather than a court) will decide whether the arbitration agreement is valid. More than three years ago, four former employees of Aya (Laura O'Dell, Holly Zimmerman, Lauren Miller, and Hannah Bailey) brought a putative class action against Aya for allegedly reducing their pay mid-contract, asserting breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, state wage-and-hour violations, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Aya moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted Aya's motion. Aya proceeded to arbitrate with each of the Plaintiffs in four separate arbitrations. Because the Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the arbitration agreements, each of the four arbitrators decided, pursuant to the delegation clause in each agreement, whether the arbitration agreements were valid. The results came back mixed: two of the arbitrators found that the agreements were valid, but the other two arbitrators found that the agreements were invalid. The parties moved the district court to confirm their respective arbitral awards; the district court confirmed three of the four awards, concluding that the fourth award, which upheld the arbitration agreement, could not be confirmed because Aya apparently failed to pay arbitration fees. By this point, 255 additional plaintiffs had opted-in to the case pursuant to a collective-action procedure available under the FLSA. Aya moved to compel each of those plaintiffs to arbitrate, pursuant to the delegation clause in each of their arbitration agreements. But rather than send these cases to arbitration. After receiving briefing on that issue, the district court denied Aya's motion to compel arbitration. In denying the motion, the district court applied the doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of the arbitration agreements. Aya appealed. The case asked whether the application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of arbitration agreements is compatible with the Federal Arbitration Act. The Ninth Circuit opined held it is not. It held that the district court's approach was erroneous. A hallmark of the FAA is the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the resolution of disputes in individualized, one-on-one proceedings. Doing away with such bilateral proceedings between mutually consenting parties, because other arbitrators in other proceedings involving other parties have already decided the issue, is anathema to the FAA. The district court's ruling effectively transformed the parties' individualized proceedings into a bellwether-type class action proceeding to which the parties never agreed. The FAA prohibits that transformation. In short, the Ninth Circuit held that the FAA does not permit the application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel that would result in the effective invalidation of arbitration agreements. Therefore, it reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/FnbeXZNlR. Yasmin Zainulbhai (argued) -- zainulbhai@stuevesiegel.com -- Alexander T. Ricke -- ricke@stuevesiegel.com -- George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- and J. Austin Moore -- moore@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Kansas City, Missouri; Jason S. Hartley -- hartley@hartleyllp.com -- Hartley LLP, San Diego, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Paul W. Hughes III (argued) -- phughes@mcdermottlaw.com -- Sarah P. Hogarth -- shogarth@mcdermottlaw.com -- Grace Wallack, and Mary H. Schnoor -- mschnoor@mcdermottlaw.com -- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kendra S. Canape, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Irvine, California; Kevin Allen, Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP, Los Gatos, California; Paul Gamboa and Julia L. Koechley, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Chicago, Illinois; for Defendant-Appellant. Archis A. Parasharami -- archis.parasharami@skadden.com -- Daniel E. Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- and Carmen Longoria-Green -- clongoriagreen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan D. Urick and Kevin R. Palmer, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. BABCOCK & WILCOX: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. ("B&W") (NYSE: BW) between November 5, 2025 and March 11, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased B&W securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the B&W class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=60146 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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. 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. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) B&W's largest shareholder, BRC Group Holdings, Inc. ("BRC"), stood on both sides of the Power Generation Contract and had close ties to B&W's counterparty; (2) Applied Digital did not need the products and services that B&W would purportedly supply pursuant to the Power Generation LNTP and Contract; (3) 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 B&W is likely to recognize revenues from these agreements; (4) accordingly, the business and financial prospects of B&W were overstated; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the B&W class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=60146 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. [GN] BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Birmingham Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bassett Healthcare Network. The case is styled as Kristi Joleen Birmingham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bassett Healthcare Network, Case No. EF2026-331 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Otsego Cty., April 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). Bassett Healthcare Network -- https://www.bassett.org/ -- provide care & services to people living in a rural eight-county region covering 5,600 square miles in upstate New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com BEEF JERKY OUTLET: Zangana Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Beef Jerky Outlet Franchise, Inc. The case is styled as Derya Zangana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Beef Jerky Outlet Franchise, Inc. doing business as: Beef Jerky Experience, Case No. 1:26-cv-00923-KMN (M.D. Pa., April 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Beef Jerky Outlet Franchise, Inc. (now often branded as Beef Jerky Experience) -- https://beefjerkyx.com/ -- is a specialty retailer founded in 2010 that franchises stores focused on a wide variety of high-quality, USDA-approved jerky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com BEST BABY: Ford Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BABY INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03887 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://gunamuna.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Best Baby Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BIG O TIRES: McPhee Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case CHRIS MCPHEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIG O TIRES, LLC, Case No. 26CV167631, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03023-SK to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Constitution. Big O Tires, LLC is a tire and auto service shop headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Terence N. Hawley, Esq. Quynh La, Esq. Christopher M. Maldonado, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 Facsimile: (415) 391-8269 Email: thawley@reedsmith.com qla@reedsmith.com cmaldonado@reedsmith.com BLACKSTONE VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $525,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Blackstone Valley Community Health Care (BVCHC) has agreed to a settlement of up to $525,000 to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the medical provider failed to protect sensitive information on its systems from a November 2023 cyberattack. The Blackstone Valley Community Health Care class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 3, 2026. The deal covers all individuals whose private information was potentially compromised in the November 2023 data breach, including anyone to whom Blackstone Valley Community Health Care sent an individual notification letter regarding the incident. Court documents state that approximately 34,000 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Blackstone Valley Community Health Care (BVCHC) data breach settlement can be found at BlackstoneValleySettlement.com. According to the website, BVCHC settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $250 for "ordinary" out-of-pocket losses incurred because of the data breach. This benefit covers fees paid for credit reports, credit monitoring and freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement ID costs, and postage to contact banks by mail. The settlement agreement states that class members must provide third-party documentation, such as receipts, to receive an ordinary-loss payment. Class members who incurred "extraordinary" losses due to the BVCHC data breach can receive up to $2,500. Per the settlement agreement, this benefit covers losses related to fraud or identity theft that were not covered under the "ordinary" loss option. The settlement website says that documentation, such as receipts, must be included with a claim form in order to receive an extraordinary-loss payment. "Ordinary" and "extraordinary" losses stemming from the Blackstone Valley Community Health Care data breach must have been incurred between November 11, 2023 and June 1, 2026, the settlement website says. Class members can also file a claim form to receive compensation for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $20 per hour. According to the settlement agreement, this benefit covers time spent changing passwords, monitoring account activity, researching the breach, creating fraud alerts or requesting a credit freeze. The settlement agreement states that class members may not receive compensation for any monetary losses, including lost time, that another source has already reimbursed. In addition to monetary benefits, all settlement class members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for three years of CyEx Identity Defense Total, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web scanning, public records monitoring and identity theft insurance. To file a BVCHC data breach settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login 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 BVCHC settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 1, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Blackstone Valley Community Health Care settlement following a hearing on June 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Blackstone Valley Community Health Care class action lawsuit claimed that the Rhode Island-based multispecialty healthcare center failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information stored on its systems, which led to a targeted cyberattack discovered on or around November 11, 2023. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised during the data breach included names and Social Security numbers. [GN] BON SECOURS COMMUNITY: Schlaugies Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephen Schlaugies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bon Secours Community Hospital, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Anthony Community Hospital, Case No. 7:26-cv-02127 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00302-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Bon Secours Community Hospital is a hospital in Port Jervis, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Anne Scully, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., Ste. 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 861-1698 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com - and - Jessica Huse Fernandez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Phone: (212) 589-4604 Email: jfernandez@bakerlaw.com BURMA INC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burma Inc., et al. The case is styled as Luis Torres, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Burma Inc., Burma Love Foods Company, Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC26635720 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Burma Inc. -- https://www.burmainc.com/ -- is a management company that oversees the Burma Superstar family of restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica An, Esq. SELIGSON LAW P.C. 2219 Main St., Suite 710 Santa Monica, CA 90405-2217 Phone: 213-293-6692 Email: ken@seligsonlaw.com CAFENATED COFFEE: Matos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cafenated Coffee Company. The case is styled as Mila Matos, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Cafenated Coffee Company, Case No. 26CV181271 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Cafenated -- https://www.cafenated.co/ -- is a farm-to-cup coffee roasting company that sources green beans directly from well-established women's coffee farm cooperatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ken Seligson, Esq. SELIGSON LAW P.C. 2219 Main St., Suite 710 Santa Monica, CA 90405-2217 Phone: 213-293-6692 Email: ken@seligsonlaw.com CARSON OPERATING: Verdin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Operating Company, LLC. The case is styled as Reyna Verdin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Carson Operating Company, LLC, Case No. 26STCV11685 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Carson Companies -- https://www.carsoncompanies.com/ -- is a leading investor, owner, operator, and developer of industrial properties in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CENTURION INDUSTRIES: Dull Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Dull, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CENTURION INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a A-LERT BUILDING SYSTEMS, d/b/a A LERT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, d/b/a A-LERT ROOF SYSTEMS, d/b/a TFC CANOPY, Case No. 1:26-cv-00172 (N.D. Ind., April 10, 2026), is brought challenging certain policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant had a policy and practice of deducting, or causing to be deducted, 30-minute unpaid meal breaks from employees' time worked, including from the Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to accurately record and compensate the Plaintiff for all time worked, including time worked during missed and/or interrupted unpaid meal breaks. The Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s) for Defendant. Therefore, Defendant failed to pay The Plaintiff for all wages they actually earned, including overtime pay. As a result of Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice, the Defendant knew or had reason to know that it was not compensating the Plaintiff for all wages that they actually earned, including overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from September 18, 2025, until February 12, 2026, as an hourly, non-exempt production employee. The Defendant is a multi-divisional corporation that provides metal fabrication and industrial construction services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com CERNER CORPORATION: Ufko Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Terri Ufko, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, ADVENTHEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, INC. F/K/A SHOREPOINT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., and ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00304-SRB (W.D. Mo., April 9, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. Oracle Health, formerly Cerner Corporation, is the second-largest electronic health record ("EHR") vendor in the United States, holding about 22% of the U.S. EHR industry. Oracle Health should have industry-leading data security systems in place. Oracle Health acknowledges that it "has been trusted with some of the world's most sensitive and regulated data" and understands that it has a legal duty to safeguard that data from unauthorized access and disclosure. But Oracle Health failed to meet its duty, leading to a massive data breach in January 2025 that compromised the extremely sensitive financial and medical information entrusted to it by patients and their healthcare providers (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "Private Information"--about their current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received care from ShorePoint Health before the Data Breach. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health is an electronic medical record vendor with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Phone: (816) 714-7112 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 Email: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CHAMA GAUCHA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hussein Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAMA GAUCHA BRAZILIAN STEAKHOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03933 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://chamagaucha.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Chama Gaucha Brazilian Steakhouse, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Radiology Group Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Radiology Group of Paducah, PSC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC, Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00081 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02167-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Change Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare technology company that provides revenue cycle management and payment processing services for healthcare providers and insurers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig D Dillard, Esq. Jason P. Sharp, Esq. Kiara C. Gradney, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (346) 646-3589 Fax: (346) 241-3758 Email: craig.dillard@nelsonmullins.com jason.sharp@nelsonmullins.com kiara.gradney@nelsonmullins.com - and - Owen Reynolds, Esq. Shaina D. Massie, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP- HUNTINGTON 949 Third Avenue, Suite 200 Huntington, WV 25701 Phone: (304) 526-3513 Fax: (304) 526-3599 Email: owen.reynolds@nelsonmullins.com shaina.massie@nelsonmullins.com The Defendant is represented by: Thad M. Barnes, Esq. STITES & HARBISON, PLLC - LOUISVILLE 400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202-3352 Phone: (502) 587-3400 Fax: (502) 587-6391 Email: tbarnes@stites.com CHUBBY CATTLE BBQ: Vu Sues to recover Unlawfully Withheld Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Vu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHUBBY CATTLE BBQ DULUTH, LLC, CHUBBY CATTLE JAPANESE BBQ, LLC, and CHUBBY GROUP, Case No. 1:26-cv-01962-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 10, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unlawfully withheld wages and tips on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated servers and tipped employees employed by Defendants. Beginning May 2025 and continuing through the present, the Defendants operated an illegal tip pool that required servers to record and turn over their cash tips to management, which were then purportedly distributed, in part, to back-of-house ("BOH") kitchen staff. In fact, Defendants did not distribute the designated tip amounts to BOH workers--who were paid fixed salaries and received none of the servers' tip contributions--and instead retained those funds for themselves and for salaried, exempt managers. Persons who are employers, managers, or supervisors are expressly prohibited from participating in a tip pool under the FLSA. As a direct result of this unlawful practice, Plaintiff and similarly situated tipped employees were deprived of substantial tip income to which they were lawfully entitled, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an hourly tipped employee of Defendants, working as a server. Chubby Cattle BBQ Duluth, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company doing business as restaurant Chubby Cattle BBQ Duluth located in Duluth, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: 404.876.8100 Fax: 404.876.3477 Email: chall@hallandlampros.com CITY OF NEWARK: Smallwood Sues Over Failure to Pay for Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- William Smallwood and Jarrod Fluker, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEWARK, Case No. 2:26-cv-03734 (D.N.J., April 9, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), seeking backpay, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief whereby Defendant has failed to pay them for overtime work in a timely manner, or at all. Because Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees are scheduled to work a regular schedule of at least 40 hours per week, all additional work hours are necessarily overtime hours and must be paid at an overtime rate of time and one-half their regular rate. The Defendant often fails to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees time-and-one half their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, as required by the FLSA and NJWHL. The Defendant has a practice of shifting overtime hours for timekeeping and payroll purposes from the week in which the overtime is worked into other weeks where Plaintiffs and those similarly situated work less than 40 hours, such as a holiday week. Defendant does so in an effort to avoid paying time and one-half the regular rate for overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA and NJWHL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant, the City of Newark, New Jersey, who work or have worked in non-managerial positions. The Defendant Newark, New Jersey is a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diana J. Nobile, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Callie E. Dydo, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Email: djn@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com ced@mselaborlaw.com - and - Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Flr New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 765-2100 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Burge Files Motion to Merge Related Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action captioned as Burge, et al. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-18908, has been filed a motion on March 17, 2026 to move the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for an Order transferring and centralizing all Related Actions to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. According to the motion, the transfer and centralization are appropriate because the Related Actions arise out of the same data security incident involving software developed by the Defendants. