260427.mbx

260427.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 27, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 83 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Faces County Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS ACCEL MANAGEMENT: Glazer Sues Over Deceptive Company Sale Deal AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Hays Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty AKD 3006 ROYAL: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. AMAZON.COM INC: Hopkins Files Fraud Suit in W.D. Wash. AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Certification Bid Continued to Sept. 7 ANGELA STUFF: Graham Files Suit in N.D. Ohio AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Sends Deceptive Commercial Emails, Sigglin Says BFI WASTE: Faces Brooks Suit Over Harmful Landfill Odors BIMBO BAKERIES: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Igwenagu Suit BIRKENSTOCK USA: Jones Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. BLUE CROSS: Keith Feder Suit Removed to C.D. California BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: Franco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOOKING HOLDINGS INC: Velasquez Files Suit in D. Connecticut BOUNDLESS NETWORK: Gammage Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BUFFALO, NY: Bid to Certify Class in Franklin Suit Tossed CARDONE CAPITAL: Pino Wins Bid for Class Certification CARECLOUD INC: Salazar Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info CARMAX AUTO: Medina Files Civil Suit in Calif. Super. CERAGON NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Securities Suit for Court Nod CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Private Info, Spikes Says CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Porter Says COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barnes Due June 8 COLUMBUS TRADING: Wins Dismissal of "ElSayed" Suit COMPREHENSIVE BREAST: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, MH Says COSTCO WHOLESALE: George Sues Over Auto Renewal of Memberships CROCS INC: Sends Unlawful Telemarketing Messages, Gonzalez Says DANUBENET INC: Parsons Files Fraud Complaint in D.N.J. EASTERSEALS NORTHERN: Faces Kirchenbauer Suit in Cal. Super. ED WITTMEIER: Faces Edwards Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. EMPOWERMENT SCHOOLS: Faces Jacoby Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Tex. EQUIFAX INFO: Hines Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval EVOLVE BANK: Margul Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order FIVE O FORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonano Alleges GEMS 911: Holt Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination & Retaliation GLOBE LIFE: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Derivative Suit GLOCK INC: Faces Holmes Fraud Suit in N.D. Ill. GOOGLE LLC: Hurley Appeals Antitrust Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit HAGERTY INSURANCE: Russell Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation HEALTH GORILLA: Hawkins Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Fla. HEALTH GORILLA: Lott Bid to Consolidate Actions OK'd HEALTH NET: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Shannon Alleges IKEA NORTH: Moran Sues Over Unlawful Credit Transactions Practice INSIGHT SCHOOL: Rodriguez Files Civil Suit in Calif. Super. JARS I INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges JRSK INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind JW PEI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gee Suit Due Sept. 15 KAPLAN NORTH: Court Denies Motion to Consolidate in Linsell Suit KAPLAN NORTH: Johnson Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info KAPLAN NORTH: Linsell Files Personal Injury Claims in S.D. Fla. KIEU HOANG: Scheduling Conference Set for May 19 KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Dorothy Sues Over Improper Collection of Taxes LOCKHEED MARTIN: Court Narrows Claims in "Fezer" ERISA Suit MANHASSET RESTAURANT: Appeals Judgment in Teoh Suit to 10th Circuit MANHATTAN BEER: Settlement in Swanson Gets Prelim Nod MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Plaintiff Wins Class Certification Bid MCCAIN FOODS: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid by April 28 MERCOR.IO CORP: White Files Personal Injury Complaint in N.D. Tex. MIC GENERAL: Class Settlement in Loughran Gets Initial Nod MINEOLA ASSESSORS: A. Debarros Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONEYLION: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Burkhardt" MYSTIQUE LANDSCAPE: Del Valle Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Pay NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Extension of Class Cert Filing Sought NAVLAN PR LLC: Starling Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Deadlines in Kwiatkowski OLD BROOKVILLE ASSESSORS: 565 Cedar Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. OPAL SERVICE INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OSHKOSH CORP: Durango Fire Protection Sues Over Unlawful Conspiracy OSI OPTOELECTRONICS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Guerrero Says PEEK TRAVEL: Montgomery Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits PORT WASHINGTON NORTH: 84 Shore Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PREMIUM BRANDS: Horton Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping PRIME CIGAR: Brooks Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: East Sues Over Fiduciary Breaches PRODEGE LLC: Avila Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PSG CALIFORNIA: Feliz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff RADIANT CONSULTING: Ginn Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting RAW NUTRITION: Ruchman Balks at Misbranded Protein Shake Products RESTAURANT DEPOT: Faces Ripa Suit Over Mislabeled Olive Oil RONALD BEERS: Parties Must File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal SARTHAK EXPRESS: Must Pay $30K to End "Kumar" Wage Suit SODERSTROM DERMATOLOGY: Davis Sues Over Data Privacy Violations SRPNYC INC: Marquina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages STATE FARM: Patel Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Practices STELLANTIS NV: Harman Sues Over Share Price Drop SVB FINANCIAL: Asks Ct. to Sustain Objections to New Reply Evidence SVB FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply SVR MANAGEMENT II: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRAJECTOR INC: Charges Unlawful Fees to Veterans, Quijada Says TRUVIEW BSI LLC: Whatley Files Suit in E.D. New York UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Bautista Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts US FOODS INC: Moreno Suit Transferred to E.D. California VALLEY STREAM ASSESSORS: VSTC Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Reese Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty VILLAGE OF CEDARHURST ASSESSORS: BM Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. XMAX INC: Yuan Derivative Action Dismissed ZILLOW INC: Hossfeld Sues Over Illegal and Negligent Contacting ********* 3M COMPANY: Faces County Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02380-JSC (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for common law conspiracy, strict liability, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of warranty for fitness for particular purpose, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and state consumer protection laws. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the firefighters in San Mateo County as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, San Mateo County's firefighters were exposed to toxic chemicals and suffered harm. The County of San Mateo is a political subdivision of the State of California, located in the San Francisco Bay Area. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christopher F. Jeu, Esq. Lauren Devens, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cjeu@cpmlegal.com ldevens@cpmlegal.com ACCEL MANAGEMENT: Glazer Sues Over Deceptive Company Sale Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- GLAZER ENHANCED FUND, LP, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANTHONY CASALENA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2026-0366-PAF (Del. Ch., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of all other similarly situated former stockholders of Squarespace, Inc. against the Defendants in connection with the sale of Squarespace for $46.50 per share. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving Squarespace's issuance of the materially false and misleading Proxy that materially misrepresented or omitted the Defendants' actions throughout the sale process, voting in favor of the unfair transaction, and signing the materially false and misleading Proxy. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class have been harmed. Glazer Enhanced Fund, LP is a limited partnership in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq. Benjamin M. Potts, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8010 Email: Andrew@jvk-law.com Ben@jvk-law.com - and - Chad Johnson, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. James Janison, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 836-9657 Email: Chad@jvk-law.com Jonathan@jvk-law.com James@jvk-law.com - and - Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 266-9121 Email: Lauren@jvk-law.com AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Hays Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0463 (Del. Ch., April 7, 2026) is a class action arising out of provisions in the Amended and Restated By Laws of Akamai Technologies that purport to vest Akamai's board of directors with exclusive and final authority to interpret and apply the By-Laws and preclude judicial review of any Board interpretation or application, as well as a separate provision governing determinations made under Akamai;s advance notice bylaw that purports to render such determinations "final and binding" if made in good faith. According to the complaint, such Challenged Provisions violate the DGCL not only because they purport to insulate the Company's directors from liability for loyalty breaches in connection with interpretation and application of the By-Laws, but also because they purport to render any such breaches injusticiable. In this regard, the Challenged Provisions deprive the Court of the jurisdiction conferred by DGCL Section 111(a)(1), which authorizes the Court of Chancery to interpret, apply, enforce, or determine the validity of the bylaws of a Delaware corporation. Recognizing that this is an unambiguous issue lending itself to a relatively quick fix to bring the Bylaws into compliance with the DGCL, the Plaintiff made a pre-suit demand upon the Board, the suit says. Plaintiff Hays is an Akamai stockholder and has held Akamai stock at all times relevant to the wrongdoing complained of herein. Akamai Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal executive offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Company is a provider of cloud security, media delivery, and carrier solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR., PC 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 - and - F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com AKD 3006 ROYAL: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AKD 3006 Royal, Inc. The case is captioned as ROCIO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AKD 3006 ROYAL, INC., Case No. 2026CUOE064326 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., April 3, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for employment violations. AKD 3006 Royal, Inc. is a company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com AMAZON.COM INC: Hopkins Files Fraud Suit in W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Inc., et al. The case is captioned as KERRIANNE HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00930-LK (W.D. Wash., March 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud allegations. Amazon.com Inc. is a multinational technology company, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manish Borde, Esq. BORDE LAW PLLC 1700 7th Ave., Ste. 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 531-2722 Email: mborde@bordelaw.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Certification Bid Continued to Sept. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHYN BOYD, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04725-MWF-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fitzgerald entered an order granting stipulation to continue: The Defendants' responsive pleading deadline is extended to May 15, 2026. The Motion for Class Certification (MCC) shall be filed no later than Sept. 7, 2026, and noticed for hearing on November 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m The Opposition to the MCC shall be filed no later than October 12, 2026. The Reply in support of the MCC shall be filed no later than October 26, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Nx7EO at no extra charge.