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is a multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company, headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Hidalgo Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case RODOLFO HIDALGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU003253C, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02219-JO-SBC to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC is a support management and consulting services provider based in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. David H. Danning, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 3646 Long Beach Boulevard, Suite 203 Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 Email: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com ddanning@gleasonfavarote.com CROCS INC: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- YESEMITH GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. CROCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-22484-DSL (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2026) arises out of Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communications Commission regulations. The complaint relates that to promote its goods and services, Defendant transmitted unsolicited marketing text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers, including messages initiated before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with prior express invitation or permission, whether written or otherwise, to send telemarketing or solicitation text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the TCPA, and actual damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, arising from Defendant's unlawful telemarketing practices, which intruded upon Plaintiff's and the Class members' privacy and quiet enjoyment of their telephones. Plaintiff YESEMITH GONZALEZ is the regular user of the telephone number that received the solicitations. Defendant CROCS, INC. sells innovative casual footwear for men, women and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Varona, Esq. PLG Damage Attorneys 2750 SW 145th Ave Miramar, FL 33027 Telephone: 305-506-4746 E-mail: jv@plglawyersfl.com DANUBENET INC: Alcantar Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Danubenet, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Priscilla Alcantar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Danubenet, Inc. doing business as: Driving School Solutions; Automobile Club of Southern California, Case No. 3:26-cv-03718-GC-TJB (D.N.J., April 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. DanubeNet -- https://www.danubenet.com/ -- provides web based applications to small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 50 Main Street, Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com DECORATIVE PAVING: Kramer Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Decorative Paving Company, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Kramer, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Decorative Paving Company, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00364-JPH (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Decorative Paving Company -- https://www.decorativepaving.com/ -- offers the nation's finest, most thorough installation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick G. Warner, Esq. WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING 4635 Trueman Blvd., Suite 100 Hilliard, OH 43026 Phone: (614) 586-7900 Fax: (614) 586-7901 Email: pwarner@pwarnerlaw.com EB5 AFFILIATE: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Broker-Dealer Deals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for Investment News, reports that EB-5 investors are suing EB5 Affiliate Network, alleging it acted as an unregistered broker-dealer while marketing Montessori school fund investments that collapsed. The class action, filed April 16 in U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Saurabh et al. v. EB5 Affiliate Network, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01228), levels seven counts against the firm, including securities fraud, unlawful broker-dealer activity, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent inducement. Four foreign-national investors say they each wired $500,000 between February and March 2022 for interests in Higher Ground Education's Montessori school funds. The investments were pitched as direct EB-5 opportunities during a window when the federal Regional Center program had lapsed -- meaning only direct jobs counted toward the immigration requirement of ten full-time U.S. positions per investor. According to the filing, EB5AN went well beyond routine fund administration. The investors allege the firm actively solicited them, advised on suitability, processed subscription agreements, directed wire transfers to escrow accounts at Signature Bank, and collected transaction-based compensation and unit interests -- all without SEC registration or FINRA membership. That conduct, the suit argues, amounts to textbook broker-dealer activity requiring registration under the Exchange Act. EB5AN allegedly circulated business plans projecting roughly 145 full-time jobs by Year 4 across a six-school plan spanning Illinois, Washington, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Florida -- about 13.2 jobs per investor, comfortably above the ten-job threshold. But the filing claims the firm never disclosed what was unraveling underneath: Higher Ground Education's deteriorating finances, fragile school sites, sensitivity to enrollment swings, and a dependence on bridge financing and fresh EB-5 capital to keep the lights on. Those risks caught up in 2025. Higher Ground Education and its affiliates entered Chapter 11 after foreclosures and widespread school closures gutted the network. The projected jobs vanished. The investors say they lost both their money and the immigration benefits they were promised. For advisors and fund operators in the private placement space, the case is one to watch. The filing draws on First Circuit precedent to argue that transaction-based compensation, active solicitation, and hands-on control over subscription mechanics can push a firm squarely into broker-dealer territory -- no matter what it calls itself. For compliance teams, it is a stark reminder that the registration line is drawn by what a firm does, not the title it puts on its letterhead. The investors are seeking rescission of their securities purchases, compensatory damages, disgorgement of fees, and class certification on behalf of all similarly situated investors. No determination on the merits has been made. [GN] ELEEO BRANDS: Faces False Ad Class Suit Over Dapple Baby Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that certain Dapple Baby products are falsely "greenwashed" to give consumers the impression that the soaps, detergents and cleaners are safer and more natural than they are, even though the items contain several synthetic ingredients. The 34-page false advertising lawsuit claims that defendant Eleeo Brands' advertising and labeling for Dapple Baby products is deceptively geared toward environmentally conscious parents and families in search of "the safest possible options for their newborns." Per the suit, the alleged greenwashing of the Dapple Baby products at issue, in particular label depictions of green-leaf imagery and claims that they are "Powered by Plants," "Baby Friendly," and "Hypoallergenic," is meant to create the impression that the items contain only plant-based ingredients, and generally convey that the products are minimally processed and natural. However, the class action lawsuit says that the Dapple Baby products listed below contain synthetic, industrially processed ingredients and known skin irritants: -Bottle & Dish Soap Fragrance Free; -Bottle & Dish Soap Lavender; -Bottle & Dish Soap Fresh Citrus; -Bottle & Dish Soap Mango Melon; -Bottle & Dish Soap Refill Fragrance Free; -Bottle & Dish Soap Refill Lavender; -Foaming Bottle & Dish Spray; -Dishwasher Detergent Packs; -All Purpose Cleaning Wipes; -On The Go All Purpose Wipes; -All Purpose Cleaner Fragrance Free; -All Purpose Cleaner Lavender; -Baby Laundry Detergent Fragrance Free; -Baby Laundry Detergent Lavender; -Stain Remover; -Pacifier Wipes; -Foaming Hand Soap; -Breast Pump Wipes; and -Breast Pump Soap. "While the word 'natural' may not appear verbatim," the class action lawsuit says, "these plant-based claims serve as a direct proxy for naturalness, creating an expectation that the Products are free from synthetic or heavily processed substances." The suit states that consumers place a higher value on plant-based products because they perceive them as more environmentally friendly, a practical way to attain "health and wellness," and a way to financially support companies that share their values. Many manufacturers have "scrambled" to develop ostensible plant-based products to capitalize on consumer interest, the suit adds. According to the complaint, Dapple Baby's claims are not based in reality. The filing charges that the products are not "honestly" labeled and in fact contain a plethora of synthetic ingredients, such as citric acid, sodium citrate, glycerin and xanthan gum, among others. For example, the filing says that xanthan gum is a synthetic ingredient that the Food and Drug Administration has previously warned is linked to illness and death in infants. Another ingredient, citric acid, is not the kind found naturally in citrus fruit but is rather synthetically produced by fermenting the mold Aspergillus niger and is chemically extracted using high temperatures and industrial solvents, the lawsuit explains. To make matters worse, the Dapple Baby products also contain sodium benzoate, a synthetic preservative linked to "aberrations" in human chromosomes and DNA, the case continues. Additionally, the products contain ingredients that are "established contact allergen[s]," such as sodium benzoate, and include one ingredient, benzisothiazolinone, that is banned in personal care products in Europe. Per the filing, the plaintiffs and proposed class members have no "personal knowledge" of the chemical processes and ingredients used to make the Dapple Baby products and therefore rely on the greenwashed claims made by the defendant on product packaging and in advertising materials. Consumers would not have purchased Dapple Baby detergents and cleaners for the same price had they known they were not the "premium, plant-derived" products advertised, the suit contends. The Dapple Baby class action lawsuit seeks to cover all consumers who purchased any of the products listed on this page within the applicable statute of limitations period in the United States. [GN] ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathy Landis, on behalf of herself and all others similiarly situated v. The Elevance Health Companies, Inc., AMERIGROUP Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00005 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00279-DJN to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Elevance Health, Inc. -- https://www.elevancehealth.com/ -- is an American health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen Coleman, Esq. Rachhana T. Srey NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street 4600 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Email: ccoleman@nka.com srey@nka.com - and - William P. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC 5 W. Hargett Street, Suite 910 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 999-2799 Fax: (919) 999-2711 Email: wbarrett@barrettlawoffices.com - and - Joshua M. Krasner, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 215 Cary, NC 27518 Phone: (919) 854-0044 Fax: (919) 854-0908 The Defendant is represented by: Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq. Kevin Michael Young, Esq. Lennon Haas, Esq. Shannon Cherney, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 888-1875 Email: bbartlett@seyfarth.com kyoung@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com scherney@seyfarth.com - and - Vincent Mark Smolczynski, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 300 South Tryon Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 925-6043 Email: vsmolczynski@seyfarth.com - and - Ethan Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Towne Square, Ste 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4050 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com - and - Jason R. Carruthers, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C 3424 Peachtree Rd NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 996-4636 Email: JCarruthers@littler.com ERIC GERARD REALTY: Rush Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eric Gerard Realty, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Rush, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Eric Gerard Realty, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-03208-LMC (W.D. Mo., April 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Eric Gerard Realty, LLC -- https://www.ericgerardrealty.com/ -- is a Texas real estate firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tylor Whitham, Esq. WHITHAM LAW FIRM 12120 State Line Rd., Ste. Box 265 Leawood, KS 66209 Phone: (816) 522-3399 Email: tylor@whithamlawfirm.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kontodiakos Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Kontodiakos, Yehia Ellis, and all others Individuals similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Cellco Partnership doing business as: Verizon Wireless, ConsumerInfo.com doing business as: Experian Consumer Services, Case No. 2:26-cv-00345-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., April 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- is a major global information services company that provides data, analytical tools, and software to businesses and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com - and - Drew David Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC 626 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 905-9900 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: drew@clalegal.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com The Defendant is represented by: David Neal Anthony, Esq. Harrison Scott Kelly, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 697-5410 Email: david.anthony@troutman.com scott.kelly@troutman.com - and - David Michael Gettings, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Ste. 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Phone: (757) 687-7500 Fax: (757) 687-7510 Email: dave.gettings@troutman.com - and - Cheryl L. O'Connor, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 553-7505 Fax: (949) 553-7539 Email: coconnor@jonesday.com - and - John Alexander Vogt, Esq. Ryan Ball GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP (CA) 660 Newport Center Dr., Suite 450 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 851-3939 Fax: (949) 553-7539 Email: javogt@goodwinlaw.com RBall@goodwinlaw.com - and - Joseph John Kiessling, Esq. JONES DAY (DC-NA) 51 Louisiana Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 879-3939 Fax: (202) 626-1700 Email: jkiessling@jonesday.com - and - James Vance Stallings, Esq. 136 Professional Circle Williamsburg, VA 23185 Phone: (757) 641-0895 Email: jvstal@aol.com - and - John Stephen Simms, Esq. SIMMS SHOWERS LLP (MD-NA) 201 International Circle, Suite 230 Baltimore, MD 21030 Phone: (410) 783-5795 Fax: (410) 510-1789 Email: jssimms@simmsshowers.com FABLETICS INC: Singh Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Barik Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Fabletics, Inc., Case No. 26CV175119 was removed from the Alameda Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03070-LB the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Fabletics -- https://www.fabletics.com/ -- offers affordable, high quality and stylish activewear for women & men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel Ethan Sachs, Esq. Melanie Rae Monroe, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 Email: tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Seth Eric Pierce, Esq. Bradley J. Mullins, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Phone: (310) 312-2000 Fax: (310) 312-3100 Email: sep@msk.com bym@msk.com FCA US LLC: Tanner Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Quintin Tanner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CU26-02041 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00605. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks to represent a "Nationwide Class" for violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") (Count II) and a "California Subclass" for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") (Count I); Violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Count III); invasion of privacy under the California Constitution (Count IV); and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Count V).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory P. Gilmer, Esq. Kristyn Wong, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 1920 Main Street, Suite 230 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 676-4570 Email: greg.gilmer@kleinthomaslaw.com kristyn.wong@kleinthomaslaw.com - and - Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. Sarah Molina, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 888-2970 Email: tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com sarah.molina@kleinthomaslaw.com FCA US: Tanner Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case QUINTIN TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CU26-02041, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01475-CKD to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act, Wiretap Act, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Constitution, and California Unfair Competition Law. FCA US LLC is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory P. Gilmer, Esq. Kristyn Wong, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 1920 Main Street, Suite 230 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 676-4570 Email: greg.gilmer@kleinthomaslaw.com kristyn.wong@kleinthomaslaw.com - and - Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. Sarah Molina, Esq. 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 Email: tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com sarah.molina@kleinthomaslaw.com FEDEX CORPORATION: Weinberg Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marc Weinberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FedEx Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-03296 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02395-SHL-tmp to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. FedEx Corporation -- https://www.fedex.com/ -- originally known as Federal Express Corporation, is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandon D. Pettes, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Rd., Building B, 2nd Floor Memphis, TN 38125 Phone: (901) 434-8537 Email: brandon.pettes@fedex.com - and - David James Kiefer, Esq. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC 1000 Fedex Drive Moon Township, PA 15108 Phone: 412.8529.4140 Email: david.kiefer@fedex.com FIRE APPARATUS: Chelsea Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as City of Chelsea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA), Oshkosh Corporation, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., REV Group Inc., E-ONE Inc., Ferrara Fire Apparatus Inc., Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp., Spartan Fire LLC, Smeal SFA LLC, Smeal LTC LLC, Rosenbauer America LLC, Rosenbauer South Dakota LLC, Rosenbauer Minnesota LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13643 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00573-WCG the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA) -- https://www.fama.org/ -- is a not-for-profit trade association committed to enhancing the quality of the fire apparatus industry and emergency services community..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Homer, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 175 Federal Street, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 693-9732 The Defendant is represented by: Andrew M. Scarpace, Esq. John P. Loringer, Esq. Marcella Spoto, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER 555 E Wells St-Ste 1730 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 292-3019 Fax: (414) 276-8819 Email: andrew.scarpace@wilsonelser.com john.loringer@wilsonelser.com marcella.spoto@wilsonelser.com FIRE APPARATUS: Roseland Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Borough of Roseland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA), Oshkosh Corporation, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., REV Group Inc., E-ONE Inc., Ferrara Fire Apparatus Inc., Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp., Spartan Fire LLC, Smeal SFA LLC, Smeal LTC LLC, Rosenbauer America LLC, Rosenbauer South Dakota LLC, Rosenbauer Minnesota LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-18312 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00574-WCG the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA) -- https://www.fama.org/ -- is a not-for-profit trade association committed to enhancing the quality of the fire apparatus industry and emergency services community..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Depalma, Esq. Victor A. Afanador, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 570 Broad St-Ste 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Fax: (973) 623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Loringer, Esq. Marcella Spoto, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER 555 E Wells St-Ste 1730 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 292-3019 Fax: (414) 276-8819 Email: John.loringer@wilsonelser.com marcella.spoto@wilsonelser.com - and - Mark Robert Vespole, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suites 100/110 Madison, NJ 07940 Phone: (973) 624-0800 Fax: (973) 624-0808 - and - Christina M. Isnardi, Esq. Douglas E. Litvack, Esq. Jariel A. Rendell, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Phone: (202) 639-6084 Email: dlitvack@jenner.com jrendell@jenner.com - and - Jacob Wentzel, Esq. Reid J. Schar, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N Clark St Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 982-4729 Email: jwentzel@jenner.com rschar@jenner.com FREIGHT BREAKERS: Wilbon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freight Breakers, LLC. The case is styled as Garonn Wilbon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Freight Breakers, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002643 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Freight Breakers -- https://www.freightbreakers.com/ -- is a full-service warehouse management and logistics solutions provider dedicated to supporting distribution operations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com FRONTIER DOOR & CABINET: Carlson Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Carlson, individually and for others similarly situated v. FRONTIER DOOR & CABINET INC., a Washington for-profit corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-05348 (W.D. Wash., April 8, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA"). The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees on an hourly basis. the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant deducts 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff's and its other Hourly Employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break (the Defendant's "auto-deduct policy"). Thus, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for that time. But the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and its other Hourly Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and the Defendant regularly subjects them to work interruptions during unpaid "meal breaks." the Defendant's auto-deduct policy violates the FLSA and WMWA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a drawer laborer from July 2021 until March 2024. Frontier touts itself as "a premier provider of interior and exterior door products and high-quality cabinets for the commercial construction industry."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206.682.6711 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com FUJI EASTGATE INC: Stephens Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Kaitlyn Stephens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated v. FUJI EASTGATE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00359-DRC (S.D. Ohio, April 8, 2026), is brought for the recovery of unpaid minimum wages under the violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). Through a knowing and company-wide scheme, Defendant systematically failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly-situated (the "Putative Collective Members") all minimum wages they were owed. The Defendant purported to take a tip credit against Stephens and the Putative Collective Members' wages without satisfying the prerequisites for a lawful tip credit, including by failing to provide proper tip-credit notice and by taking a tip credit for tip amounts Stephens and the Putative Collective Members did not actually receive and retain. Defendant also paid Stephens and, upon information and belief, the Putative Collective Members less than the minimum tipped cash wage required by Ohio law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Fuji as a server from August 2025 through November 2025. Fuji owns and operates a restaurant in Eastgate, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, Ohio 44131 Phone: (216) 364-1330 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com GAP INC: Bell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Gap, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Fantasia King Bell, on behalf of herself all others similarly situated, and the general public v. The Gap, Inc., John Does 1u009610, Case No. CGC26635695 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Gap Inc. -- https://www.gapinc.com/en-us/ -- is the largest specialty retailer in the United States, and is 3rd in total international locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. WARREN TERZIAN LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90245 Phone: 213-410-2620 Email: tom.warren@warrenterzian.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Respond on 401(k) Suit Rehearing by April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------- James Van Bramer, writing for Plan Adviser, reports that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Genworth Financial Inc. to respond to a petition seeking a full-court rehearing, signaling that a recent ruling limiting class actions in 401(k) fiduciary cases may face renewed scrutiny. In a brief order issued April 16, the 4th Circuit directed the company to file a response by April 27 to a petition for a rehearing by the full appellate court in Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc. The plaintiffs filed the petition requesting an en banc rehearing on April 14, following a March decision by a three-judge panel rejecting class certification for thousands of retirement plan participants, ruling their claims were too individualized to proceed as a mandatory class action. The plaintiffs claim the 4th Circuit's ruling represented a fundamental misinterpretation of ERISA that conflicts with the statute's text, Supreme Court precedent and the law of every other circuit, according to their request for a rehearing. To obtain a rehearing, according to the 4th Circuit, a petition must include an introduction stating that, in the judgment of counsel, at least one of the following circumstances exists: a material factual or legal matter was overlooked in the decision; a change in the law occurred after the case was submitted and was overlooked by the panel; the opinion conflicts with a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the circuit court or another court of appeals and that conflict is not addressed in the opinion; or the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance. Dispute About How Workers Can Sue The complaint was filed by former employees who accused Genworth of breaching its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering and retaining certain BlackRock target-date funds in its 401(k) plan. The plaintiffs argued that those funds underperformed alternative options from other providers, harming participants' retirement savings. A federal district court in Virginia allowed the case to proceed as a class action covering plan participants invested in the funds since 2016. The 4th Circuit reversed that decision, concluding that losses in defined contribution plans like 401(k)s depend on each participant's individual investment choices, timing and account balances. Because of those differences, the panel held, the claims could not be certified under a rule that allows mandatory class actions without opt-out rights. ERISA attorneys previously told PLANADVISER that the ruling could lead plaintiffs to file fewer claims if those claims had to be filed individually, rather than as class actions. A Broader Legal Clash The petition now before the full court challenges the panel's reasoning, arguing that it conflicts with longstanding interpretations of ERISA and Supreme Court precedent. In an amicus brief filed April 14, a group of employee benefits law professors contended that the panel misread the statute by treating plan-wide fiduciary breaches as a collection of individual claims, rather than a single representative action on behalf of the plan. Under ERISA, they wrote, participants bringing claims for fiduciary misconduct act "on behalf of the plan as a whole" and may seek recovery for "any losses" to the plan—not just those tied to their own accounts. The three-judge panel's approach, the brief argued, could force workers to bring separate lawsuits over the same alleged misconduct, potentially producing inconsistent results and increasing litigation costs. The 4th Circuit's request does not indicate that the full court will rehear the case, only that it is seeking input before deciding. Such requests are a common step when judges are weighing whether a case raises issues of exceptional importance or conflicts with existing precedent. Genworth Financial Inc. is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and McGuireWoods LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by Miller Shah LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP. The Genworth Financial Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan had 4,365 participants with nearly $960 million in assets at the end of 2024, according to its most recent Form 5500 filing. [GN] GIVAUDAN ROURE: Velasco Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Virginia Velasco, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. GIVAUDAN ROURE CORPORATION, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORPORATION, ABC Corporations (1-10), DEF Corporations (1-10), and JOHN and/or JANE DOES (1-10), Case No. PAS-L-000802-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03767. The Complaint purports to allege causes of action for private nuisance, strict liability, trespass, gross negligence, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and seeks relief in the form of "compensatory damages, interest, economic and non-economic damages, punitive damages, cost of suit and such other relief."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael R. McDonald, Esq. William S. Hatfield, Esq. Andrew T. Alessandro, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102-5310 Phone: (973) 596-4500 Email: mmcdonald@fbtgibbons.com whatfield@fbtgibbons.com aalessandro@fbtgibbons.com GREATER BETTER: Discloses Patients' Private Info to Meta, Doe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREATER BETTER HEALTH, INC. d/b/a BERRY STREET HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01037 (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Florida Security Communications Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, negligence and negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's disclosure of patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information to Meta Platforms, Inc. without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant deliberately embedded the Meta Pixel, a tracking technology, into its website to intercept and transmit sensitive patient information to Meta. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered a profound invasion of privacy and loss of confidentiality in their most personal health matters. Greater Better Health, Inc., doing business as Berry Street Health, Inc., is a medical services provider based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jimmy Mintz, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Email: jmintz@brysonpllc.com - and - Thomas Bibby, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (610) 500-4546 Email: tbibby@brysonpllc.com GREEN CIRCLE: 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 Green Circle Decarbonize Technology Ltd. (NYSE American: GCDT) resulting from allegations that Green Circle may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Green Circle 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=60841 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. [GN] GRUBBS INFINITI: Smith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grubbs Infiniti Automotive, LLC. The case is styled as ShaQuita Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grubbs Infiniti Automotive, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00441-O (N.D. Tex., April 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Grubbs Infiniti -- https://www.grubbsinfiniti.com/ -- offers used and certified pre-owned vehicles for sale in Grapevine, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Moore Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Moore, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UDE-2026-1801 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01513-DAD-CSK. The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Indemnify Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due During Employment and Upon Separation of Employment; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com HIGHTOWER HOLDING: Manaker Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD MANAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHTOWER HOLDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03921 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on January 9, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Hightower Holding, LLC is a privately-owned limited liability company located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com INFINITE CAMPUS INC: Carver Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinite Campus, Inc. The case is styled as Virginia Carver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infinite Campus, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02158-ECT-SGE (D. Minn., April 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Infinite Campus -- https://www.infinitecampus.com/ -- helps schools and their stakeholders by Transforming K12 Education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com INTEL CORPORATION: Loy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intel Corporation. The case is styled as Whitney Loy, Stephanie Hanson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 610023/2026 (Cal. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Intel Corporation -- https://www.intel.com/ --is a global leader in designing and manufacturing semiconductor products, including processors and chipsets for computers and data centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 516-494-7670 Fax: (646) 509-2060 INTER-CON SECURITY: Quach Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Quach, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00872 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2026), is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") for unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards frequently earned either the applicable minimum wage or only slightly more than the applicable minimum wage. When they worked over forty hours in a workweek, which happened frequently, Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards were eligible to receive overtime wages. The Defendant's policies and/or practices with regard to Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards violated the FLSA. Defendant typically required its security guard employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. In weeks when Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards worked more than forty hours (inclusive of time worked "off-the clock"), which occurred frequently, this requirement resulted in a violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is or was an hourly-paid, non-exempt security guard employee of Defendant. The Defendant is a security and facilities management company that provides uniformed security and mobile patrol services, asset protection management, event security, and electronic surveillance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC – Little Rock 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com INTERCARE HOLDINGS: Conway Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Conway, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. INTERCARE HOLDINGS INC., a Corporation; PACIFIC SECURED ENTITIES, INC., a Corporation; INTERCARE OF NEW YORK INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Corporation; INTERMED COST CONTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., a Corporation; GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC., a Corporation; REDWOOD PURCHASER, INC., a Corporation; REDWOOD INTERMEDIATE, INC., a Corporation; REDWOOD PARENT, INC., a Corporation; REDWOOD TOPCO LP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0056961 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00615. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff and the putative class members and maintained policies and practices that allegedly resulted in wage-and-hour violations. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey T. Tong, Esq. Sabrina Man-Son-Hing, Esq. Carlos A. Giron, Esq. Erik Jimenez Rodriguez, Esq. GARCIA HERNÁNDEZ SAWHNEY, LLP 330 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 680 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (213) 347-0210 Fax: (213) 347-0216 Email: gtong@ghslaw.com smansonhing@ghslaw.com cgiron@ghslaw.com erodriguez@ghslaw.com IQVIA HOLDINGS INC: Rose Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Abbie Rose and David Becerra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IQVIA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, IQVIA Digital Inc., a Delaware corporation, and IQVIA Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. STK-CV-U4TR-2026-2546 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01492-SCR. The Plaintiffs assert six causes of action under California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); CIPA, Cal. Penal Code; California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); California's Constitution; California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and Intrusion Upon Seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Email: TCheung@mofo.com J.B. HUNT: Watson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case DEREK WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 26-2-06562-0, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05359-BHS to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged noncompliant provision of rest breaks, overtime, unlawful withholding and deductions, and paid sick leave. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. is a transportation and logistics company based in Lowell, Arkansas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: ashley.paynter@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com J.R. SIMPLOT: Westbrook Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case PETER WESTBROOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY; J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26CV004992, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00603 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. J.R. Simplot Company is an agribusiness company headquartered in Boise, Idaho. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, LLC is an agribusiness company headquartered in Boise, Idaho. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Courtney S. Patton, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: Michael.Nader@ogletree.com courtney.patton@ogletree.com JEWELERS MUTUAL INSURANCE: Lynch Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company SI, et al. The case is styled as Karla Lynch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kaplan North America, LLC, JM Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00597-PP (E.D. Wis., April 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Jewelers Mutual Group -- https://www.jewelersmutual.com/ -- is a specialized insurance company headquartered in Neenah, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com JJA PARTNERS HOLDCO: Wright Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Wright, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JJA PARTNERS HOLDCO INC. d/b/a PROFORCE PEST CONTROL, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 0:26-cv-61055-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. ProForce's Technicians, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated, routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes for a lunch break each day its Technicians worked, regardless of whether any lunch break is/was taken, reducing Plaintiff's and other Technicians' credited work hours each week by at least 30 minutes for each day worked. The improperly deducted meal periods generally constitute hours over 40, or overtime hours, worked in one or more workweeks of Plaintiff's employment during the applicable statute of limitations. As a result of Defendant's policy/practice of automatically deducting 30-minute meal periods from its Technicians' recorded time each day, and not paying same, regardless of whether or not the Technician actually takes/took the break, Plaintiff and others similarly situated are/were deprived of owed overtime compensation in weeks in which they worked, or would have otherwise been credited with having worked, in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with ProForce from approximately April 2025 through October 15, 2025 as a pest control Technician, performing pest control services on residential and commercial buildings and other duties in connection with his employment. ProForce provides pest control services to residential homes and businesses in regions throughout Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey L. Seldin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 807-7765 Facsimile: (954) 807-7786 Email: cseldin@forthepeople.com JONATHAN ADLER: Johnston Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jonathan Adler Enterprises LLC. The case is styled as Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Jonathan Adler Enterprises LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01849-SP (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC -- https://jonathanadler.com/ -- designs, manufactures, and markets home accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com JSET AUTOMATED: Layne Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnothan Layne, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JSET AUTOMATED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00434-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 10, 2026), is brought on behalf of similarly situated who worked for Defendant as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees and who were unlawfully denied wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation as a result of Defendant's timekeeping and payroll practices, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), and Ohio law. The Defendant violates the FLSA and Ohio law through its unlawful timekeeping and payroll practices for non-exempt hourly employees, including: Failing to record and pay employees for all hours worked by crediting and paying time based on employer-controlled timekeeping and payroll practices rather than all compensable work time performed, including through automatic meal deductions and other practices that reduce paid hours., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an ESH Specialist in Ohio during the relevant time period and was subject to Defendant's timekeeping and payroll practices. The Defendant provides automation, integration, installation, maintenance, and related services for commercial, industrial, and data center clients, including building automation systems and control technologies, and, during the relevant time period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Doren, Esq. BARRAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 2214221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com adoren@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com KOCH AG: Long Branch Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- LONG BRANCH FARMS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC, KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC, NUTRIEN LTD., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., THE MOSAIC CO., MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC., CF INDUSTRIES, INC., CF NITROGEN, LLC, YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA, YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND CANPOTEX LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02188 (D. Kan., April 9, 2026) arises from a per se unlawful agreement between Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of, and to restrict the supply of, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (potash) fertilizers (collectively, "NPK Fertilizers") during the Class Period. The complaint relates that the Defendants exercise significant market power in the NPK Fertilizer market. Because Defendants have substantial capacity advantages over competitors, Defendants materially influence the prices in the NPK Fertilizer market. As a result of Defendants' collusive conduct, Defendants sold NPK Fertilizers at supracompetitive prices throughout the Class Period and continue to sell NPK Fertilizers at supracompetitive prices today, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured and will continue to be injured in their business and property by paying more for NPK Fertilizers purchased from Defendants than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the conspiracy, the complaint relates. Defendants' conduct is also unlawful under either a "quick look" or rule of reason analysis because the agreement is anticompetitive with no valid procompetitive justifications. Moreover, even if there were valid procompetitive justifications, such justifications could have been reasonably achieved through less restrictive means of competition, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the Class seek treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and an injunction against Defendants to end the ongoing violations. Plaintiff Long Branch Farms LLC purchased NPK Fertilizers directly from Nutrien during the Class Period and paid unlawfully inflated prices for those NPK Fertilizers as a result of Defendants' illegal conduct. Defendants are direct competitors and the largest producers, manufacturers, and sellers of fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Carmell, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816)701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Daniel S. Dicce, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com ddicce@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com - and - Amy C. Martin, Esq. MARTIN LAW GROUP PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 261-3563 E-mail: amy@martinlawgrouppllc.com LAMPERT'S GARAGE: Provides Deficient Towing Services, Files Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON FILES and JOAN FILES, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAMPERT'S GARAGE, LLC D/B/A LAMPERT'S GARAGE, KEITH CORONT, UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP and MEDIA BOROUGH, Defendants, Case No. 26-cv-2324 (E.D. Pa., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant's deficient towing practices that it provided to clients across its localities, including Upper Providence, Media, and Brookhaven. This complaint relates to the reckless deprivation of persons' constitutional and other rights to property, notice, and a hearing in conjunction with the towing, impounding, and disposal of vehicles (collectively referred to as "towing services"). Lampert's, on behalf of its locality clients, did not properly prepare and send notices, nor afford opportunities for hearings, nor properly maintain towing records, for vehicles Lampert's towed for its locality clients, including Defendants Upper Providence and Media, as well as others. According to the complaint, Hundreds of persons had their vehicles towed, impounded, or disposed of by Lampert's on behalf of the Upper Providence and Media, as well as other localities. These persons did not receive proper notice of their vehicles' status or location, nor information on how to reclaim their vehicles, nor an opportunity to appear to dispute or otherwise reclaim their vehicles. Many vehicles also were disposed of (e.g., sold for scrap or otherwise) by Lampert's without notice, a hearing, or compensation, adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated for injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief because Lampert's common course of conduct on behalf of it locality clients constitutes violations of Plaintiffs' and other class members' state and federal constitutional rights and unjust enrichment under state law. Lampert's conduct additionally constitutes negligence and conversion under state law. Plaintiffs Sharon Files and Joan Files are vehicle owners who were deprived notice and a hearing in connection with Lampert's improper towing services. Defendant Lampert's Garage, LLC d/b/a Lampert's Garage provides towing services for Upper Providence and Media, as well as other localities such as Brookhaven Borough since January 2023. Defendant Keith Coront is the sole managing member of Lampert's Garage and actively controlled directed, and participated in the towing services. Defendant Upper Providence Township, through its local police department, directs the towing, impoundment, and disposal of vehicles within Upper Providence's borders. Defendant Media Borough, through its local police department, directs the towing, impoundment, and disposal of vehicles within Media's borders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 267-435-1300 E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com LINKEDIN CORP: Ganan Sues for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------- JEFF GANAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02968 (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendant for covert and overbroad browser surveillance carried out through LinkedIn's website and web-based application in violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the California law for invasion of privacy under article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; and the California Penal Code. During the relevant period, LinkedIn served client-side code to Plaintiff's browser in California that, on information and belief, actively probed his browser for installed extensions, scanned the page's document object model for extension traces, assembled a browser and device fingerprint, encrypted that fingerprint, transmitted the resulting data to LinkedIn-controlled telemetry endpoints, and reused browser-derived identifiers in subsequent requests during the same session. LinkedIn did not present the challenged surveillance and data extraction practices to users through any clear, specific, and timely disclosure. Instead, LinkedIn served hidden client-side code that operated in the background of users' live LinkedIn sessions and silently interrogated users' browsers and devices, says the suit. The Plaintiff used LinkedIn's relevant website while physically present at and residing in Los Angeles County, California, during the limitations period. While accessing the relevant website, he accessed LinkedIn's product and services using the Chrome browser. LinkedIn Corporation operates as a social networking web site. The Company offers members to post a profile of their professional expertise and accomplishments on web site. LinkedIn serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.R. Howell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J.R. HOWELL 2219 Main Street, Suite 436 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (323) 897-8656 E-mail: jr@lojrh.com LOUISIANA FISH: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUISIANA FISH FRY PRODUCTS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02892 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.louisianafishfry.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Louisiana Fish Fry Products, Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MAC TRAILER: Gibson Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ---------------------------------------------------------- Brett Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAC TRAILER ENTERPRISES, INC., MAC TRAILER MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-00848-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 9, 2026), is brought challenging certain policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), as a results of the Defendants' failure to pay compensations. The Defendants failed to include the Plaintiff's non-discretionary compensation, including his weekly Attendance Bonuses, when calculating the Plaintiff's overtime rate. Rather, such overtime rate was calculated based only on the Plaintiff's $26.00 base hourly rate. Failing to include non-discretionary compensation, including weekly Attendance Bonuses, when calculating the regular rate for overtime payment purposes is a companywide practice and policy affecting all hourly employees who receive such non-discretionary compensation. Because this additional, non-discretionary pay was not included in their regular rates of pay, Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio law by not paying the Plaintiff and others similarly situated all overtime wages earned at the properly calculated premium rate of pay in a timely manner. Such violations were particularly willful because the underpayment of overtime was apparent on every paystub in which the overtime pay was due, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, individually or jointly, from September 17, 2015, until July 8, 2024, as a non-exempt, hourly manufacturing employee. MAC Trailer Enterprises is a for-profit Ohio corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com MACERICH COMPANY: Pruitt Files Civil Suit in Calif. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Macerich Company, et al. The case is captioned as CHRISTINE PRUITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE MACERICH COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2026CUNP063321 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., March 17, 2026). The case type is stated as Civil Unlimited. The Macerich Company is a real estate investment trust company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Ybarra, Esq. 180 Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 538-2000 MANCHEGO TAPAS BAR: Urdaneta Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Urdaneta, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MANCHEGO TAPAS BAR & RESTAURANT-UC LLC d/b/a MARACAIBO, RUMBA'S CAFE BY THE PARK LLC d/b/a RUMBA'S CAFE IN THE PARK, 513 CENTRAL AVE CORP. d/b/a RUMBA'S CAFE, RUMBA OF BOULEVARD CORP d/b/a RUMBA CUBANA, RUMBA OF TONNELLE CORP. d/b/a RUMBA CUBANA, RUMBA'S CAFE CORP. d/b/a RUMBA CUBANA, RUMBA OF ROCHELLE PARK LLC d/b/a RUMBA CUBANA, RUMBA OF CLIFTON LLC d/b/a RUMBA CUBANA, 566-568 NEWARK AVENUE, LLC d/b/a CAFE CON RUMBA, BAKERY BOULEVARD EAST LLC f/d/b/a DULCE VIEW, JOHN DOE CORPORATION 1 d/b/a OLIVO, JOHN DOE CORPORATION 2 d/b/a CHANGO KITCHEN, JOHN DOE CORPORATION 3 d/b/a THE RIDGE HOUSE, NAIRELYS RODRIGUEZ a/k/a NAIRELYS LOPEZ, and ALAN A. LOPEZ, Case No. 2:26-cv-03722 (D.N.J., April 8, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid minimum wages and overtime premiums due to invalid tip credit deductions, unpaid overtime wages due to improper straight-time rate compensation, unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages due to a policy of time-shaving, unpaid uniform maintenance expenses, liquidated damages for unpaid wages, premiums, tips, and expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants deducted a tip credit from Plaintiff's wages for every hour Plaintiff worked and compensated Plaintiff at the prevailing New Jersey tip credit minimum wage for all hours worked ($5.26 in 2024, $5.62 in 2025), including all overtime hours. At all relevant times, Defendants similarly deducted tip credits from the wages of FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Tipped Subclass Members, and compensated them at similar tipped-credit hourly rates. As a direct result of Defendants' invalid tip credit deductions, Plaintiff, tipped FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Tipped Subclass Members were paid below the prevailing federal and state minimum wage rates in violation of the FLSA and the New Jersey Labor Laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Busser at Defendants' Maracaibo restaurant in November 2024. The Defendants collectively own and operate a New Jersey-based restaurant enterprise, consisting primarily of the "Rumba" restaurant chain and sister restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Jackson, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-661-0542 Fax: 212-465-1181 MEAD JOHNSON: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Morales, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-00071-RLY-CSW (S.D. Ind., April 10, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned a non-discretionary quarterly Plant Bonus. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Plant Bonus into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation and failed to pay Plaintiff for all time worked. The Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's Plant Bonus as required by the FLSA. As a result of its prima facie FLSA violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 2022 to November 2025. The Defendant produces infant and children nutritional products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq. JESELSKIS BRINKERHOFF AND JOSEPH, LLC 320 North Meridian Street, Suite 428 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 220-6290 Fax: (317) 220-6291 Email: kjeselskis@jbjlegal.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 436-8453 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------ The National Law Review reports that Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Medpace Holdings, Inc. ("Medpace" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MEDP). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Medpace and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until June 8, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Medpace securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On February 9, 2026, Medpace released fourth quarter 2025 earnings results, revealing a book-to-bill ratio of 1.04, well below Medpace's guidance. On this news, Medpace's stock price fell $84.30 per share, or 15.9%, to close at $446.05 per share on February 10, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] MEMORIAL HEART: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3.75MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- chattanoogan.com reports that Memorial Heart Institute has agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a class action lawsuit involving a data breach between March 8 and March 16, 223. Attorneys said class members are living individuals whose private information the Chattanooga Heart Institute data breach may have compromised. The class also includes a subclass of individuals whose Social Security numbers the breach accessed or exposed. The settlement allots $2 million of the fund for this class. Some 460,000 people had data accessed by a cybercrime group, it was stated. Memorial Heart Institute does not admit liability in the settlement. Judge Curtis Collier presided over the case in Chattanooga Federal Court. Attorneys said: Class members have the following benefit options: -- Reimbursement for documented losses: Class members can claim up to $5,500 in documented losses that are fairly traceable to the data breach. This includes costs for credit monitoring or identity theft protection purchased after March 16, 2023, unreimbursed monetary losses due to identity theft, fraud, falsified tax returns or other misuse of information and miscellaneous expenses, such as postage for contacting financial institutions. -- Credit monitoring: All class members can elect to receive two years of medical monitoring, valued at approximately $120, which includes dark-web and credit monitoring. -- Cash payment for SSN class: Class members in the SSN class can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the $2 million SSN class net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of claims filed. [GN] METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Eagan Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists, P.A., et al. The case is styled as Michelle Eagan, on behalf of herself, her minor child E.E., and all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists, P.A. d/b/a Metropolitan Pediatrics, Case No. 27-CV-26-5709 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., April 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Metropolitan Pediatrics -- https://www.metropeds.com/ -- is an independent, 20-physician practice with 53 years of experience serving the Twin Cities metro, offering comprehensive pediatric care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Suit Filed in Minn. Judicial Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists, P.A., et al. The case is styled as Cathy Gebhardt-Lally, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists, P.A. d/b/a Metropolitan Pediatrics, Case No. 27-CV-26-05732 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., April 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Metropolitan Pediatrics -- https://www.metropeds.com/ -- is an independent, 20-physician practice with 53 years of experience serving the Twin Cities metro, offering comprehensive pediatric care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com MMD INC: Faces Munoz Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MMD INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03717 (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of statutory privacy rights, says the suit. MMD Inc. is a company headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Willis Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dietrick Willis, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:26-cv-00783 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02966-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy J. Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART, P.L.C. 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 526-1087 Fax: (833) 277-4214 Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MONSON LAW: MMA Seeks Relief From Racketeering Activity in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- MMA LAW FIRM, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW MONSON, THE MONSON LAW FIRM, LLC, KATHERINE MONSON, and ALLIED TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 26-03107 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy, tortious interference with existing contracts, tortious interference with prospective business relations, abuse of process, business disparagement, and civil conspiracy. The case arises from the Defendants' pattern of racketeering activity consisting of multiple related predicate acts spanning from at least June 2022 through 2026. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured or misrepresented information, transmitted it covertly, and leveraged the recipient governmental entity's authority to harm the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendants' racketeering activity, the Plaintiff suffered concrete, documented injury to its business and property including loss of clients, loss of fee entitlements, reputational destruction, and its ultimate bankruptcy, says the suit. MMA Law Firm, PLLC is a law firm in Texas. The Monson Law Firm, LLC is a law firm in Texas. Allied Trust Insurance Company is an insurance firm in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam T. Goott, Esq. WALKER & PATTERSON, PC P.O. Box 61301 Houston, TX 77208 Telephone: (713) 956-5577 Email: mgoott@walkerandpatterson.com MUBI INC: Agrees to Settle Auto Renewals Class Suit for $1.6-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that MUBI has agreed to a $1,600,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the global streaming service violated California law by failing to adequately disclose the terms of automatically renewing subscriptions and obtain consumer consent to the renewals. The $1.6 million MUBI class action settlement received preliminary court approval on March 12, 2026. The deal covers all consumers who, while residing in California, signed up for a MUBI subscription on or after April 1, 2021 that was renewed between April 1, 2021 and May 21, 2025, and who did not receive a refund from MUBI of all subscription renewal charges. Court documents state that an estimated 37,786 people are covered by the MUBI settlement. The court-approved website for the MUBI class action settlement can be found at MUBISettlement.com. According to the settlement agreement, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive an equal-share cash payment from the settlement fund. The agreement states that the final amount of this payment may be increased or decreased depending on the total number of valid claims filed. To submit a MUBI settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID 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 MUBI settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 9, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the MUBI class action settlement following a hearing on July 16, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The MUBI class action lawsuit alleged that the online streaming service, production company and film distributor enrolled consumers in automatically renewing memberships -- and began charging their payment accounts -- without first providing proper disclosures or obtaining informed consumer consent as required under California's Automatic Renewal Law. [GN] NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: Tautges Files Suit in W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Noel Tautges, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01207-MLP (W.D. Wash., April 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.naviabenefits.com/ -- provides comprehensive health and compliance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin Bornstein Swope, Esq. Kelly Anna Aristides, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP (SEATTLE) 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Fax: (206) 299-4184 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com karistides@cpmlegal.com NEXT MARVEL: Rushefsky Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Glen Rushefsky, on behalf of himself and all Others similarly situated v. NEXT MARVEL, INC,, doing business as ZELOOL, Case No. 1:26-cv-02915 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its e-commerce Website, www.zeelool.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its Website in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers denies Plaintiff full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, and digital content, in violation of federal, state, and city civil rights laws. The Plaintiff's intent to return to www.zeelool.com is concrete, credible, and ongoing. He continues to need polarized sunglasses for daily use and remains committed to purchasing prescription eyeglasses for his aide once the Website is accessible. Plaintiff relies on online shopping due to his disability and will return immediately once the Website is remediated and compliant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to remediate the Website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the Website is--and remains-- fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in substantial conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual living with Cone Rod Dystrophy. The Defendant owns, operates, controls, and maintains the commercial retail website www.zeelool.com, which markets and sells prescription eyeglasses, sunglasses, and related eyewear products to consumers nationwide, including residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com NORCO INDUSTRIES INC: Amarillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norco Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Rocio Amarillas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Norco Industries, Inc., Case No. 26STCV11561 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Norco Industries -- https://norcoind.com/ -- is a developing company aimed at being one of the most respected and admired in the industries we serve.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com NOVADORE USA: Echols Sues Over Website's Equal Access to the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVADORE USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03941 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://duradry.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible dropdown 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. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Novadore USA Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law O'FALLON AUTOMOTIVE: Hillow Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Fallon Automotive, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Hillow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. O'Fallon Automotive, LLC doing business as: Serra Honda O'Fallon, Case No. 1:26-cv-04032 (N.D. Ill., April 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. O'Fallon Automotive, LLC doing business as Serra Honda O'Fallon -- https://www.serrahondaofallon.com/ -- is premier destination for all automotive needs in the O'Fallon area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com ODIDO CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Massive Data Leak ------------------------------------------------------------- NL Times reports that the privacy foundation Consumers United in Court (CUIC) is launching a class-action lawsuit against telecom provider Odido over the massive data leak in early February. Hackers stole the data of a massive 6.2 million Dutch people. The hackers stole names, home addresses, telephone numbers, bank account numbers, and identity document numbers of over 6 million current and former customers of Odido and its subsidiary Ben. They eventually published the stolen data on the dark web after Odido refused to pay a ransom. The hack also revealed that Odido keeps customer data for much longer than it claims. People who canceled their Odido contracts up to a decade ago were also informed that their data had been stolen in the hack. Those whose data was leaked can become victims of various phishing scams, Hilde Laffeber of CUIC told RTL Nieuws. "The mere fear that something like this could happen is already damage," she said. According to her, this is the first mass claim against Odido over the hack. Specifically, CUIC wants Odido to send a message to all affected Dutch explaining how the leak occurred, how Odido responded, and what they failed to do that allowed the hack to happen. The foundation is hoping for more clarity regarding exactly which data ended up on the street. That will make it easier to determine the extent of the damage, Leffeber said. According to CUIC, Odido was negligent on several points. "For instance, far too much data was stored for far too long a period. The sheer volume of data stolen alone shows that the data was not properly protected. Odido was also insufficiently transparent and did not properly adhere to the reporting obligations." This class action lawsuit is happening on a no-cure, no-pay basis. That means that victims who wish to join the case pay nothing in advance, but must surrender a portion of possible compensation to the company financing the claim. The amount depends on how long the case lasts and how much is paid out, Laffeber told the broadcaster. [GN] OLYMPIC STEEL: Elliott Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Pierre Elliott, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. OLYMPIC STEEL, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00841 (N.D. Ohio, April 8, 2026), is brought for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Defendant has had direct or indirect control and authority over the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' working conditions and has determined matters governing the essential terms and conditions of their employment, including but not limited to, promulgating and enforcing policies affecting wages and overtime. Despite working before their scheduled shifts, Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for their pre-shift work. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required their employees to perform pre-shift work without compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a packager and crane operator from March 2025 to March 2026 at its facility in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The Defendant is a leading processor of carbon and coated sheet, coil steel products, stainless steel and aluminum sheet, and other metal-based products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. Kevin A. Nickel, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com knickel@mcoffmanlegal.com ONE TWO THAI: Bautista Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Alberto Bautista, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ONE TWO THAI INC. d/b/a ONE TWO THAI; WARAKORN SIRITIPAKUL; FELICIANO GENIS CARILLO; JOHN DOES 1–10; and ABC CORPORATIONS 1–10, Case No. 1:26-cv-02988 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unreimbursed work expenses, statutory wage-notice and wage-statement damages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff worked approximately 10.5 to 11.5 compensable hours per day, six days per week, for approximately 63 to 66 compensable hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any overtime premium for hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any additional spread-of-hours pay on days when his workday exceeded ten hours from beginning to end. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff, at or before the start of employment, with a compliant written wage notice stating his regular hourly rate, overtime rate, allowances claimed, and regular payday. The Defendants did not furnish Plaintiff with accurate wage statements with each payment of wages, and instead paid him in cash without proper paystubs. Because Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a compliant wage notice at hiring or accurate wage statements during his employment, Plaintiff was deprived of basic wage information New York law required Defendants to disclose, including his regular hourly rate, overtime rate, dates of work covered, hours worked, and the identity and contact information of his employer, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from April 28, 2025 through March 9, 2026. The Defendant is a New York corporation that owned and operated the restaurant known as One Two Thai.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Fax: 718-679-9660 Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Xavier Hill, Zay Hill, Anthony Felder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; PACIFIC COAST COMPANIES, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-06632-4 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05364. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts seven causes of action against Defendants: payment of wages less than entitled; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide and pay sick leave; failure to pay all wages due at separation; and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel F. De La Cruz, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Phone: 619.338.6500 Facsimile: 619.234.3815 Email: ddelacruz@sheppard.com PERDUE FOODS: Court Orders ESI Sampling, Extends Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Barbara Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Perdue Foods LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00987-JMC (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part both parties' requested relief in a discovery dispute over ESI production scope and scheduling. Plaintiff filed suit on April 4, 2023, alleging FLSA misclassification violations related to chicken-grower operations. The court previously certified a collective action comprising individuals who grew or formerly grew chickens for Defendant under a Perdue Poultry Producer Agreement from April 21, 2021 through November 13, 2024. The dispute concerned the scope of Perdue's ESI production, including whether executive-level custodians must be included, and the scheduling of written discovery responses. On ESI, the court ordered: (1) Perdue shall provide a 25% sampling of the 21 custodians it proposed; (2) Perdue shall provide a 25% sampling of four executives of Plaintiff's choosing from the seven Plaintiff named; and (3) Perdue shall produce ESI responsive to the 73 search terms it proposed. The court declined to compel production from all seven executives, finding it unduly burdensome given Perdue's proposed compromise. On scheduling, the court granted Plaintiff's request for a 120-day extension, noting it would not grant further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. The new fact discovery and decertification deadline is December 2, 2026. A copy of the MEMORANDUM AND ORDER is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TmUY7e from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Perdue Foods LLC is represented by: Robert Ross Niccolini, Esq. Margaret Santen, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Email: robert.niccolini@ogletree.com; margaret.santen@ogletree.com Plaintiff Barbara Tripp is represented by: Michael D. Lieberman, Esq. Amanda Rose Vaughn, Esq. James Crooks, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS LLP Email: michael@fairmarklaw.com; amanda@fairmarklaw.com; jamie@fairmarklaw.com Charles Gerstein, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP Email: charlie@gerstein-harrow.com Gregg Cohen, Esq. GREENBERG ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com POSH GROUP INC: Ona Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Posh Group, Inc. The case is styled as Micaella O. Ona, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Posh Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-22499-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Posh Group, Inc. -- https://posh.vip/ -- is a Black-founded, New York-based technology company that operates a popular social platform for creating, discovering, and ticketing real-world events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit Roy Venkatesh, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP 2750 SW 145th Ave Suite #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (510) 856-6548 Email: vv@plglawyersfl.com POSH GROUP INC: Pedraza Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Posh Group, Inc. The case is styled as Yulieth Pedraza, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Posh Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-22495-DSL (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Posh Group, Inc. -- https://posh.vip/ -- is a Black-founded, New York-based technology company that operates a popular social platform for creating, discovering, and ticketing real-world events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Adrian Varona, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP 2750 SW 145th Ave Suite #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (786) 703-8810 Fax: (305) 503-9595 Email: jv@plglawyersfl.com POSH GROUP: $1.2MM Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Posh Group, Inc. has agreed to a $1,200,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the ticket seller and event management platform failed to include certain fees in the advertised ticket prices for certain events in California. The $1.2 million Posh Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 9, 2026. The deal covers all California residents who, between July 21, 2021 and June 13, 2025, purchased a ticket or tickets from Posh Group for an event in California and were charged additional fees (excluding mandatory taxes) that were not included in the advertised ticket price. The court-approved website for the Posh Group ticket fee settlement can be found at TicketFeeSettlement.com. According to the website, Posh Group settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive up to $15. The settlement agreement explains that the final amount of the cash payout may decrease depending on the total number of valid claim forms submitted, among other factors. In addition, each class member will receive an equal amount from the class action settlement, regardless of the number of tickets they purchased. Class members can choose to receive their Posh Group settlement payout electronically or by physical check, the settlement agreement says. To file a Posh Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the ILYM ID and unique claim ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the payment election form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Posh Group payment election forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 7, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Posh Group settlement following a hearing on September 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Posh Group class action lawsuit claimed that the event management and ticketing platform unlawfully failed to disclose all fees in the advertised ticket prices for California events, in violation of the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. [GN] POST ACUTE: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Leglise Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MARYANN LEGLISE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff vs. POST ACUTE MEDICAL, PLLC, d/b/a PAM HEALTH; PAM SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF RENO; PAM SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF LAS VEGAS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00245 (D. Nev., April 8, 2026) is a class and collective action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to compensate for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nevada Revised Statutes. The complaint relates that the Defendants are a "post-acute care, recovery, and empowerment" provider with "70+ Hospitals Across the US", "200+ Caring Employees per Hospital", and has been in operation for 19 years. The Plaintiff was regularly scheduled three days a week, 12 hour shifts, plus she was required to pick up random and weekend shifts, which resulted in Plaintiff working over 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff recalls working more than 40 hours in a week on several occasions, including Christmas Day 2025, when she worked an extra shift due to staffing issues. By failing to pay Plaintiff and all members of the Classes for all hours worked in violation of state and federal law, and at the correct regular rate and/or overtime rate, Defendants have failed to timely remit all wages due and owing to Plaintiff and all members of the Classes. Despite demand, Defendants willfully refuse and continue to refuse to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated and typical patient care employees employed in Nevada as both a collective action under the FLSA and a true class action under Nevada law. Plaintiff Maryann Leglise was employed as a non-exempt hourly paid Registered Nurse by Defendants at their PAM Reno location from January 21, 2024, until January 3, 2026, when she was terminated. Defendant PAM Health operates four locations in Nevada that provide inpatient and outpatient care. Defendant PAM Specialty Hospital of Reno provides "specialty care in Reno, NV. Defendant PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas maintains three locations: (1) PAM Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Centennial Hills, 6166 North Durango Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89149, (2) PAM Health Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, 2500 North Tenaya Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128, and (3) PAM Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Henderson, 930 Gibson Road, Henderson, Nevada 89011.[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 PRATT INDUSTRIES: Arencibia Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Arencibia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRATT INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 7:26-cv-00102-WLS (M.D. Ga., April 9, 2026), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to obtain full and complete relief for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for overtime wages as required by the FLSA. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a salaried basis for all hours worked. The Defendant did not permit the Plaintiff to record all time worked. The Defendant did not maintain records of all time worked by the Plaintiff. In order to fully perform their job duties, the Plaintiff regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but the Defendant does not compensate them at the overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to the FLSA, on behalf of a collective of persons who are or were employed by the Defendant as Field Technicians and/or in other similar job titles, during the past 3 years through the final date of the disposition of this action who were misclassified as exempt employees and not paid the statutorily required rate of one-and-one-half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and are entitled to recover: unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in each workweek, as required by law, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked as a Field Technician at the Defendant. Pratt is a foreign for-profit corporation that is licensed to conduct business in Georgia and regularly conducts business in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. Beth A. Moeller, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 1355 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404.748.9122 Email: tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Class Cert. in Valuation Method Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carleen Bongat, writing for Insurance Business Mag, reports that Progressive just dodged a class action over how it values totaled cars -- a ruling worth watching for insurers that rely on third-party valuation tools. On April 15, 2026, a federal judge in Illinois denied class certification in a lawsuit that accused Progressive Universal Insurance Company of systematically shortchanging policyholders on total-loss vehicle claims. The case centered on a pricing mechanism used in Progressive's claims process for valuing totaled vehicles. The dispute traces back to September 2020, when Normanda Holmes and Sherry Citchens-Wright each had their vehicles damaged in separate accidents. Both held policies with Progressive, which declared the cars total losses and set out to compensate them for actual cash value. To arrive at that number, Progressive turned to Mitchell International, a third-party valuation firm that identifies comparable vehicles in a claimant's area and adjusts their prices for factors like mileage and equipment. For vehicles that were listed for sale but had not yet sold, Mitchell applied what it calls a Projected Sold Adjustment -- essentially a markdown meant to account for the assumption that buyers negotiate prices down from the sticker. The reductions were not small. Mitchell knocked between $695 and $818 off comparable vehicles in Holmes' case, and between $488 and $549 in Citchens-Wright's. The plaintiffs argued that this practice dragged down the value of their claims and that Progressive never adequately told policyholders it was happening. They sought to bring a class action on behalf of every Illinois policyholder who, from February 2012 onward, had a total-loss claim valued using a Mitchell report where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied. The class would have covered claims under Progressive's standard policy, which caps the insurer's liability at the lowest of three amounts: the actual cash value at the time of loss, the cost to replace or repair the vehicle, or the amount listed on the vehicle's declaration page or auto insurance coverage summary. The policy also permits Progressive to use estimating, appraisal, or injury evaluation systems developed by the company or a third party to determine the amount of damages or loss payable. The lawsuit originally advanced several theories, including allegations that Progressive violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breached its contract with policyholders, and breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. But by the time the case reached the class certification stage, the court had already trimmed most of those theories. Earlier in the litigation, the court dismissed claims that Progressive misrepresented the Projected Sold Adjustment and that it violated the Illinois Total-Loss Regulation, giving the plaintiffs a chance to fix the deficiencies. They did not. The court also blocked the plaintiffs from reviving a regulatory violation theory for their breach of contract claims after they had expressly told the court in earlier filings that those claims had nothing to do with the regulation. When the plaintiffs later tried to reverse that position, the court shut the door, noting that allowing such a late pivot would unfairly burden Progressive, which had already completed discovery without any reason to explore that issue. That left just one surviving theory: that Progressive engaged in deceptive conduct under the Illinois consumer fraud statute by failing to disclose its use of the Projected Sold Adjustment in its policy and valuation reports. Even on that narrow claim, the court found the plaintiffs came up short. The central problem was predominance -- the requirement under federal class action rules that common questions shared by all class members outweigh the issues unique to each individual. The court acknowledged that whether Progressive's conduct would mislead a reasonable consumer is a common question. But it found that question alone was not enough, because each class member would still need to show that they were personally affected by the nondisclosure and that it caused them actual harm. That kind of inquiry, the court concluded, would require digging into the individual reasons each policyholder chose Progressive in the first place -- a process that would look different from one class member to the next. The court did not have to look far for evidence of that problem. The named plaintiffs' own depositions undercut the notion that the Projected Sold Adjustment was a deciding factor. Citchens-Wright testified she chose Progressive because her previous insurer did not cover her after she moved to Illinois. She continued paying for Progressive coverage even after receiving a valuation report that disclosed the adjustment, and she only switched carriers when her premiums went up. Holmes said she picked Progressive because the rates were very good at the time. She testified that she had no concerns about the adjustment after learning of it and went further, saying she believed it was okay for Mitchell to look at the list price of a vehicle and make an adjustment for the downward negotiation. With those facts on the table, the court found no basis to assume that every class member would have acted differently had they known about the adjustment. Unlike cases where courts have been willing to infer causation across an entire class -- such as when a product is functionally worthless or a concealed danger is so severe that no reasonable person would have proceeded -- the court found that consumers may choose Progressive insurance for a multitude of reasons beyond the methodology it uses to value totaled cars. The court denied class certification on April 15, 2026, without reaching the remaining arguments, finding that the commonality and predominance issues were dispositive. The case remains pending on an individual basis. The ruling does not declare the Projected Sold Adjustment lawful or unlawful, and similar litigation continues in other jurisdictions. For insurers relying on third-party valuation tools, the decision offers a measure of reassurance on the class action front -- but it also serves as a reminder that how these adjustments are disclosed, and how they hold up under individual scrutiny, are questions that are not going away anytime soon. [GN] PROXYCARE INC: Meeks Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROXYCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61018-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on August 22, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Proxycare, Inc. is a pharmacy services provider in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. Valentina Rios Barboza, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 Email: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com vbarboza@brysonpllc.com lblanco@brysonpllc.com ajaramillo@brysonpllc.com QUALITY BILLING SERVICE: Butler Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Billing Service, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Butler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Quality Billing Service, Inc., Case No. 2026-51938 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty., April 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). Quality Billing Service, Inc. (QBS) -- https://qualitybillingservice.com/ -- has proudly served healthcare providers since 1987.