[CC] ANGELA STUFF: Graham Files Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angela Stuff, et al. The case is styled as Damantae D. Graham, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Angela Stuff, Warden; Anette Chambers-Smith, Director; Case No. 1:26-cv-00867-DAR (N.D. Ohio, April 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Sends Deceptive Commercial Emails, Sigglin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANA SIGGLIN and GRETA SHIRDON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP and CATALYST BRANDS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-11216-9 SEA (Cal. Super., King Cty., April 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Consumer Protection Act and the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of illegally sending or assisting the transmission of false and misleading emails advertising Eddie Bauer-branded clothing and other products. According to the complaint, the Defendants use different types of false and misleading information in email subject lines to trick consumers into opening their email and making purchases. As a result, the Defendants clog the Plaintiffs' and Class members' email inboxes with false information and violate their right to be free from deceptive commercial emails. Authentic Brands Group is a brand development, licensing, and marketing company based in New York. Catalyst Brands LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Eden B. Nordby, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com enordby@terrellmarshall.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Email: srios@bm.net - and - Colleen L. Fewer, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 376-2097 Email: cfewer@bm.net - and - James Hannaway, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G. Street, NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-9740 Email: jhannaway@bergermontague.com BFI WASTE: Faces Brooks Suit Over Harmful Landfill Odors -------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BROOKS; and JONATHAN DEINARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF TENNESSEE, LLC., d/b/a "MIDDLE POINT LANDFILL", Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00414 (M.D. Tenn., April 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant's negligent and improper maintenance of its Landfill is the direct and proximate cause of the invasion of noxious odors upon the Plaintiffs' and Class's homes, land, and properties on occasions too numerous to mention individually. By failing to maintain and/or operate the Landfill, the Defendant negligently, knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly caused the invasion of the Plaintiffs' property by noxious odors, says the suit. BFI Waste Systems of Tennessee, LLC., d/b/a "Middle Point Landfill" operates as a waste management provider. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew C. Clarke, Esq. GREER INJURY LAWYERS 6256 Poplar Ave., Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 306-9689 Email: aclarke@greerinjurylawyers.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Email: sliddle@lsclassaction.com lsheets@lsclassaction.com rsolt@lsclassaction.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Igwenagu Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Chibuike Igwenagu, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-40063-MRG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of Massachusetts Wage Act and unjust enrichment. On July 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. On Mar. 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy entered a Report and Recommendations (R&R) denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts III and IV. On Mar. 31, 2026, District Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Hennessy's R&R. The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Hennessy's Order denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Court also adopts Magistrate Judge Hennessy's R&R, which recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts III and IV be denied. Upon review, the Court finds the Defendants' objection unpersuasive at this stage and is aligned with each of Magistrate Judge Hennessy's conclusions. The Court finds as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental authority. The appellate case is styled as Igwenagu, et al. v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1361, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHIBUIKE IGWENAGU, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew Patton, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLILNGER PC 1 Boston Pl., Ste. 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 - and - Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. ZLR Litigation PLLC 456 Glenbrook Rd., Ste. 11 #638 Stamford, CT 06906 Telephone: (203) 212-9983 Defendants-Appellants BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., et al. are represented by: Mitchell O'Shea Carney, Esq. Keri L. Engelman, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Federal St. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 341-7585 (617) 341-7828 - and - Michael J. Puma, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5305 BIRKENSTOCK USA: Jones Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birkenstock USA, LP. The case is captioned as MARTY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIRKENSTOCK USA, LP, Case No. 3:26-cv-02381-JCS (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud allegations. Birkenstock USA, LP is a retail company based in Novato, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com BLUE CROSS: Keith Feder Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Keith Feder, M.D., Inc., and others similarly situated v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA and DOES 1-10, Case No. 26STCV05451 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03949. This action is being properly removed to this United States District Court based on federal question jurisdiction. Federal law under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter "ERISA"), controls actions brought to recover benefits and enforce rights under employee welfare benefit plans.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Neil J. Barker, Esq. NEIL J. BARKER, A PROF. CORPORATION 35 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 710 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 440-5980 Email: barker.n.j@barkernj.com BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: Franco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Diamond Growers. The case is styled as Tia Franco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV009476 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Blue Diamond Growers -- https://bluediamondgrowers.com/ -- is a cooperative of almond growers who are invested in the stewardship of their orchards.[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 BOOKING HOLDINGS INC: Velasquez Files Suit in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Booking Holdings Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Velasquez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Booking Holdings Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00578-SRU (D. Conn., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable. Booking Holdings -- https://www.bookingholdings.com/ -- is the world's leader in online travel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank G. Usseglio, Esq. KENNY, O'KEEFE & USSEGLIO 21 Oak Street, Suite 208 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: (860) 246-2700 Fax: (860) 246-6480 Email: fusseglio@kou-law.com BOUNDLESS NETWORK: Gammage Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Gammage, individually and for others similarly situated v. BOUNDLESS NETWORK, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00924 (W.D. Tex., April 13, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and also asserts claims for unpaid wages under the Arizona Wage Act ("AZWA"). The Plaintiff and the other Commissioned Workers regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and its other Commissioned Workers minimum wages or overtime. Instead, the Defendant misclassifies the Plaintiff and its other Commissioned Workers as independent contractors and pays them purely on a commission-only basis, with no other types of wages paid for the work performed. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and its other Commissioned Workers under its uniform commission-only pay scheme regardless of any individualized factors. The Defendant's uniform commission-only pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Commissioned Workers of overtime wages for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's uniform commission-only pay scheme also violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Commissioned Workers of minimum wages for all hours worked each workweek. The Defendant's uniform commission-only pay scheme also violates the AZWA by depriving the Plaintiff and other Arizona Plaintiffs of all wages and other wages owed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Boundless as a Promotional Products Salesperson from August 2015 until December 2025. Boundless is a promotional marketing company which offers various branding services to its clients, including but not limited to logo development, corporate merchandise products, and a technology platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Hogg, Esq. Joshua I. White, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (323) 285-3161 Fax: (323) 551-9319 Email: william@laurelemploymentlaw.com josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com BUFFALO, NY: Bid to Certify Class in Franklin Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORETHEA FRANKLIN, TANIQUA SIMMONS, DE' JON HALL, JANE DOE, Individually and on behalf of a class of Others similarly situated, SHIRLEY SARMIENTO, EBONY YELDON, CHARLES PALMER, SHAKETA REDDEN, and JOSEPH BONDS, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, N.Y., et al., Case No. (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Reiss entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider or renew the motion to certify the traffic enforcement class and denying plaintiffs' motion to intervene Markel Nance and Thomas Christopher Williams, Jr. as plaintiffs and representatives of the traffic enforcement class. Because Plaintiffs mischaracterize the court's decision as limiting its standing analysis to Checkpoints, it will not reconsider its previous decision on this basis. Because Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the exacting standard for reconsideration, their motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The new evidence cited by Plaintiffs includes "emerging statistical evidence" available after depositions taken in the summer and fall of 2024 that allegedly shows "BPD routinely conducts racially disproportionate traffic stops without constitutionally sufficient bases to do so," based on video evidence of allegedly pretextual stops from the last six months of 2024 first provided by Defendants in December 2024. Accordingly, it does not justify renewal of class certification. For the same reasons that reconsideration was denied, Plaintiffs' motion to renew is therefore denied. The Plaintiffs filed an amended class action on May 21, 2020, and a motion for class certification on May 29, 2024. The Plaintiffs define the Traffic Enforcement Class as: "All Black and/or Latino individuals who have been or will be subjected to traffic stops, traffic tickets, and 'traffic safety' vehicle checkpoints by the BPD." Alternatively, they characterize the class as "Black individuals who plan to continue to drive in the City of Buffalo. " The Defendants include BYRON B. BROWN, Mayor of the City of Buffalo, in his individual and official capacities, BYRON C. LOCKWOOD, Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, DANIEL DERENDA, former Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HFCgYH at no extra charge.[CC] CARDONE CAPITAL: Pino Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine Pino, v. Cardone Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-08499-JFW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: On Dec. 11, 2025, the Plaintiff Pino filed a Motion for Class Certification. On Jan. 14, 2026, Defendants filed their Opposition. On Feb. 18, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R1znNO at no extra charge.[CC] CARECLOUD INC: Salazar Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTHIAN SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARECLOUD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03584-GC-RLS (D.N.J., April 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 16, 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. CareCloud is a healthcare technology company based in Somerset, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com CARMAX AUTO: Medina Files Civil Suit in Calif. Super. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JUAN MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-22328-KMM (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., April 3, 2026). The case type is stated as Civil Unlimited. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. is an automobile retailer based in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 CERAGON NETWORKS: Settlement Deal in Securities Suit for Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceragon Networks Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2026, that it is currently subject to a securities class action filed in the District Court of Tel-Aviv, Economic Department, arising from alleged breaches of duties through false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and public statements. On May 27, 2021, following a procedure that included the filing of various pleadings and affidavits, evidentiary hearings and submission of summaries, the Court ruled to certify the motion as a class action, initially applying Israeli law pursuant to the Israeli Securities Act and the Israeli Torts Ordinance concerning the alleged misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings. The parties have agreed to refer the dispute to mediation, and after two mediation sessions, they informed the court that they had reached preliminary understandings in principle and jointly requested an additional 60 days to finalize a settlement agreement to be submitted for the court's approval. On September 12, 2021, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing seeking to overturn this ruling. On January 27, 2022, judgment was rendered on the rehearing motion, in which the Court ruled that the earlier ruling was erroneous in applying Israeli law instead of foreign law, held that U.S. law will apply, and ordered that the case be returned to the first judicial instance to be adjudicated as a class claim under U.S. law, while commenting that the Company's statute of limitations defenses should prima facie also be adjudicated under U.S. law. On March 20, 2022, following this decision, the plaintiff filed an amended class action claim in the first judicial instance based on provisions of U.S. law, and estimated the amended claim amount at $52,099,000 (also described as $52,099 thousand). On October 1, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for document discovery and ordered the Company to produce all requested documents and to complete some of the answers to questions included in the plaintiff questionnaire within 45 days, determining that, in addition to the documents already provided, the Company was required to disclose thousands of additional documents and document types, which the Company viewed as irrelevant and beyond the approved grounds for the class action request and as imposing a substantial burden. As a result, on December 31, 2023, the Company sought permission to appeal the District Court's discovery decision and requested a delay in its implementation, and the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution of the District Court's decision and scheduled a hearing for January 25, 2024. The Company recorded other operating expenses of $1.2 million in 2024 related to a provision for settlement of this class action claim, and other operating expenses totaled $0.0 million in 2025 as compared to $1.2 million in 2024 in connection with that provision. In addition, during the appeal proceedings the Supreme Court, presided over by the Honorable Judge Grosskopf, accepted the Company's position that the District Court's discovery order was overly broad and encouraged the parties to negotiate a reduction in the scope of disclosure, particularly with respect to the period for which documents and correspondence must be produced. Following negotiations inside and outside the courtroom, the parties reached partial agreements, validated by the Supreme Court, that substantially narrowed the discovery obligations, with the plaintiff waiving certain demands entirely and significantly limiting others. The Company provided the agreed documents to the plaintiff on March 26, 2024, and, on March 12, 2024, the Supreme Court reduced the amount of expenses imposed on the Company in the District Court's October 1, 2023 decision in light of the reduced disclosure. In April 2024 the parties agreed to refer the dispute to mediation before retired judge Dr. Avi Zamir, and, after two mediation sessions, on January 30, 2025 they informed the court that they had reached preliminary understandings in principle and jointly requested an additional 60 days to finalize a settlement agreement to be submitted for the court's approval. Ceragon Networks Ltd. is the leading wireless transport specialist company in terms of unit shipments and global distribution of our business, providing innovative high-capacity wireless connectivity solutions to global markets across various industries, such as wireless (mobile) networks service providers and private networks. CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Private Info, Spikes Says -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE SPIKES and CHRISTINE KOEHLI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL HERNANDO, LLC, TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL CITRUS, LLC, and CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00305-BCW (W.D. Mo., April 9, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that 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 on October 28, 2025. The types of Private Information exposed included "name, Social Security number, and information included within your medical record, such as medical record numbers, doctors, diagnoses, medicines, test results, images, care and treatment. The Defendants waited until December 22, 2025, before it began notifying the class--more than 330 days after the Data Breach--thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff faces a lifetime risk of identity theft, as her Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes sensitive data that cannot be changed. She is also worried about the impact on her family's ability to manage her finances in the case that she becomes unable to, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and the Florida Subclasses seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including actual damages; declaratory and injunctive relief; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under Florida's Information Protection Act ("FIPA"); and any other relief that is just and proper, and are accordingly entitled to damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs Stephanie Spikes ("Spikes") and Christine Koehli ("Koehli") are former patients of Bravera, now owned and operated by Tampa General. Defendant 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. Defendant Tampa General is a healthcare provider based in Florida5 that operates several West-Central Florida-area hospitals. Defendant CHS is a hospital operating system that innovates healthcare systems, recruits physicians, and manages hospitals and medical technology systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Porter Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA PORTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHIME FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02998 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyberincident occurring on or about April 1, 2026. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential private information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' sensitive information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant could have prevented or mitigated the consequences of the data breach by limiting access to sensitive information to only necessary employees, requiring multi-factor authentication to verify access credentials, encrypting data at rest and in transit, monitoring its systems for signs of unusual activity or the transfer of large volumes of data, and regularly rotating passwords, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' sensitive information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Chime Financial, Inc. is a financial technology company offering a suite of app based banking and financial services through partnerships with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barnes Due June 8 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification and supporting expert reports by no later than June 8, 2026. The Defendant shall file any opposition to the motion for class certification and rebuttal expert reports by no later than July 8, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the motion for class certification and reply expert reports by no later than August 11, 2026. A hearing on Plaintiff's class certification motion will be held on September 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QJSvpI at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBUS TRADING: Wins Dismissal of "ElSayed" Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Sarah ElSayed, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Columbus Trading Partners USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-01347 (FB) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y.), Senior District Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing the putative class action. Plaintiff claimed that she and thousands of others purchased infant car seats, specifically the Cybex Aton G model, from Columbus Trading Partners USA Inc. (CTP), which proved to be faulty and dangerous. She alleged violations of New York General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350 and breach of an express warranty. Plaintiff alleged she paid a premium over similar car seats because she understood the Aton G to be safer than its competitors, based on CTP's safety-oriented advertising. On February 14, 2025, CTP initiated a voluntary recall of Aton G infant seats manufactured between February 20, 2023 and May 10, 2024, after discovering that the harness anchor pin tended to break or dislodge. Rather than offer refunds or replacements, CTP opted to offer free remedy kits. CTP also advised consumers to check the anchor pins for damage before every use until the kits became available. On standing, the court denied CTP's Rule 12(b)(1) motion. The court found that payment of a price premium constitutes a constitutionally cognizable injury, and that Plaintiff adequately alleged injury, causation, and redressability. On the GBL claims, however, the court granted dismissal. Plaintiff identified several statements as materially misleading, including that the Aton G conforms to a higher standard of safety and was engineered in Germany where safety standards are among the highest in the world. The court concluded that CTP's superlative statements were not made in a context that would mislead a reasonable consumer. The court noted that CTP's claim of marrying the highest standards of safety, without more, is mere puffery. Unlike Uber's repeated and objectively measurable safety superlatives, which various courts found actionable, CTP's single superlative safety claim was not paired with similar statements and could not be interpreted as materially misleading. Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I and II was therefore granted. On the breach of express warranty claim, the court agreed with CTP that the Aton G's warranty, covering defects in material and workmanship for two years from the date of purchase, does not extend to design defects. The complaint described the defect as one of design, and Plaintiff acknowledged that CTP corrected it through a design change. The court found no suggestion in the complaint that the defect was caused by a manufacturing error. Accordingly, Count III was dismissed as well. The court granted CTP's motion to dismiss in its entirety and the case was dismissed. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 17 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rhxar3 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Columbus Trading-Partners USA Inc. is represented by: Benjamin W. Jeffers, Esq. Benjamin Isaac Shipper, Esq. HICKEY HAUCK BISHOFF JEFFERS & SEABOLT, PLLC Email: bjeffers@hhbjs.com bshipper@hhbjs.com Russell M. Yankwitt, Esq. Michael Hayden Reed, Esq. YANKWITT LLP Email: russell@yankwitt.com michael@yankwitt.com Plaintiff Sarah ElSayed is represented by: Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Catherine Harries Friesen, Esq. James R. Denlea, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP Email: jcarton@denleacarton.com cfriesen@denleacarton.com jdenlea@denleacarton.com TERMINATED PARTIES Defendant Cybex GmbH Terminated: 04/23/2025 COMPREHENSIVE BREAST: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, MH Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.H., M.R., and S.