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com QUALITY BILLING SERVICE: Prout Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Billing Service, Inc. The case is styled as Marciea Prout, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Quality Billing Service, Inc., Case No. 2026-51939 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty., April 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). Quality Billing Service, Inc. (QBS) -- https://qualitybillingservice.com/ -- has proudly served healthcare providers since 1987.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com QUELL PEST CONTROL: Bird Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quell Pest Control LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Bird, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Quell Pest Control LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02459-ASB (D. Ariz., April 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quell Pest Control -- https://www.quellpest.com/ -- specializes in eco-friendly pest control services, ensuring safe and effective treatments for homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com RAVITSKY BROS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Frost Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAVITSKY BROS., INCORPORATED d/b/a FactoryPure, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02202 (D. Minn., April 9, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiffs and others in that it has failed to ensure that Defendant's Website and online content is fully accessible to persons with disabilities on an independent and equal basis in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and Minnesota Statute, adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiffs and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. Plaintiffs Clarence and Tammy Frost are legally blind and have been residents of Minnesota. Defendant RAVITSKY BROS., INCORPORATED is a Texas Company that offers power equipment and appliances for sale including generators, wood and pellet stoves, power equipment, mobility scooters, water heaters, electronics, air conditioners, air purifiers, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RELX GROUP PLC: Wanna Files Suit in Minn. Judicial Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RELX Group, PLC, et al. The case is styled as Melissa Wanna, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of a limited class of similarly situated v. RELX Group, PLC, Reed Elsevier Inc. d/b/a LexisNexis, RELX Inc. d/b/a LexisNexis, Lexisnexis Risk Solutions Inc., Lexisnexis Risk Solutions FL Inc., Case No. 27-CV-26-5733 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., April 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Personal Injury." RELX -- https://www.relx.com/ -- is a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers, enabling them to make better decisions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Madgett, Esq. MADGETT LAW, LLC IDS Center Suite 1650, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-470-6529 Email: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com RENTOKIL NORTH: Underpays Pest Control Technicians, Forslin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC FORSLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DOES I-X, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05351 (W.D. Wash., April 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages owed at termination, willful refusal to pay wages, failure to provide rest periods, and failure to provide meal periods. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a pest control technician in Washington from March 20, 2023, to September 12, 2025. Rentokil North America, Inc. is a pest control solutions provider, headquartered in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin Kathleen Epp, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (424) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Email: d.epp@calljustice.com - and - Derek Moretz, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (424) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Email: derek@calljustice.com REVELYST ADVENTURE SPORTS: Tupper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revelyst Adventure Sports LLC. The case is styled as Tammy Tupper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Revelyst Adventure Sports LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002722 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Revelyst -- https://www.revelyst.com/ -- is a collective of makers that design and manufacture performance gear and precision technologies to fuel outdoor experiences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com RIZZI GERIATRIC: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Taylor, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. RIZZI GERIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC., RIZZI PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC. and RIZZI GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01082 (M.D. Fla., April 8, 2026), for unpaid overtime compensation, unlawful misclassification, unpaid wages, breach of contract, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter, the "Act" or "FLSA"), and Florida common law. The Defendants willfully misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor when she was actually an employee paid at rates controlled by the Defendants and subject to the Defendants' control and direction. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week under compensation arrangements set by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was required to work full-time schedules at rates established by the Defendants, but was not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA. Based on the Defendants' control over the compensation structures and the actual hours worked, the Plaintiff is entitled to substantial overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week during her period of employment at the overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from April 2023 through January 10, 2024, as a mental health specialist. The Defendants operate medical practices providing geriatric and psychiatric care services at various assisted living facilities and nursing homes throughout Southwest Florida and employed Plaintiff as a mental health specialist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 109 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Phone: (239) 985-9691 Fax: (239) 288-2534 Email: byormak@yormaklaw.com ROAM LUGGAGE: Henderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROAM LUGGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03972 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.roamluggage.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Roam Luggage, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law SACRAMENTO DOWNTOWN: Hampton Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Brandon Hampton, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. SACRAMENTO DOWNTOWN ARENA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV004731 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00623. The Complaint is based on the following alleged California statutory violations of the Labor Codes for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Business & Professions Code (Unfair Business Practices).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Terry A. Wills, Esq. Alexis M. Gabrielson, Esq. Adam J. Stephens, Esq. COOK BROWN, LLP 2407 J Street, Second Floor Sacramento, CA 95816 Phone: 916-442-3100 Fax: 916-442-4227 Email: twills@cookbrown.com agabrielson@cookbrown.com astephens@cookbrown.com SAM'S WEST: Laplante Files Suit Over Illegal e-mail Campaigns ------------------------------------------------------------- BRADY LAPLANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAM'S WEST, INC., an Arkansas corporation, d/b/a SAMSCLUB.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02249-LL-VET (S.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its illegal email campaigns, in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. The complaint relates that Defendant SAM'S CLUB pays commissions to various "affiliate marketers" that relentlessly spam everyone whose address they can harvest. SAM'S CLUB's affiliate marketers send spam using falsified header information, spoofed domains and nonsensical sending addresses to evade spam filters. They also use false and deceptive subject lines -- everything that people rightfully hate about spam, it add. According to the complaint, SAM'S CLUB spams Plaintiff and other class members relentlessly. The spam was sent from a "spoofed" e-mail address to conceal the identity of the true sender and evade spam filters. With his confusion growing, Plaintiff clicked on the link in the spam and was eventually taken to a landing page of Defendant's website. The email's metadata and embedded code reflect multiple indicia of spam evasion and deceptive marketing practices because they demonstrate deliberate efforts to obscure the sender's identity, bypass authentication protocols, and manipulate how the message is interpreted by both spam filters and recipients. The spam is an "Unsolicited Commercial e-mail advertisement" because plaintiff had no pre-existing relationship with Defendant and because the e-mail was initiated for the purpose of advertising or promoting the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any property, goods, services, or extension of credit, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff never gave "direct consent" to receive commercial e-mail advertisements from Defendant or its marketing agents. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any and all other relief at law or equity that may be appropriate. Plaintiff Brady Laplante is a citizen of the State of California who received a misleading spam e-mail offering 50% off of a Sam's Club membership. Defendant Sam's West, Inc. (doing business as Sam's Club) is a division of Walmart that operates a chain of membership-only warehouse club retail stores.[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 SCOUT DISCOVERIES: Seaman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Braylon Seaman, individually and for others similarly situated v. SCOUT DISCOVERIES CORP., Case No. 2:26-cv-00216-REP (D. Idaho, April 8, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from The Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Nevada law, and Idaho law. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to attend safety meetings, fill out pre-shift paperwork, gather tools, and put on protective clothing and safety gear fundamentally necessary to perform their job duties, "off the clock" prior to the start of their shifts. The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy, rounding policy, and per diem pay scheme violate the FLSA, Nevada law, and Idaho law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages at rates of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek. Likewise, The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy, rounding policy, and per diem pay scheme violate Nevada law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of timely payment of earned wages upon termination of their employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff employed by The Defendant as a driller from May 2025 until November 2025 in Nevada and Idaho and previously worked for The Defendant during early 2023 in Nevada. The Defendant touts that it operates drilling projects in the western United States and offers "a complete suite of drilling solutions backed by cutting-edge technology and an experienced team."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Emmal, Esq. PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC 612 W. Main Ave., Ste. 207 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509.321.5930 Facsimile: 509.321.5935 Email: wemmal@pyklawyers.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SECURE HEALTH: 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 Secure Health 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 Secure Health data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Secure Health Security Incident: What Happened? Secure Health Plans of Georgia has confirmed a data breach that potentially exposed sensitive information. A notice posted to its website on April 3, 2026 revealed that Secure Health discovered the breach around February 12, 2026. With the help of outside specialists, the company determined unauthorized access to certain files may have occurred on or before February 3, 2026. At the time the notice was posted, Secure Health was reviewing potentially affected files to determine what information was compromised. On March 31, 2026, prior to the company's breach notice, a post made on Ransomware.Live indicated that threat actor Genesis claimed to have exfiltrated 650GB of data in the Secure Health data breach, including client folders and medical and insurance information. Secure Health, which acted as a third-party administrator for health benefit plans, ceased third-party administration operations on December 31, 2025. What You Can Do After the Secure Health Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Secure Health 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 Secure Health to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] SERENE GARDENS: Beasley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Sangrica Beasley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERENE GARDENS OF ROCHESTER HILLS LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-11161-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich., April 9, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). As non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff and other hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. Pursuant to the Defendant's policies, practices, and direction, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other hourly employees to work through their designated meal periods. This off-the-clock work generally occurred for the entire meal period, during which the Plaintiff and other hourly employees were supposed to be relieved of their job duties for 30 minutes. The Plaintiff was prohibited from taking her designated meal period time for rest, but the meal period time was still deducted from her time records and she was not paid for this time. The Defendant knew that all of the Plaintiff's hourly work was compensable under the FLSA. The Defendant willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA through their common business policies and practices As a result of these FLSA violations, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 2024 to August 2025. The Defendant is an assisted living and memory care facility located in Rochester Hills, MI and employs dozens of hourly employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48375 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com SIMPLENURSING LLC: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Benson" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Faith Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SimpleNursing, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-1118-GBW (D. Del.), Judge Gregory B. Williams of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. SimpleNursing operates a website where it sells subscriptions to access prerecorded standardized examination preparation videos for nursing exams. SimpleNursing programmed its website to include a Meta Pixel and a TikTok Pixel. When an individual purchases a SimpleNursing subscription, SimpleNursing automatically transmits that individual's unique Facebook Identification Number to Meta, and that individual's cell phone number and device information to TikTok. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff Faith Benson purchased a subscription to SimpleNursing's website. When she did so, her phone number was automatically transmitted to TikTok via the TikTok Pixel without her consent. Benson's Amended Complaint alleged that SimpleNursing's disclosure of customers' personally identifiable information (PII) to Meta and TikTok through their respective Pixels violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2710. SimpleNursing moved to dismiss, arguing that it is not a video tape service provider under the VPPA and that the information it transmits does not qualify as PII. The Court disagreed on the first point. The VPPA defines a video tape service provider as any person engaged in the business of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials. The word "similar" qualifies not the purpose of the audio visual material, but the nature of the delivery medium. The only relevant inquiry, then, is whether SimpleNursing's delivery medium is similar to a prerecorded video cassette tape. Accordingly, the Court found that the prerecorded video content on SimpleNursing's website falls squarely under "similar audio visual materials," and that Benson plausibly alleged that SimpleNursing is a video tape service provider. The Court agreed with SimpleNursing on the PII issue, however. The VPPA defines PII as information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. The Third Circuit has clarified that PII is the kind of information that would readily permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual's video-watching behavior, requiring disclosure of the specific video obtained. Benson alleged that a user's PII is conveyed to Meta and TikTok when that user completes the subscription to gain access to the prerecorded videos. At that time, SimpleNursing discloses only the URL where the subscription is available for purchase. SimpleNursing never conveys the URLs for the webpages of any of its actual videos. The Court held that Benson's mere purchase of a subscription is insufficient to identify her specific video-watching behavior. If the Court found otherwise, SimpleNursing would violate the VPPA even if Benson never accessed a single prerecorded video. As a matter of law, SimpleNursing's disclosures to Meta and TikTok of subscription purchases do not violate the VPPA. Therefore, the Court granted SimpleNursing's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision dated April 17, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PWfTye from PacerMonitor.com Defendant SimpleNursing, LLC is represented by: Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Esq. Joseph E. Brenner, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Wilmington, Delaware Plaintiff Faith Benson is represented by: R. Grant Dick IV, Esq. Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. Wilmington, Delaware SLIDERS RESTAURANT: Order Striking Vasquez Class Complaint Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIA VASQUEZ, v. SLIDERS RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, ET AL., AC 48046, (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 Vasquez brought this putative class action complaint, individually and on behalf of others who were similarly situated as employees of Sliders Bar & Grill 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 Sliders at its Plainville location as a server from approximately 2017 until 2019. She alleged that the Individual Defendant, Fred Marcantonio, is the sole owner of all Sliders restaurants in Connecticut and that the Defendant Entities operate several Sliders locations in Connecticut. She 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 Sliders Connecticut restaurants to take the full tip credit against the wages of their servers, and, as a result, they did not pay their servers the full minimum wage. They assigned the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated servers, nonservice duties, which included side work that they were required to perform during their serving shifts. On June 26, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced the present putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of herself and other Sliders servers and bartenders employed during the alleged class period, for violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. Her one count complaint 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 E4 from May 11, 2018, until September 23, 2020. In August, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-39,16 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 E4. Second, they asserted that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by the two-year statutory limitation period set forth in General Statutes Section 52-596. On September 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants' motion to strike. On September 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a reply. On June 12, 2024, the parties appeared before the court for oral argument. On September 6, 2024, the court granted the Defendants' motion to strike. In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded, inter alia, that the Plaintiff's complaint was legally insufficient because she alleged claims only under old E4, and, therefore, she failed to comply with Section 31-60 (d) (4). Similar to its reasoning in Farias, it reasoned that the language of Section 31-60 (d)(4) makes the legislature's intent abundantly clear; that is, actions filed after September 24, 2022, must be adjudicated only under §31-60-2 of the regulations. Following the granting of the Defendants' motion to strike, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on September 10, 2024, and this appeal followed. 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 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. It also 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 this 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 Vasquez'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/iEVAnpxoU. 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). STARSHIP LLC: Greer Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shantel Greer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STARSHIP, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. C26-00675 was removed from the the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03046-PHK. The Plaintiff alleges that Starship violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), among other statutes, by using certain tracking technologies on its website, www.rockstaroriginal.com (the "Website").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott S. Humphreys, Esq. Brianna R. Howard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: humphreyss@ballardspahr.com howardbr@ballardspahr.com STOCKSTOTRADE.COM: McKaughan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against StockstoTrade.Com, Inc. The case is styled as Kristine McKaughan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. StockstoTrade.Com, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01473-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal., April 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. StocksToTrade -- https://stockstotrade.com/ -- is an all-in-one trading platform designed for both beginner and advanced traders, helping them streamline their trading experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. Almeida Law Group LLC 3415 S SEPULVEDA Blvd., Ste. 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Phone: (562) 534-5907 Email: victor@almeidalawgroup.com SUZYQUILTS LIMITED: Faces Ford Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUZYQUILTS LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03948 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://suzyquilts.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate and lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Suzyquilts Limited is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law SUZYQUILTS LIMITED: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Ford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Suzyquilts Limited, Case No. 1:26-cv-03948 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://suzyquilts.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of quilt and sewing patterns, along with items like quilt kits, fabric bundles, and sewing supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero of HCA Mag reports that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging systemic gender discrimination -- and its own HR department is squarely in the crosshairs. The case, filed on April 16 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington (Yeh v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. et al., No. 3:26-cv-05388), was brought by Yi-Nung Yeh, a former software engineer at TSMC Washington. Yeh alleges the semiconductor giant engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against women in hiring, pay, promotion, staffing, and termination across its US operations. The numbers in the filing are hard to ignore. TSMC's American workforce is allegedly 72.6% male. Among managers, men reportedly make up 85.4%. Among professionals, 77.9%. Meanwhile, 59% of the women TSMC employs are allegedly concentrated in its lowest-level, lowest-paid technician roles -- compared to just 14% of men. The filing points to TSMC's own 2023 Sustainability Report, which acknowledged "gender disparities in high-paying positions resulting in occupational segregation." But what may hit closest to home for HR leaders is how the company's human resources function allegedly handled internal concerns. Yeh, who holds two master's degrees and previously led development teams at Amazon and Oracle, was offered a principal software engineer role in August 2025 and joined TSMC Washington the following month. According to the filing, she arrived to find her title had been changed without explanation. And while her two male peers each supervised multiple direct reports, she was given none -- a gap that, she alleges, left her at a disadvantage in a role where a substantial portion of compensation was performance-based. When she raised concerns starting September 23, 2025, the response from HR allegedly made things worse. An HR representative reportedly called her "too sensitive," ordered her to stop emailing her grievances, and asked if she could "accept" continued disparate treatment. An internal investigation allegedly wrapped up in five days -- without interviewing her. A later third-party review was, according to the filing, restricted in scope "as determined by TSMC," contradicting assurances that her concerns would be "thoroughly reviewed." According to the filing, on December 8, HR told Yeh no evidence of targeting had been found and that she would need to "find a way to work with HR." Two days later, she was terminated. The filing also paints a broader picture of the alleged workplace culture. It claims a section manager at TSMC Arizona showed pictures of women in bikinis during a meeting after instructing employees to turn off their phones and laptops, that women were called "juicy" and "sexy," and that candidates were asked whether they planned to become pregnant. Yeh is seeking class certification on behalf of all women who applied for or worked at TSMC in the United States and were allegedly not hired, not promoted, underpaid, or terminated. The proposed class is believed to number in the thousands. Worth noting: TSMC received $6.6 billion in direct funding under the CHIPS and Science Act -- which required commitments to a workplace free of harassment and discrimination and the submission of workforce diversity plans. No determination has been made in the case, and the allegations have not been proven. TSMC has not yet responded. [GN] TAPESTRY INC: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Reference Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Amanda Curry filed a class action lawsuit against Tapestry Inc. and Coach Services Inc. Why: Curry claims the companies falsely advertise discounts at Kate Spade outlets by using inflated "comparable value" prices. Where: The Kate Spade class action lawsuit was filed in Oregon federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Kate Spade outlets of falsely advertising discounts to customers by using inflated "comparable value" prices. Plaintiff Amanda Curry filed the Kate Spade class action lawsuit in Oregon federal court on March 5. Curry claims Tapestry and Coach Services, the companies that own the Kate Spade brand, mislead consumers into believing they are receiving substantial savings on discounted products. She argues that nearly all products sold at Kate Spade outlets bear a "comparable value" price that is always higher than the actual sale price. The companies offer discounts of 50% to 70% or more against these "comparable value" prices, creating the impression that consumers are receiving substantial savings on goods of significant value, the Kate Spade class action lawsuit alleges. Kate Spade class action alleges 'comparable value' prices violate Oregon law Oregon law prohibits retail price comparisons unless sellers identify the source of the compared price and can show it reflects a bona fide offering by a competitor in the same geographic market for substantially similar goods, the Kate Spade class action lawsuit alleges. Curry argues that Kate Spade's "comparable value" prices do not satisfy these requirements. "Based on counsel's investigation, the 'comparable value' prices bear no meaningful relationship to the actual transaction prices at which identifiable competitors offer substantially similar goods at outlet malls in the same geographic area," the Kate Spade class action lawsuit alleges. Curry wants to represent a class of consumers who purchased one or more Kate Spade outlet products in Oregon at a discount to a ticketed comparative price. She demands a jury trial and requests actual or statutory damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Meanwhile, lifestyle brand Lands' End is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it advertised discounts that were always available and not true reductions from regular prices. The plaintiff is represented by M. Ryan Casey of The Casey Law Firm LLC, Gillian Wade and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP and Evan E. North of North Law PLLC. The Kate Spade class action lawsuit is Curry v. Tapestry Inc., et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-00429, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. [GN] TARGET CORP: Court Reverses Dismissal of Bed Sheet Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Services reports that the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's dismissal of a putative class action against Target, which sold 100% cotton bed sheets claiming thread counts of 600 or more, which is impossible to achieve with 100% cotton textile. The lower court said that the plaintiff could not be deceived as a matter of law, but it skipped a step under analysis of the precedent found in Moore v. Trader Joe's because it did not analyze whether the labels on the bed sheets were ambiguous as it applies to factually impossible claims. [GN] TILLAMOOK CREAMERY: Ore. App. Flips Dismissal of Bohr Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Sonja BOHR, Tamara Barnes, Karen Foglesong, and Mary Wood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TILLAMOOK COUNTY CREAMERY ASSOCIATION, an Oregon cooperative corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Sonja BOHR, Tamara Barnes, Karen Foglesong, and Mary Wood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TILLAMOOK COUNTY CREAMERY ASSOCIATION, an Oregon cooperative corporation, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A175575 (Or. App.), the Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the trial court's order dismissing the class claims for failure to state a claim. The Appellate Court considered the putative class action under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) for the second time, in this instance on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's advertising about its dairy products was misleading in ways that violated three provisions of the UTPA: ORS 646.608(1)(b) (causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding regarding the source of goods); ORS 646.608(1)(d) (using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods); and ORS 646.608(1)(e) (representing that goods have qualities and characteristics, including ingredients, that they do not have). They further allege that the asserted violations caused them to suffer an "ascertainable loss" under ORS 646.638. The trial court dismissed the complaint to the extent that it purported to assert claims ona behalf of a class, concluding that the Plaintiffs were required to allege that they relied on the asserted violative conduct in purchasing the Defendant's products, and, further, that they failed to adequately allege reliance by class members. It concluded, however, that the Individual Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently stated claims under each of the identified UTPA provisions. As ORS 19.225 allows in putative class actions, the trial court certified to the Appellate Court seven questions that the court determined were controlling questions of law that would benefit from interlocutory resolution. When the case was first before the Appellate Court, it answered four of those questions in the Defendant's favor (1, 2, 3 and 5) and, based on those answers, affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal with respect to the class claims, and remanded to the trial court to proceed with the case with respect to the Individual Plaintiffs. In so doing, it concluded that one of the Plaintiffs' theories of relief (the price inflation theory) was not tenable and that the other two theories (inducement and prohibited transaction) required the Plaintiffs to plead—and ultimately prove—reliance. As a result of those determinations, the Appellate Court did not reach the other questions certified to it (4, 6 and 7), reasoning that under the circumstances they no longer presented controlling questions of law with respect to the class action. The Supreme Court allowed review of this decision and reversed it insofar as the Appellate Court had held that the Plaintiffs were required to plead reliance for purposes of their "price inflation" and "prohibited transaction" theories of recovery. It remanded to the Appellate Court further proceedings. Upon the Plaintiffs' request, the Appellate Court received supplemental briefing and heard oral argument from the parties regarding the effect of the Supreme Court's decision on questions 4, 6 and 7—the questions it previously left unanswered. Those questions are as follows: "4a. To establish ascertainable loss under ORS 646.638(1) based upon their theory that Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class overpaid for the Tillamook products compared to competing brands, must Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class plead and prove which Tillamook product(s) Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class purchased and at what cost, as well as the cost of the proper comparator product(s) available at the time of their respective purchases?" "4b. If the answer to the foregoing question is 'no,' must Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class nonetheless plead and prove which Tillamook product(s) Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class purchased and at what cost in order to provide the basis for any 'inference' of ascertainable loss?" "6. Whether Plaintiffs' claim under ORS 646.608(1)(b) fails on the basis that the term 'source' in that subsection refers to the company that sells the goods at issue, not the geographic origin of an ingredient used to make the goods, and not the supplier of an ingredient used to make the goods." "7. Whether Plaintiffs' claim under ORS 646.608(1)(b) fails on the basis that the meaning of 'goods' in that subsection does not include an ingredient used to make the goods, in this case, milk." The Appellate Court answered both parts of question 4 in the negative. It said that to the extent question 4 asks it to determine what proof—in addition to pleading—is required, it is beyond the scope of this appeal. Under ORS 19.225, the only questions before the Appellate Court are the ones that are involved in the order on appeal. The order on appeal comes from a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to former ORCP 21 A(1)(8) (2019), renumbered as ORCP 21 A(1)(h) (2022). And in view of Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC's construction of the phrase "ascertainable loss," then the question to be whether the Plaintiffs have alleged a "determinable loss," the Appellate Court held that the Plaintiffs' have. The allegations in the complaint are that the Plaintiffs overpaid for the Defendant's dairy products because of its deceptive advertising. Considering that conclusion, and accounting for the Supreme Court's determination that the Plaintiffs are not required to allege reliance for two of their theories, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's order dismissing the class claims for failure to state a claim. That determination, which resurrected the potential class claims, means that questions 6 and 7 are potentially controlling questions for purposes of ORS 19.225, so the Appellate Court answered them each in the affirmative. It concluded that, as pleaded, the allegations in the complaint do not state a claim under ORS 646.608(1)(b). It remanded for further proceedings consistent with that conclusion, and the Appellate Court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an ascertainable loss. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' allegations state claims for relief under ORS 646.608(1)(d) and (1)(e), and adequately allege that they have suffered an "ascertainable loss" under ORS 646.638(1). Their allegations do not state a claim under ORS 646.608(1)(b). The Appellate Court reversed the order on review to the extent that the trial court's decision runs counter to these conclusions and those of the Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion and with the Supreme Court's opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/FMYQVbN08. Michael Sandmire -- msandmire@buchalter.com -- argued the cause for appellant-respondent. Also on the briefs were Alexandra M. Shulman -- ashulman@buchalter.com -- Daniel L. Lis -- dlis@buchalter.com -- and Buchalter Ater Wynne. Nadia H. Dahab -- info@sugermandahab.com -- argued the cause for respondents-appellants. Also on the answering brief were David F. Sugerman -- david@sugermandahab.com -- and Sugerman Law Office; Tim Quenelle and Tim Quenelle PC; and Kelsey Eberly (California), Amanda Howell (Texas), and Animal Legal Defense Fund (California). Also on the supplemental brief were David Sugerman and Sugerman Dahab; Tim Quenelle and Tim Quenelle PC; Amanda Howell (Texas) and Animal Legal Defense Fund (California). TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Seat Rails ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., Toyota Motor North America Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana Inc. are facing a class action lawsuit. Why: The automaker is accused of offering no effective solution for defective seat rails in 2025 Sienna minivans. Where: The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new Toyota class action lawsuit claims the automaker sold 2025 Toyota Sienna minivans with defective seat rails and failed to offer timely repairs. Plaintiffs Adam Hamblin and Juliet Kelsten filed the class action complaint against Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Toyota Motor North America and Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana on April 1 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Toyota marketed its 2025 Sienna minivans as family-friendly vehicles with ample seating, but the second-row seat rails were improperly welded, posing a significant safety risk. Toyota issued a recall acknowledging the defect but has yet to repair any affected Toyota Sienna vehicles, the plaintiffs say. Toyota allegedly advised owners not to use the second-row seats, rendering the minivans unusable for families who purchased them for their seating capacity. Toyota Sienna owners unable to use their vehicles, lawsuit claims The lawsuit points to numerous complaints from frustrated Sienna owners who have been unable to use their vehicles for months. One complaint to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states, "The vehicle has been out of service for over 80 days, and Toyota has confirmed that there is still no repair remedy available and no timeline for resolution." Toyota's failure to provide a timely fix has left many owners without suitable transportation, the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs allege Toyota's actions constitute a breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. They claim they would not have purchased the vehicles or would have paid less if they had known about the defect. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for affected Toyota Sienna owners. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in South Carolina or Ohio who purchased or leased a 2025 Toyota Sienna vehicle that was produced between Jan. 14, 2025, and July 24, 2025. Toyota is still facing a lawsuit filed last year claiming it shared vehicle data with third party companies without first gaining consent. The plaintiffs are represented by Trinette G. Kent of Lemberg Law LLC. The Toyota Sienna class action lawsuit is Hamblin, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-03458, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] TRUITT AND WHITE LUMBER: Maya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truitt and White Lumber Company. The case is styled as Angie Maya, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Truitt and White Lumber Company, Case No. 26CV181511 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Truitt and White -- https://truittandwhite.com/ -- is a leading provider of lumber and building materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com UNION PACIFIC: 7th Cir. Flips 2024 BIPA Sec 20 Amendments Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, REGINALD CLAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. BRANDON WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. JOHN GREGG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 25-2185, 25-2761, 25-2762 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district courts' rulings that the 2024 amendment to BIPA Section 20 did not apply retroactively to cases pending when the amendment was enacted. In 2024, Illinois's General Assembly amended Section 20 of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, confirming that damages should be evaluated on a per-person basis. The legislature did so in response to a Supreme Court of Illinois decision, in which the court expressed concern that the old version of Section 20 might permit "annihilative liability" for businesses regulated by the Act. The question presented is whether this amendment applies retroactively to cases pending when it was enacted. BIPA has become a font of high-stakes litigation. Five years ago, one such case is Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 20 F.4th 1156 (7th Cir. 2021). In Cothron, the Seventh Circuit was asked to decide how claims accrue under BIPA's substantive provisions. BIPA prohibits private entities from collecting, capturing, disclosing, or disseminating anyone's biometric identifiers without their informed consent. In Cothron's view, this meant her employer collected her biometric information and a new claim accrued every single time she scanned her fingerprint to access the company's computer system. The Defendant argued this per-scan theory of claim accrual would create potentially crippling financial liability for those who violate BIPA by repeatedly collecting the same information in the same way. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that claims accrue "with every scan or transmission" of biometric information. It also suggested that the legislature review the policy concerns about potentially excessive damage awards under the Act and make clear its intent regarding the assessment of damages under the Act. The Illinois General Assembly responded to the court's invitation. Less than a year and a half after the Cothron decision, the General Assembly passed an amendment to Section 20 clarifying the scope of damages available under BIPA. See Pub. The amendment took effect on August 2, 2024—the same day the governor signed it into law. This amendment added two clauses to Section 20. The first provides that any entity that collects biometric information "in more than one instance from the same person using the same method of collection in violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 has committed a single violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section." The second adds the same operative language for violations of Section 15(d). The legislature did not change the text of Section 15 or Section 20(a) at all, nor did it include an express retroactivity clause. The Seventh Circuit consolidated three interlocutory appeals posing a common legal question—whether this amendment to BIPA Section 20 applies retroactively. Reginald Clay, a commercial truck driver, alleges that the Union Pacific Railroad violated Section 15(b) of BIPA by requiring him to scan his fingerprints when he entered and exited the company's facilities. John Gregg and Brandon Willis each allege their employers collected their fingerprints or hand geometry through a "biometric time clock," violating BIPA Sections 15(a), (b), and (d). Though these cases come to Circuit Court in different procedural postures, each district court certified this question for interlocutory review. The Seventh Circuit explained that the financial stakes of this case are high. If the amendment does not apply, each plaintiff argues he is entitled to a substantial award of damages. Clay, for example, alleges that the Railroad collected his fingerprint scans approximately 1,500 times. If the railroad is found liable for intentional violations of the Act, that could net Clay alone $7.5 million in statutory damages. And Willis filed his case as a putative class action, leading to a risk of billions of dollars in damages. The Seventh Circuit held that this amendment to BIPA Section 20 applies retroactively to cases pending at the time it was enacted. Because the amendment to Section 20 of BIPA constitutes a remedial change, Illinois courts would have the Seventh Circuit apply it to cases pending when it was enacted. A plaintiff who alleges thousands of claims under BIPA Section 15 is only "entitled to, at most, one recovery under" Section 20. The Seventh Circuit said this amendment applies retroactively because it impacts only the statutory damages available to plaintiffs—it does not change BIPA's substantive standards of liability. The district courts in all three cases erred by holding otherwise. On remand, the district courts may need to reevaluate how this holding affects other aspects of these cases, including subject matter jurisdiction. But for now, it is enough to note that these courts, and others dealing with similar cases, must ensure they follow the latest guidance of the legislature when calculating damages under BIPA Section 20. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/nrj05pa UNITED HEALTH GROUP: Anesis Center Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anesis Center for Marriage and Family Therapy, LLC, Supportive Hands Healing MindS LLC, Village Primary Care Providers, LLC, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Insight, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Financial, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2026CV000541 was removed from the Dane County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on April 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00319 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Alyssa Schaefer, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 492-6987 Email: schaefer.alyssa@dorsey.com UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of Aritzia Inc. The case is styled as Michaiah Micah Ramirez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. United States of Aritzia Inc. d/b/a Aritzia, Case No. 26STCV11680 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." United States of Aritzia Inc. doing business as Aritzia -- https://www.aritzia.com/us/en -- offers women's clothing and accessories - jackets, coats, sweaters, and dresses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma Geesaman, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: e.geesaman@d.law - and - Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: j.power@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: CEPD Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as CEPD Psychological Services, Christine Meyer MD, East Penn Rheumatology, and Koka Cardiology, individually and as representatives of the Classes v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, United HealthCare Services, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Financial, Inc., Optum Bank, Inc., Case No. 260202092 was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02299. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff CEPD suffered damages via an inability to submit claims, receive ERAs, and receive payment for its medical care to patients, all of which disrupted CEPD's business. The Plaintiff CEPD allegedly suffered monetary losses through rejected and/or delayed payments for medical care and spent significant time and resources investigating the network outage and alternative methods to receive payment for medical care.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jasmeet K. Ahuja, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 675-4600 Email: jasmeet.ahuja@hoganlovells.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: FRMC Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Firelands Regional Medical Center, Wellife, LLC, Julie A. Johnson LPCC, LLC, , on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Inc., Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Financial Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., UnitedHealthCare Services Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00699 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02168-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark H. Troutman, Esq. TROUTMAN & JUDGE-COLUMBUS 1700 Lake Shore Drive, Ste. 220 Columbus, OH 43204 Phone: (614) 796-9156 Email: mtroutman@troutmanjudge.com The Defendant is represented by: Amber L. Merl, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H McConnell Blvd Ste 600 Columbus, OH 43215-2673 Phone: (614) 469-3939 Email: almerl@jonesday.com - and - Joel E. Sechler, Esq. CARPENTER, LIPPS & LELAND-COLUMBUS 280 North High Street, Ste. 1300 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 365-4100 Fax: (614) 365-9145 Email: sechler@carpenterlipps.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: KidStuff Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case KIDSTUFF CHILD AND FAMILY COUNSELING PC and COMPASSIONATE CONCIERGE PHYSICIANS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 2026CV30151, was removed from the District Court of Colorado, Larimer County, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on April 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01496 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for the financial losses they suffered as a result of the Defendants' failure to prevent a cyber incident that rejected and/or delayed medical care payments. KidStuff Child and Family Counseling PC is a child and family therapist practice located in Loveland, Colorado. Compassionate Concierge Physicians, LLC is a mobile wound care management company located in Longmont, Colorado. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a health insurance company, with its principal place of business in Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Edwin E. (Steve) Bruns, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 899-7300 Facsimile: (303) 899-7333 Email: steve.bruns@hoganlovells.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: TMC Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Trinity Medical Care LLC, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum Financial Incorporated, Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions Incorporated, Optum Incorporated, Optum Bank, Change Healthcare Solutions LLC, Optum Pay, Change Healthcare Holdings, Change Healthcare Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, Change Healthcare Operations, United HealthCare Services Incorporated, Case No. 5:26-cv-00490 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02166-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Hodge, Esq. MORRIS KING & HODGE 200 Pratt Ave. NE Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: (256) 536-0588 Fax: (256) 533-1504 Email: DHodge@mkhlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: J. David Moore, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 420 20th Street North. Ste. 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 244-5287 Fax: (205) 244-5487 Email: dmoore@joneswalker.com VAIL RESORTS: 2,000 Ski Instructors Join Suit Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- John LaConte of Vail Daily reports that a class action lawsuit against Vail Resorts is making progress. Almost 2,000 ski instructors reportedly signed on to a lawsuit seeking compensation for part of their routine that they allegedly weren't paid for. The lawsuit is over Vail Resorts allegedly failing to pay employees for parts of their jobs that are essential to their work schedules. This includes commuting between locations (such as from the parking lots to their check-in spots), training sessions, putting on their gear, and taking phone calls with co-workers. The plaintiffs allege that this violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. The goal of the lawsuit is to receive compensation for those tasks. Those who have been a ski instructor at a Vail Resorts property since December 2 of the 2017-18 season are eligible to join the lawsuit. Around 24,000 individuals were contacted, but only around 2,000 signed up. Reportedly, the two sides were in court on Wednesday, April 15, to discuss whether to extend the April 15th deadline. However, they did not extend it; the deadline appears to have passed. However, there have been scenarios in the past where people in class action lawsuits have been able to join following the deadline. You can learn more about the lawsuit at https://www.vailresortsinstructorwagelitigation.com/ Vail Resorts denies the claims and states that it complies with federal law. [GN] VALVE CORP: Order Disqualifying Arbitrator in Beer Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JONATHAN BEER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VALVE CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B344782 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court's denial of Beer's motion to vacate the arbitrator's disqualification. Appellant Beer is one of a number of consumer plaintiffs arbitrating antitrust claims against Respondent Valve over Valve's computer game sales. During the arbitration, Valve moved to disqualify the arbitrator, citing a previously undisclosed conflict of interest. Beer opposed, arguing that Valve's request was untimely and barred by California law. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) disqualified the arbitrator. Beer filed a motion in superior court to vacate the disqualification order. The court denied the motion, finding that the order was not an award" subject to review by the court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286. Beer appealed, arguing that the court erred in concluding it could not review the decision to disqualify the arbitrator. Valve owns and operates Steam, a digital distribution and online gaming platform. Consumers subscribing to Steam gain access to online video games and related content, including games made by Valve and by other developers. Under the Steam subscriber agreement (SSA), the parties agreed to resolve all disputes through "individual binding arbitration" to be administered by AAA and governed by the Consumer Arbitration Rules. In 2021, a game developer and several consumers filed a putative federal class action against Valve in federal district court in Washington (developer class action). The plaintiffs alleged that Valve engaged in anticompetitive practices to inflate prices of the games on its Steam platform. The federal district court granted Valve's motion to compel arbitration of the consumer plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the SSA. The court stayed the claims by the consumers but allowed the claims by the game developer to proceed. In July 2023, Beer's counsel served a demand for arbitration on Valve on behalf of more than 44,000 consumers, including Beer, again alleging antitrust claims. This AAA arbitration followed, with Beer as the claimant along with 24 other individuals, and Valve as the respondent. In April 2024, AAA notified the parties that it had selected Martin Katz as the arbitrator for the case. On August 19, 2024, Valve's counsel sent a letter to AAA objecting to Katz's continued service as arbitrator on the matter, citing AAA's Consumer Arbitration Rules, rule R-19(b). Valve objected on the basis that Katz and his firm represent or have represented video game developers who are absent class members adverse to Valve” in the developer class action, thus creating a clear conflict, and that Katz did not disclose this conflict. Valve also noted that claimants' counsel had filed a second consumer putative class action against Valve (consumer class action). Beer opposed Katz's disqualification, arguing that Valve's request was untimely and therefore barred under section 1281.91. On August 27, 2024, AAA notified the parties that it was removing Katz as the arbitrator. On October 4, 2024, Beer filed a petition to vacate the arbitrator's disqualification with the superior court. He argued that AAA had exceeded its powers by disqualifying Katz in violation of section 1281.91. Thus, Beer contended that the order disqualifying Katz constituted an "award" subject to vacatur by the court pursuant to section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4) (section 1286.2(a)(4)). Valve submitted a response, arguing that the administrative decision to disqualify the arbitrator was not an "award" on the merits. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order under section 1286.2(a)(4). The court issued a written order on January 8, 2025. It concluded that Beer could not seek relief under section 1286.2 because no arbitration award had been issued. It also found that Beer did not seek any of the limited grounds for court intervention permitted during an ongoing arbitration. Accordingly, Beer's petition was denied. Beer timely appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the disqualification decision was not a final award reviewable by the court. Additionally, the arbitration is ongoing and Beer has presented no grounds for review of an interim arbitration order. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that the disqualification order was not reviewable as an award under section 1286.2 and therefore denying Beer's petition to vacate. The court's January 8, 2025 order is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to its costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/1bad874 Morrow Ni, Jing He; Bucher Law and William Ward Bucher -- will@bucherlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Virginia F. Milstead -- virginia.milstead@skadden.com -- Michael W. McTigue, Jr. -- michael.mctigue@skadden.com -- and Meredith C. Slawe Jr. -- meredith.slawe@skadden.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. VAST INC: Morales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vast, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Morales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Vast, Inc., Case No. 26STCV11406 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Vast Space -- https://www.vastspace.com/ -- is a privately-held American aerospace company headquartered in Long Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma Geesaman, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: e.geesaman@d.law - and - Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: j.power@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law VERANO HOLDINGS: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERANO HOLDINGS CORP.; VERANO HOLDINGS, INC.; and VERANO HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2026 CH 2126 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03963. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that beginning in early 2024, Verano printed the name and birthdate of medical cannabis purchasers on their payment receipt. The Plaintiff alleges that this information is personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") that was disclosed without his consent. As a result, Plaintiff brings a putative class action complaint against Verano for breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq. Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq. Shivani Govani, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 876-7100 Email: casey.grabenstein@saul.com elizabeth.thompson@saul.com shivani.govani@saul.com VIBRA HEALTHCARE: Strange Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Tamalae Strange, individually and for others similarly situated v. VIBRA HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-02897 (S.D. Tex., April 10, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all overtime hours they worked. the Defendant knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were regularly working "off the clock" because managers observed or directed this work and because the Plaintiff and others complained about not being paid for this time. Thus, under the Defendant's common policies and practices, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were denied overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff brings this collective action lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages owed to these workers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Quality Coordinator in Houston. Vibra operates hospitals throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal W.W. GRAINGER: Jackson Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexis Jackson, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., Grainger Corporate Services LLC, Grainger International, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:26-cv-00936 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-03057-ASK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination. Grainger -- https://www.grainger.com/ -- is America's trusted source for MRO supplies and industrial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Andrew Gavin Ronan, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. Piya Mukherjee, Esq. Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com Andrew@bamlawca.com aj@bamlawca.com Kyle@bamlawlj.com nick@bamlawca.com piya@bamlawlj.com victoria@bamlawca.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. George James Theofanis, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3151 Fax: (916) 840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com george.theofanis@ogletree.com WAN CHANG INC: Brinez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAN CHANG INC., et al. The case is styled as Mauricio Alberto Brinez, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WAN CHANG INC. f/d/b/a C.M.J. XING INC.; WANRONG TRADING CORP.; TAI HE TRADING CORP.; Yiang Shao a/k/a Yi Ang Shao; Xuming Ren a/k/a Xu Ming Ren; Xumao Ren a/k/a Xu Mao Ren; John Doe, Case No. 710599/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., April 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (NYC GMVA).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com WANDERING BEAR INC: Nichol Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wandering Bear Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Nichol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wandering Bear Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02992 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wandering Bear -- https://wanderingbearcoffee.com/ -- is a producer of cold coffee brewing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com WARNER BROS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. The case is styled as Tawnya Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. d/b/a WWW.HGTV.COM, Case No. 26CU020292C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 10, 2026). Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD) -- https://www.wbd.com/ -- is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com WGW SALES: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Henderson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENNETH HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WGW SALES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03957 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.silverjeans.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Wgw Sales Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law ZILLOW GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: Z) (NASDAQ: ZG) resulting from allegations that Zillow may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Zillow 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=58893 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: On September 30, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission published an announcement entitled "FTC Sues Zillow and Redfin Over Illegal Agreement to Suppress Rental Advertising Competition". The announcement stated that the FTC had sued "Zillow and Redfin over an unlawful agreement that eliminates Redfin as a competitor in the market for placing advertising of rental housing on internet listing services (ILSs)-the websites that millions of Americans use to find their next rental home." On this news, Zillow's Class C stock fell 4.6% on October 1, 2025. 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 achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time 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. Contact Information: 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] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Plans New Filing to Resolve Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Oppenheimer, writing for mesothelioma.net, reports that after nearly ten years of attempting the bankruptcy maneuver known as the "Texas Two-Step," Georgia-Pacific appears to be moving toward a new bankruptcy filing to resolve tens of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits, including claims filed by mesothelioma victims. The shift in strategy would put an end to one of the longest tests of the controversial scheme. Georgia-Pacific is a pulp-and-paper manufacturer that was facing roughly 64,000 asbestos lawsuits, including thousands of mesothelioma cases, in 2017. That year, the company tested a novel bankruptcy strategy: It created Bestwall to house those claims, then placed the new subsidiary into bankruptcy. The tactic, which has since been attempted by health products giant Johnson & Johnson and others, effectively froze all pending claims. Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the strategy, and now law firms representing various mesothelioma and asbestos claimants say the company has "given up" and now plans to utilize one of its existing affiliates or a newly created entity to file for a new Chapter 11 bankruptcy to resolve the mesothelioma claims. According to a filing submitted by an attorney representing some claimants, Georgia-Pacific is trying to secure sufficient support from victims diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases before filing another bankruptcy to fast-track its new plan. Negotiations for the new approach apparently stalled when victims’ advocates asked for details of the financial terms of the settlement, as well as preservation of their rights to object to any future bankruptcy plan. The group is now requesting appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee in the Bestwall case, arguing that an independent trustee is "essential" as Georgia-Pacific is "hatching a next assault." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Seeks Court Declaration Over Legal Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Law reports that Houston Specialty Insurance Co. sued United Service Cos. to avoid paying legal costs in asbestos litigation, arguing its insurance policy excludes asbestos-related injuries and workplace exposures. In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the insurer seeks a court declaration that it has no duty to defend United or pay any settlement or judgment costs in the underlying mesothelioma case. The plaintiff in the underlying action sued United and other companies, claiming he developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure during his employment in the 1970s and 1980s. ********* 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 ***