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. COMPREHENSIVE BREAST CARE CENTER OF TEXAS, INC d/b/a SOLIS MAMMOGRAPHY, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61032 (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2026) arises out of Solis' unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies by data brokers such as Alphabet, Inc. ("Google") to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its users' private and protected communications, including communications concerning highly sensitive personal health information, to third parties without users' knowledge or consent. The complaint relates that by purposely embedding and deploying third party tracking technologies on Solis' website, available at https://www.solismammo.com/, Solis engages in the unauthorized disclosure of its users' highly sensitive protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII" and together with PHI, "Sensitive Health Information") to third parties including, but not limited to, Google. Such disclosures of PHI and PII violate state and federal law. Solis installed the Tracking Tools with the intent to collect and disclose users' Sensitive Health Information for purposes of financial gain. The Plaintiffs and Class Members never consented to, authorized, or otherwise agreed to allow Solis to disclose their PHI and PII to anyone other than those reasonably believed to be part of Solis, acting in some healthcare-related capacity. Despite this, Solis knowingly and intentionally disclosed Plaintiffs' and each Class Member's PHI and PII to Google and other third parties. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Health Information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Sensitive Health Information; (vi) statutory damages; and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive Health Information, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); (ii) violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act; (iii) Common Law Invasion of Privacy; (iv) Negligence; (v) Breach of Implied Contract; and (vi) Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs M.H., M.R., and S.M. utilized the Website on their personal electronic devices to search for information regarding their diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer and to search for information and to schedule their mammogram. Defendant Comprehensive Breast Care Center of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Solis Mammography is a nationwide provider of specialized women's imaging and diagnostic services, focused primarily on breast health. Its offerings include screening and diagnostic mammography, breast ultrasound, and other imaging services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: George Sues Over Auto Renewal of Memberships -------------------------------------------------------------- RUSSEL GEORGE II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02369-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, conversion, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from Costco's alleged practice of automatically renewing subscriptions for its membership online without consent. According to the complaint, Costco automatically renewed the Plaintiff's Gold Star annual membership, charging his payment card $65 without providing the notice the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) requires to be provided at least 15 days prior to and not more than 45 days before the automatic renewal. As a result of Costco's deceptive practice, the Plaintiff suffered damages. Costco Wholesale Corp. is a retail company headquartered in Issaquah, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Smith, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 201 Spear St., Ste. 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 - and - Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq. Jason Rathod, Esq. Randolph T. Chen, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 CROCS INC: Sends Unlawful Telemarketing Messages, Gonzalez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- YESEMITH GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. CROCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61030-XXXX (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. The 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, 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: Parsons Files Fraud Complaint in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Danubenet, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as MICHELLE PARSONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DANUBENET, INC. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-03582-GC-TJB (D.N.J., April 3, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for fraud allegations. DanubeNet, Inc. is a web-based solutions provider in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com EASTERSEALS NORTHERN: Faces Kirchenbauer Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easterseals Northern California, et al. The case is captioned as KATHARINE KIRCHENBAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EASTERSEALS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 26CV180704 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 3, 2026). Easterseals Northern California is a mental health clinic in Walnut Creek, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Torres, Esq. TORRES & TOLMAN, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 Spear Street, Suite 1175 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 212-7748 Email: jtorres@torrestolman.com ED WITTMEIER: Faces Edwards Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM EDWARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ED WITTMEIER FORD, INC., WITTMEIER, INC., WITTMEIER HONDA, INC., and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV01205 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to pay all overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate, failure to provide all meal periods, failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods, failure to fully reimburse work expenses, derivative failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales associate in Butte County, California from approximately November of 2024 through to November of 2025. Ed Wittmeier Ford, Inc. is an automobile dealer doing business in California. Wittmeier, Inc. is an automobile dealer doing business in California. Wittmeier Honda, Inc. is an automobile dealer doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. Aram Boyadjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 Email: A.Grigoryan@d.law A.Boyadjian@d.law EMPOWERMENT SCHOOLS: Faces Jacoby Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empowerment Schools - Healthcare, LTD, et al. The case is captioned as CAROLYN JACOBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPOWERMENT SCHOOLS - HEALTHCARE, LTD et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-02164 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Empowerment Schools - Healthcare, LTD is a global organization based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com EQUIFAX INFO: Hines Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE A. HINES, MARK NEUBAUER, BRIAN JOSEPH OBLACK, and FRANCISCO JOEL RIVERA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06701-RPK-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement submitted herewith, and request that the Court (1) find that it will likely be able to approve the proposed settlement under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(2), as amended, and certify the proposed Settlement Class for purposes of judgment on the Settlement; (2) approve the form, content, and method of delivering notice to the Class as set out in the Settlement Agreement; and (3) schedule a final approval hearing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ze2QJy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Kevin C. Mallon FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com kmallon@consumerprotectionfirm.com - and - Robert S. Sola, Esq. ROBERT S. SOLA, P.C. 1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-6880 E-mail: rssola@msn.com - and - Micah S. Adkins, Esq. THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C. One Lincoln Centre 5400 LBJ Fwy., Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: 615-370-9659 E-mail: micahadkins@itsyourcreditreport.com - and - James M. Feagle, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-1970 E-mail: jimfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com EVOLVE BANK: Margul Seeks to Amend Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLGA MARGUL, KELLI JO CLAXTON, HENRY YEH, COLIN SMITH, ROD GENDRON, KAYLA MORRIS, TIMOTHY MILLER, DAWN SAQUIN, IMENE HADDAD, DANIEL BREWER, PAUL TONNER, CORY ESPINOLA, STEPHANIE IZQUIETA, KATHERINE MAUL, RICHARD TODD HALE, ALFRED ROTIMI, and ASHLEY FELTON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, an Arkansas bank; AMG NATIONAL TRUST BANK, a Colorado bank; LINEAGE BANK, a Tennessee bank, and EVOLVE BANCORP, INC., an Arkansas limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-03259-DDD-NRN 1:24-cv-03259-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to amend scheduling order. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fqG777 at no extra charge.[CC] FIVE O FORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonano Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ MIA BONANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE O FORE GOLF LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00722-SSV-EJD (E.D. La., April 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bonano was employed by the Defendant as a bartender. Five O Fore Golf LLC provides recreational services. The Company is engaged in operating a golf course. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin O. Larmann, Esq. ANDKIRKENDALL DWYER, L.L.P. 2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 670 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 231-9513 Facsimile: (504) 533-9799 E-Mail: klarmann@kirkendalldwyer.com GEMS 911: Holt Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination & Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- LILIAN HOLT, DEANNA MILLER, JON SPARKMAN, and TYLER KASKA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEMS 911, INC. and GILLEY GREY, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-02132 (S.D. Tex., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and Texas common law including failure to pay overtime wages, misclassification and recordkeeping violations, associational discrimination and retaliation, interference and retaliation, and unjust enrichment/money had and received. Plaintiffs Holt, Miller, Sparkman, and Kaska worked for the Defendants as a safety medic, lead EMT, site medic, and paramedic, respectively, at anytime between 2023 and 2025. GEMS 911, Inc. is an occupational medicine and emergency medical services, doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nickolas George Spiliotis, Esq. SPILIOTIS LAW PLLC 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 944-9843 Email: NGS@spiliotislaw.com GLOBE LIFE: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In Re Globe Life Inc. f/k/a Torchmark Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-993 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association's motion to appoint it as lead plaintiff and to revise the appointment of lead counsel, and denied the Catherine M. Sugarbaker Family Trust's motion to vacate the current leadership structure and appoint new co-lead counsel. This consolidated shareholder derivative suit arises from alleged misconduct on behalf of Globe Life Inc. f/k/a Torchmark Corporation's board of directors and its executive officers. Several plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of the nominal defendant, Globe Life. Competing plaintiffs and their law firms sought leadership roles. At an early stage, the Court had appointed the Rosen Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP as co-lead counsel. Plymouth asked the Court to name Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Bleichmar Fonti and Auld LLP as sole co-lead counsel and Steckler Wayne and Love PLLC as liaison counsel, and to appoint Plymouth as lead plaintiff. Sugarbaker asked the Court to appoint Robbins LLP and Sbaiti and Company PLLC as co-lead counsel and argued that a lead plaintiff is not required. The Court applied the factors outlined in Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 to evaluate the competing applications. Counsel's Competence and Experience: Although all law firms are well-qualified to prosecute this lawsuit, this factor favors Plymouth's proposed leadership structure. Scott+Scott recently secured a mid-trial settlement for $190 million in the first Caremark oversight claim to make it to trial in Delaware history, a unique achievement that puts Scott+Scott's track record above that of its competitors. The Court gave only moderate weight to this factor since all firms demonstrated sufficient competence. Counsel's Access to Resources: This factor is neutral because the Court has no reason to question that each firm has the necessary resources to prosecute this litigation. Quality of the Pleadings: This factor slightly favors Sugarbaker. Sugarbaker's complaint makes specific demand-futility allegations against each director by name, while Plymouth's does not. Because Sugarbaker was more careful to include director-specific allegations when alleging demand futility, the Court finds that this factor slightly favors Sugarbaker. Counsel's Performance in the Litigation to Date: This factor favors Plymouth. Plymouth intervened in a parallel proceeding in the Texas Business Court, seeking a stay in deference to the consolidated action before this Court, and obtained a stay. Plymouth also filed suit to enforce its Section 220 demand and obtained a settlement. Plymouth's performance was superior because of its role in the Texas Business Court action. Proposed Leadership Structure: This factor favors Plymouth. Scott+Scott and Bleichmar Fonti and Auld LLP have previously joined forces in In Re: The Boeing Co. Derivative Litigation and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System et al. v. Calhoun, et al. Prior experience working side by side bears on whether a team can function effectively. In contrast, Sugarbaker's briefing does not specify whether and when Robbins and Sbaiti have litigated together. Derivative Plaintiff's Relationship to and Interest in the Entity: This factor favors Plymouth. Plymouth is the only plaintiff that identified its stock ownership in Globe Life, including when it first acquired stock. Plymouth is a Massachusetts public employee retirement system established in 1937, which manages more than $1.5 billion in investments and has served as lead or co-lead plaintiff in securities class actions. Sugarbaker failed to specify when it acquired Globe Life stock, and the Court lacked information on Sugarbaker's experience and capabilities. Conflicts: Plaintiffs did not identify potential conflicts, so this factor is neutral. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plymouth County Retirement Association is appointed sole lead plaintiff; Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Bleichmar Fonti and Auld LLP are appointed sole co-lead counsel; and Steckler Wayne and Love PLLC is appointed sole liaison counsel. The prior leadership structure set forth in the January 3, 2025 Order is vacated. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint within fifteen days of the entry of this Order, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a schedule for defendants' responses within thirty days of the entry of this order. It is further Ordered that very filing in this Consolidated Derivative Action shall bear the following caption: the following caption: IN RE GLOBE LIFE INC. f/k/a TORCHMARK CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-993 A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 17,2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9YomP9 from PacerMonitor.com GLOCK INC: Faces Holmes Fraud Suit in N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glock, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as TIEASE HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLOCK, INC. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02987 (N.D. Ill., March 17, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud allegations. Glock, Inc. is a pistol manufacturer headquartered in Smyrna, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Kinney Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Ste. 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 Email: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Hurley Appeals Antitrust Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONNOR HURLEY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Connor Hurley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Google LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00883-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a class action suit brought by Plaintiff Hurley, on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of similarly situated direct purchasers of apps and app-integrated digital content sold through the Google Play Store throughout Canada, and demanding a trial by jury. On Apr. 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 23, 2025. On Mar. 17, 2026, Judge James Donato entered an Order dismissing the case with prejudice. Overall, this case concerns Canadian consumers purchasing products in Canada. Hurley has not demonstrated that the antitrust laws of the United States have any application to conduct within the sovereign state of Canada. Hurley has already amended his complaint once as of right, and he has not requested another opportunity to amend. The issues highlight structural defects in his complaint that Hurley cannot plead around. A further opportunity to amend is not warranted. On Mar. 18, 2026, judgment is entered against Hurley. The appellate case is captioned as Hurley v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 26-2193, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CONNOR HURLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Thomas Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees GOOGLE LLC, et al. are represented by: Jeannie S. Rhee, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP 2001 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 401 Ninth Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Meredith Richardson Dearborn, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 345 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 HAGERTY INSURANCE: Russell Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAGERTY INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00318-SDM-SCS (S.D. Ohio, March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and unlawful retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an agent from approximately June 2020 through approximately July 2025. Hagerty Insurance Agency, LLC is an insurance company doing business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com HEALTH GORILLA: Hawkins Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Gorilla, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as AMY HAWKINS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTH GORILLA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-22328-KMM (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for personal injury claims. Health Gorilla, Inc. is a software company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Bennett Homer, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 693-9732 Email: mhomer@dynamisllp.com HEALTH GORILLA: Lott Bid to Consolidate Actions OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY LOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH GORILLA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-21639-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to consolidate actions and appoint interim class counsel for filing of consolidated complaint. The Plaintiffs move jointly for the following relief: (1) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), consolidation of the following cases, as well as any other future actions filed or transferred related actions against Health Gorilla the first-filed Lott action: "RICKY LOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH GORILLA, INC., Case No.: 1:26-cv-21639-KMM’" and "HOLLY HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH GORILLA, INC., Case No.: 1:26-cv-21952-KMW." (2) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3), appointment Mariya Weekes of Milberg, PLLC, Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., and Tom Zimmerman of Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. as Interim Class Counsel (collectively, “Proposed Interim Class Counsel”); and (3) requiring the filing of a consolidated complaint within thirty (30) days of entry of an order consolidating the cases and appointing interim class counsel. Due to the similarity of the Related Actions, consolidation is appropriate. Each lawsuit arises from the same common set of operative facts—the Incident. Due to each Plaintiffs' reliance on the same set of operative facts, Plaintiffs assert overlapping claims, on behalf of similarly defined classes, seeking similar relief. The Related Actions, the parties thereto, and the Court will be best served in a consolidated proceeding. Consolidation will allow Plaintiffs to jointly prosecute the case, share discovery documents, and avoid the possibility of the Court certifying overlapping classes. The burden of maintaining all actions separately will be lessened by consolidation. Proposed Interim Class Counsels' experience, knowledge, resources, and successful track record litigating consumer similarly situated cases demonstrate that they are superbly qualified to represent the proposed Class’s interests under the factors enumerated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant liable for its unlawful disclosure of the highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) that was subject to unauthorized access. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wrluBo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: msmith@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Marc E. Dann., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. www.attorneyzim.com 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: firm@attorneyzim.com notices@dannlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Andrew Hausdorff, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com hausdorff@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 786-879-8200 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com HEALTH NET: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Shannon Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- STEVE SHANNON and REBEKKA LIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH NET, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03814 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying Tracking Tools that intercepted, recorded, and transmitted Plaintiffs' browsing activity, account-related interactions, device identifiers, and related metadata to Tracking Entities, including Meta and The Trade Desk. The complaint relates that the Website offers users the ability to disable non-essential cookies by: (1) managing consent for individual categories of cookies in the Cookie Settings; and (2) clicking the "Decline" button in the Cookie Settings. Each of these actions has the same effect: to limit the Website's use of cookies to those essential for the Website to function. However, even after users affirmatively reject all non-essential cookies, regardless of which mechanism is utilized to achieve that goal, the Website continues to utilize and deploy Tracking Tools, which transmit users' data to the advertising, social media, and analytics companies that designed and operate the Tracking Tools. The Plaintiffs' experiences reflect the Defendant's conduct when they visited Defendant's Website in 2026 for ordinary consumer purposes, including browsing information regarding Defendant's services and otherwise navigating the Website's content. The Defendant invaded Plaintiffs' fundamental right to privacy and fraudulently misrepresented the Website's data-collection practices by facilitating the Tracking Entities' unlawful interception of and intrusion into Plaintiffs' Sensitive Information. In doing so, Defendant violated the federal Wiretap Act; California's Invasion of Privacy Act (illegal wiretapping and unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device); California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; the California Constitution; California's Unfair Competition Law, and common law, including invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud and deceit, and unjust enrichment, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated users harmed by Defendant's deceptive and unlawful surveillance practices. Plaintiff Steven Shannon visited the Website in January 2026 for consumer browsing purposes, including to compare insurance plans. Plaintiff Rebekka Lien visited the Website in March 2026 for purposes including accessing and interacting with her account and related services. Defendant Health Net, LLC operates a commercial website, https://www.healthnet.com/content/healthnet/en_us.html, through which users can browse and enroll in health insurance plans; access information regarding coverage options, benefits, and provider networks; locate and interact with healthcare providers and facilities; manage their member accounts; review claims, billing, and payment information; obtain customer support; and explore wellness programs, resources, and promotional offerings related to healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Christopher V. DeVivo, Esq. Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq. Mark H. Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cdevivo@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com mjensen@zlk.com IKEA NORTH: Moran Sues Over Unlawful Credit Transactions Practice ----------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES LLC and IKEA US RETAIL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV08644 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). The case arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with FACTA by printing the expiration dates of their customers' credit and debit cards on the receipts provided to them in-store. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class suffered a violation of their statutory rights. IKEA North America Services, LLC is a global home furnishing company, with its principal place of business in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. IKEA US Retail LLC is a global home furnishing company, with its principal place of business in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Habashy, Esq. LEXICON LAW, PC 633 W. 5th St., 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 223-5900 Facsimile: (888) 373-2107 Email: john@lexiconlaw.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, PA 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Michael S. Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 INSIGHT SCHOOL: Rodriguez Files Civil Suit in Calif. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insight School of California, et al. The case is captioned as LYLA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 2026CUOE063128 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., March 17, 2026). The case type is stated as Civil Unlimited. Insight School of California is a distance learning center in Simi Valley, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rotem Tamir, Esq. BLUESTONE LAW 7008 Owensmouth Avenue Canoga Park, CA 91303 Telephone: (310) 363-0975 JARS I INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JARS I, INC.; and SCHMIDT FAMILY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00420-SDM-SCS (S.D. Ohio, April 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendants as a server. Jars I, Inc. operates as a restaurant. The Company offers prepared food for on premises consumption. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW, LLC 8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com JRSK INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JRSK, Inc. d/b/a Away, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02172-MJD-DTS (D. Minn., April 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.awaytravel.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. JRSK, Inc. d/b/a Away is a company that designs, manufactures, and sells luggage and travel accessories through both online and retail channels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com JW PEI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gee Suit Due Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarah Gee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JW PEI, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00243-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Selna entered an order granting stipulation for extension of time regarding class certification schedule: Event Date Close of Fact Discovery for Class Aug. 11, 2026 Certification: Plaintiff's Deadline to File Motion for Sept. 15, 2026 Class Certification and Disclose Plaintiff’s class certification expert(s): Defendant’s Deadline to File Opposition to Nov. 10, 2026 Motion for Class Certification, Disclose the Defendant's class certification expert(s), and Depose Plaintiff’s class certification expert(s): Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Jan. 11, 2027 Certification: at 1:30 P.M. On March 26, 2026, the Parties filed a Stipulation for Extension of Time Regarding Class Certification Schedule. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lw5O5g at no extra charge.[CC] KAPLAN NORTH: Court Denies Motion to Consolidate in Linsell Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an Order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate actions, appoint interim class counsel, and set deadline for filing of consolidated complaint on March 31, 2026. The case is captioned as CHRIS LINSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-60785-WPD. The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Kaplan North America, LLC is an educational services provider based in Florida. [BN] KAPLAN NORTH: Johnson Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60977 (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. Defendant Kaplan suffered a data breach between approximately October 30, 2025 and November 18, 2025. Upon information and belief Kaplan has not disclosed publicly when it discovered that the data breach occurred or what threat actor was involved. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their private information to Defendant with the mutual understanding and reasonable expectation that Defendant would safeguard their private information from unauthorized disclosure and would implement sufficient cybersecurity safeguards to protect such information. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect its students' and employees' private information. Due to Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. Kaplan North America, LLC is the U.S. oldest test-preparation company, offering courses for a variety of standardized tests and professional license exams. Kaplan has over 1 million students, 15,000 corporate clients, and 3,300 educational partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 602 S. Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com KAPLAN NORTH: Linsell Files Personal Injury Claims in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaplan North America, LLC. The case is captioned as CHRIS LINSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-60785-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. Kaplan North America, LLC is an educational services provider based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com KIEU HOANG: Scheduling Conference Set for May 19 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTHEAST SECURITIES CO. LTD., v. KIEU HOANG, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00187-MRA-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Almadani entered an order setting scheduling conference on May 19, 2026. If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. The Plaintiff’s counsel or, if plaintiff is a pro se litigant, defendant’s counsel, shall provide this Order to all known parties who have not yet appeared or who appear after the date of this Order. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EpnydJ at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02280-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for an extension of its deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Office represents defendants challenging the decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security to terminate Yemen's Temporary Protected Status designation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. Pursuant to this District's Local Rules, the government's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion is currently due on April 9, 2026, and Plaintiffs' reply is due on April 16, 2026. With Plaintiffs' consent, the government proposes that its opposition instead be due on May 28, 2026. The Plaintiffs ask that their reply be due on June 11, 2026. This schedule will allow the parties to defer any further briefings on class certification until after the Court has ruled on Plaintiffs' motion to postpone under 5 U.S.C. section 705. The parties thank the Court for its consideration of these matters. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qZEPxK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jay Clayton, Esq. Mark Osmond, Esq. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2713 E-mail: mark.osmond@usdoj.gov LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Dorothy Sues Over Improper Collection of Taxes ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOROTHY MARSHALL LIVING TRUST, et al., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01083-L (N.D. Tex., April 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Federal and Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Eighth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, and Texas Law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unethical, illegal and improper collection of ad valorem property taxes in Texas. According to the complaint, the Defendants' unlawful practices include: (1) wrongful obtaining of or attempting to obtain property from another, extortionately, with that person's consent, under color of official right; (2) the use of the mails and wires to commit fraud upon the Plaintiffs and Class members; (3) the use of fraudulent and unaudited records to collect ad valorem taxes; (4) charging illegal attorney's fees; and (5) depriving the Plaintiffs and Class members of their Constitutional rights. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured in their business and property. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP is a law firm based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen G. Gleboff, Esq. STEPHEN G. GLEBOFF PLLC 8600 Thackery, #143 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 802-5869 Email: gleboffs@gmail.com - and - Joan E. Marshall, Esq. JOAN E. MARSHALL PLLC 4347 N.W. Hwy., Suite 130, 220 Dallas, TX 75220 Telephone: (214) 536-1169 Email: pachos@sbcglobal.net LOCKHEED MARTIN: Court Narrows Claims in "Fezer" ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Fezer et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lockheed Martin Corporation and Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCo), Defendants, Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-00908 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss a putative ERISA class action Amended Complaint. Lockheed Martin Corporation, a defense contractor with more than 120,000 employees in the United States, sponsors several retirement plans governed by ERISA, including defined-contribution 401(k) plans that hold private investment funds created and managed in-house by its subsidiary, LMIMCo. The allegations relate to three such plans: the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Savings Plan, the Lockheed Martin Corporation Performance Sharing Plan for Bargaining Employees, and the Lockheed Martin Corporation Capital Accumulation Plan (collectively, the Plans). The Plans include substantially all the employer-sponsored retirement savings for tens of thousands of Lockheed employees. For each of the Plans, Lockheed is the Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator, and LMIMCo is the Plan Manager. Plaintiffs' claims relate to target-date funds (TDFs) managed by LMIMCo (the LMIMCo TDFs), which Defendants designated as default funds for plan participants. As of 2023, the LMIMCo TDFs comprised 13 of the 22 funds in which plan participants could invest. Plaintiffs allege that the LMIMCo TDFs were chronic underperformers and that this chronic pattern of underperformance was readily apparent by at least 2019. From 2019 to 2025, the LMIMCo TDFs' poor performance and high costs resulted in hundreds of millions in lost investment returns for plan participants and beneficiaries. Defendants also paid themselves more than $20 million from the Master Trust holding the Plans' assets to cover their expenses and executive compensation. The Court found that Lockheed, as Plan Sponsor, retained the power to amend the Plans and thereby to appoint, retain, and remove LMIMCo as Plan Manager -- establishing its fiduciary responsibility to monitor the performance of its appointees. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 3 against Lockheed for lack of fiduciary status was therefore denied. As to Count 1, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the imprudence and disloyalty claims arising from the selection and retention of the LMIMCo TDFs. Plaintiffs adequately alleged appropriate comparators -- specifically, TDFs from Capital Group, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price, each of which incorporates active management and a through-retirement glidepath -- and the magnitude of underperformance alleged is not categorically insufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. On the disloyalty claim, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendants maintained the underperforming TDFs as default investment options because the fees paid to LMIMCo funded Defendants' operations and compensated LMIMCo executives, whom Lockheed considered and treated as its own. Count 3, which alleged a breach of prudence and loyalty based on unreasonable management fees, is dismissed without prejudice. The Court found that Plaintiffs compared the actively managed LMIMCo TDFs to passively managed Vanguard TDFs and generic index funds, which do not permit an apples-to-apples comparison. A court cannot reasonably draw an inference of imprudence simply from an allegation that a cost disparity exists between funds with materially different management approaches. On the prohibited transaction claims in Counts 4 and 5, the motion is denied. Relying on Cunningham v. Cornell University, 145 S. Ct. 1020 (2025), the Court held that the Section 1108(c)(2) exemption for reasonable compensation constitutes an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the Defendants, not an additional pleading burden on Plaintiffs. The Court found that Plaintiffs stated plausible claims for: (a) an unlawful extension of credit between the Plans and Lockheed under Section 1106(a)(1)(B); (b) furnishing of management services under Section 1106(a)(1)(C); and (c) a transfer of plan assets to a party in interest under Section 1106(a)(1)(D). Finally, the Court granted Defendants' request to strike Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial. Because ERISA is silent on the right to a jury trial and Plaintiffs seek equitable relief -- specifically disgorgement of profits and losses -- neither the statute nor the Seventh Amendment confers such a right for actions brought under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) or (3). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Count 3 is dismissed without prejudice and the jury trial demand is stricken. The case proceeds on Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5. A copy of the case dated April 16 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vfu7co from PacerMonitor.com MANHASSET RESTAURANT: Appeals Judgment in Teoh Suit to 10th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHASSET RESTAURANT, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to amend the judgment in the lawsuit entitled Boon Hooi Teoh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Manhasset Restaurant, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-4110, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants' alleged various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and the Hospitality Industry and Wage Order. On Nov. 19, 2024, Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Boon Hooi Teoh in the amount of $184,067.52. On Dec. 17, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to amend/correct/supplement the Nov. 19 Judgment. On Nov. 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst entered a Report and Recommendations (R&R) suggesting that the Court deny the Defendants' motion in its entirety. Judge Dunst finds that the Defendants have not met their burden under Rule 59(e) and have not demonstrated that the Judgment entered by Judge Choudhury presented clear error of law or resulted in manifest injustice. On Mar. 30, 2026, Judge Choudhury entered an Order adopting Judge Dunst's R&R. The Defendants' Rule 59 motion to amend the Judgment is denied in full. The Defendants must pay Teoh $184,067.52 in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on Teoh's successful New York Labor Law (NYLL) claim for unpaid overtime wages. The appellate case is styled as Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 26-701, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BOON HOOI TEOH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, #1A Flushing, NY 11355 Defendants-Appellants MANHASSET RESTAURANT, LLC, et al. are represented by: Michael D. Yim, Esq. FRANKLIN, GRINGER & COHEN, PC 666 Old Country Road, Suite 202 Garden City, NY 11530 MANHATTAN BEER: Settlement in Swanson Gets Prelim Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY SWANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MANHATTAN BEER DISTRIBUTORS, LLC and SIMON BERGSON, Case No. (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Merki entered an order as follows: (1) Granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary settlement Approval; (2) preliminarily certifying the settlement class for the purposes of settlement; (3) appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; (4) appointing Wittels McInturff Palikovic as class counsel; (5) approving the notice plan; and (6) appointing Arden as settlement administrator and directs the parties to commence the notice plan. Accordingly, although the proposed $1 million settlement may be less than Defendants’ theoretical capacity to pay, the Court finds that this factor is not likely to preclude settlement approval, because the settlement provides reasonable value based on Class Members’ actual claims. The Court thus finds that this factor favors settlement. On balance, the Court concludes that an evaluation of both the procedural and substantive factors set forth in Rule 23 and Grinnell indicates that the parties’ proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. This is a putative class action brought against Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other current or former members of Defendants' "dedicated delivery force," alleged that certain of Defendants' wage and hour practices violated the New York Labor Law (NYLL), its implementing New York State Department of Labor regulations (NYCCRR), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The record illustrates that Plaintiff's interests are aligned with those of the proposed class. More specifically, the proposed class comprises two groups: (1) the Reimbursements Subclasses (comprised of two subclasses); and (2) the Overtime Pay Subclass. The Reimbursements Subclasses are defined as follows: Plaintiff and all current and former Manhattan Beer employees who were at any time classified as Drivers in Manhattan Beer's records and who worked for Manhattan Beer in New York State at any time from September 18, 2009, through and including the Court's Preliminary Approval of the Agreement. Reimbursements Subclass A or Reimbursements Subclass A Members shall be defined as: "All current and former Manhattan Beer employees who were at any time classified as Drivers in Manhattan Beer's records and who worked for Manhattan Beer in New York State at any time between September 18, 2009, and April 15, 2016." Reimbursements Subclass B or Reimbursements Subclass B Members shall be defined as: "All current and former Manhattan Beer employees who were at any time classified as Drivers in Manhattan Beer's records and who were hired by and worked for Manhattan Beer in New York State at any time after April 15, 2016 through and including the Court’s Preliminary Approval of the Agreement." The Overtime Pay Subclass includes: Plaintiff and all current and former Manhattan Beer employees who were employed as Drivers or Helpers and who worked for Manhattan Beer in New York State at any time from September 18, 2009, through and including the Court’s Preliminary Approval of the Agreement. Manhattan is a wholesale regional distributor of popular beer brands and other beverages. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lFoDxw at no extra charge.[CC] MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Plaintiff Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.C.R., et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00747-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record is granted. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted. The Court provisionally certifies the proposed class, which is defined as "All persons who are currently, or in the future, held at the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility," for the purpose of issuing the Preliminary Injunction." The Detained Plaintiffs are a proposed class of current and future detainees of South Florida Soft Sided Facility South (SFSSFS) --also known as "Alligator Alcatraz" -- and Organizational Plaintiffs are a law firm and legal service organization that represent detainees at the facility. Plaintiffs allege that restrictions on attorney access at the facility violate their First Amendment free speech rights. Accordingly, they seek certification of a proposed class of Alligator Alcatraz detainees and apreliminary injunction requiring Defendants to permit timely, confidential attorney-client communication at the facility by ordering them to permit unscheduled in-person legal visits; permit unmonitored, unrecorded legal telephone calls; and publicly post attorney access protocols. The Plaintiffs argue the Court should not require a bond. Neither the State Defendants nor Federal Defendants address this issue. With no opposition, the Court exercises its discretion in declining to require Plaintiffs to provide security. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zsmNjG at no extra charge.[CC] MCCAIN FOODS: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid by April 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICCARDO PRECIADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC., a Maine corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00445-RLP (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Pennell entered an order: Rule 26(a)(2) Exchange re: Discovery Initial Experts: October 22, 2026 Rebuttal Experts: November 21, 2026 Deadline to amend pleadings: June 12, 2026 Motion for Class Certification March 26, 2027 Defendant's Opposition April 28, 2027 Plaintiff's Reply June 2, 2027 Hearing on Motion for Class Cert. June 9, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WMXu2w at no extra charge.[CC] MERCOR.IO CORP: White Files Personal Injury Complaint in N.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercor.io Corporation et al. The case is captioned as HEIDI L. WHITE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-00143-H (N.D. Tex., April 5, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for personal injury claims. Mercor.io Corporation is an artificial intelligence hiring startup company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Bowman Stephens, Esq. Heather Gebelin Hacker, Esq. HACKER STEPHENS LLP 108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 399-3022 Email: andrew@hackerstephens.com heather@hackerstephens.com MIC GENERAL: Class Settlement in Loughran Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christian Loughran, v. MIC General Insurance Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00108-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Humetewa entered an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification of the settlement class. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily approves the Parties' Settlement Agreement and the Settlement set forth therein as fair, adequate and reasonable, and in the best interest of the putative class members, subject to further consideration at a final fairness hearing. The Court hereby certifies the following Class for the purposes of settlement: "All persons insured under a MIC policy/policies issued in Arizona during the Class Period, that provided uninsured (“UM”) or underinsured (“UIM”) motorist coverage for more than one motor vehicle, who either (1) received a claim payment equal to the limit of liability for the UM or UIM benefits for only one vehicle; or (2) were one of multiple claimants where the aggregate total paid on such claims was equal to the aggregate limit of liability for the UM or UIM benefits for only one vehicle. The Court designates Plaintiff Christian Loughran as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Robert B. Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on August 27, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DxTG7Q at no extra charge.[CC] MINEOLA ASSESSORS: A. Debarros Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Mineola. The case is styled as A. Debarros and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Mineola and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Mineola, Case No. 401188/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Board of Assessors of the Incorporated Village of Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/assessors -- is responsible for valuing taxable property within the village, maintaining the assessment roll, and applying exemptions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP MONEYLION: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Burkhardt" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Deven Burkhardt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. d/b/a MoneyLion et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25 Civ. 6761 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Dale E. Ho of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant's motions to compel arbitration and dismiss in this proposed class action. Plaintiff Deven Burkhardt, an Instacash and Credit Builder Plus customer, sued on behalf of all active duty servicemembers and their dependents who obtained an Instacash loan or Credit Builder loan from Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations. The Court joined many others across the nation in concluding that these early payday services constitute the extension of credit under the Military Lending Act, which generally prohibits lenders from requiring servicemembers to submit to mandatory arbitration as a condition of a loan. The Court relied on its prior ruling in Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., No. 25 Civ. 4098 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2026). Plaintiff Deven Burkhardt, an Instacash and Credit Builder Plus customer, sues on behalf of all active duty servicemembers and/or their dependents who obtained an Instacash loan or Credit Builder loan from MoneyLion within the applicable statute of limitations. The Court joins many others across the nation in concluding that these early payday services constitute the extension of credit under the Military Lending Act (MLA), which generally prohibits lenders from requiring service members to submit to mandatory arbitration as a condition of a loan. I. Instacash Advances Plaintiff alleges that MoneyLion's cash advance product - Instacash - is essentially an unregulated payday loan, and that expedite fees and tips attached to these advances convert them into extensions of credit with costs in excess of what is permitted by existing law. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Instacash constitutes consumer credit, making it subject to various statutes and voiding any arbitration clauses in Plaintiff's contract with MoneyLion. II. Credit Builder Loans Plaintiff also challenges MoneyLion's Credit Builder loan - a 12-month installment loan between $500.00 and $1,000.00 at APRs between 5.99% and 29.99% - available only to members of the Credit Builder Plus Membership Program, which requires a $19.99 monthly membership fee. Plaintiff alleges that the membership fee is an undisclosed part of the finance charge, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the membership fees are finance charges in disguise, as the CB Plus membership offers only illusory benefits unlike those offered by legitimate membership programs such as credit unions, and that Plaintiff states a TILA claim for the failure to disclose membership fees as finance charges for Credit Builder loans. III. Section 987(e)(3) Claim MoneyLion moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claim under 10 U.S.C. Section 987(e)(3), which prohibits extensions of consumer credit in which the creditor requires the borrower to submit to arbitration. The Court finds MoneyLion's reliance on an arbitration carve-out for covered borrowers to be pure gamesmanship, noting that MoneyLion simultaneously sought to enforce arbitration against Plaintiff's MLA claims. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated a claim for a violation of Section 987(e)(3). On Defendant's Section 987(e)(5) argument, the Court concluded that because the preauthorized debit is nearly impossible to cancel, Instacash borrowers are effectively required to grant access to their bank account as security for their cash advance. To hold otherwise would allow Defendant's clever structuring to circumvent another consumer protection provision of the Military Lending Act. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was denied with respect to Plaintiff's Section 987(e)(5) claim. The Court denied all motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 15, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hTIFE9 from PacerMonitor.com Defendants ML Plus LLC, MoneyLion Technologies Inc., and MoneyLion of Florida LLC are represented by: Ephraim A. McDowell, Esq. Hugh Hamilton, Esq. James Kim, Esq. COOLEY LLP Email: emcdowell@cooley.com hhamilton@cooley.com jameskim@cooley.com Ginger Barry Boyd, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH Plaintiffs Deven Burkhardt and Johnathan Burkhardt are represented by: Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. Jennifer Spieler Wagner, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER Email: skavanagh@nclc.org jwagner@nclc.org Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan Thomas Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com Brian William Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK PA Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq. Jessica Doris Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP MYSTIQUE LANDSCAPE: Del Valle Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Del Valle, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Mystique Landscape & Maintenance, Inc.; and Noah A. Fischer; Case No. 0:26-cv-61068-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 13, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking all unpaid or underpaid overtime pay, an equal amount as liquidated damages, judicial interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Defendants, and its owner, failed to pay all overtime pay owed to him and similarly situated employees, in violation of the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were or have been employees of Defendants, and worked in excess of forty hours a week without receiving all overtime compensation to which they were entitled. The Plaintiff frequently worked over forty hours per workweek but were not paid all overtime pay to which they were entitled under the FLSA: one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all time over forty hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as gardeners/landscapers/maintenance workers. The Defendants is a landscape and maintenance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven F. Grover, Esq. STEVEN F. GROVER, P.A. 5075 Regency Isles Way Cooper City, FL 33330 Phone: 954-290-8826 Email: stevenfgrover@gmail.com NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Extension of Class Cert Filing Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CLOUGH, II, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CO., LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00271-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 90-day extension of the deadlines set forth in the Preliminary Pretrial Order entered on May 29, 2025. The parties are currently engaging in settlement discussions and wish to devote their resources to resolving the matter before incurring additional litigation costs. Accordingly, an extension of the deadlines will allow the parties additional time to continue to engage in settlement negotiations. The Plaintiff requests that the following deadlines be extended as indicated below: Discovery Deadline: June 15, 2026 Primary Expert Reports: June 30, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Reports: July 30, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: August 13, 2026 A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k5Ufag at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488 0400 Facsimile: (614) 488 0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com NAVLAN PR LLC: Starling Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navlan PR, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Starling, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Navlan PR, LLC doing business as: InboundCD doing business as: Ryan Blackman, Case No. 3:26-mc-00129-FAB (D.P.R., April 13, 2026). Navlan PR, LLC doing business as Inbound Compliant Dialing -- https://inboundcd.com/ -- provides fully compliant, high-volume, high-quality auto & home insurance leads daily.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jairo A. Mellado-Villarreal, Esq. MELLADO & MELLADO VILLAREAL 165 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 202 San Juan, PR 00917-1233 Phone: (787) 767-2600 Fax: (787) 767-2645 Email: jmellado@mellado.com NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Deadlines in Kwiatkowski ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ KWIATKOWSKI, ASHLEE INSCOE, PUMPKIN SNUGGS, LULUBELL FRAZIER AND TREMAYNE IZZARD, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00098-SCR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request for an expedited administrative stay of the current deadlines for responding to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, until the Court rules on State and Legislative Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time that will be filed shortly. The Defendants intend to seek an extension of time to submit their responses, and Plaintiffs have indicated they will be opposing that request. Because the briefing on that contested motion for an extension of time will not be completed by the current April 1, 2026, deadline, Defendants are seeking an expedited administrative stay until such time as the Court rules on Defendants’ forthcoming motion. If the Court denies Defendants' forthcoming motion for an extension of time, Defendants will submit their responses on a new, appropriate deadline established by the Court. The Plaintiffs have informed Defendants that they consent to an administrative stay of the April 1, 2026 response deadline while the extension motion is under consideration. The Plaintiffs filed their motions for preliminary injunction and class certification on March 18, 2026. The Defendants are ARTHUR "LES” CAMPBELL, in his official capacity as Medical Director of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, and Defendants, PHILIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and DESTIN C. HALL, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ScTqX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeff Jackson, Esq. James A. Barnes IV, Esq. Tiffany Hoyd, Esq. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Telephone: (919) 716-6786 Facsimile: (919) 716-6761 E-mail: jabarnes@ncdoj.gov thoyd@ncdoj.gov - and – Nicole J. Moss, Esq. David H. Thompson, Esq. Peter A. Patterson, Esq. Clark Hildabrand, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: nmoss@cooperkirk.com dthompson@cooperkirk.com ppatterson@cooperkirk.com childabrand@cooperkirk.com OLD BROOKVILLE ASSESSORS: 565 Cedar Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Old Brookville. The case is styled as 565 Cedar Swamp Road Old Brookville NY LLC and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Old Brookville and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Old Brookville, Case No. 401189/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Village of Old Brookville -- https://www.villageofbrookville.gov/assessments -- acts as an independent assessing unit, meaning it is responsible for establishing its own property assessments, maintaining tax rolls, and collecting village property taxes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP OPAL SERVICE INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opal Service, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Hernandez Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Opal Service, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002760 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Opal Services -- https://www.opalservicesmn.com/ -- is committed to providing innovative services that support those we work with to embrace independence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2624 Phone: 310-277-9945 Fax: 424-277-3727 Email: anthony@counselonegroup.com OSHKOSH CORP: Durango Fire Protection Sues Over Unlawful Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Durango Fire Protection District, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-01574 (D. Colo., April 14, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to suppress the supply and raise the prices of Fire Trucks sold throughout the United States. Beginning no later than January 1, 2016, Defendants conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially suppress supply and raise prices of fire Trucks at supracompetitive levels. Defendants' actions resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supracompetitive prices for Fire Trucks in the United States and its territories. Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Among the victims of the conspiracy are fire departments, municipalities, and entities that purchased Fire Trucks from the Manufacturer Defendants (including the Nationwide Class and State Law Class Members, defined below, together referred to as "Class Members" or "the Class"). Plaintiff, The Durango Fire Protection District, on behalf of itself and Class Members, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid., says the complaint. The Plaintiff's purchases were sold at artificially inflated prices due to the conduct by Defendants as alleged herein. The Defendants are the largest manufacturers of Fire Trucks in the United States, controlling between 70 to 80 percent of the United States Fire Trucks market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Cowan, Esq. R. CHRISTOPHER COWAN, ESQ., LTD. P.O. Box 512 813 Main Avenue, Suite 209 Durango, CO 81302-0512 Phone: 970-880-8900 Fax: 214-853-5800 Email: chris@cowan.ltd OSI OPTOELECTRONICS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Guerrero Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MOISELLITO GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSI OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV08712 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within OSI's network systems following a data breach discovered on December 25, 2025. The Defendants 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. OSI Optoelectronics, Inc. is a technology company based in Hawthorne, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, PC 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com PEEK TRAVEL: Montgomery Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montgomery v. Peek Travel, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01015-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting requests that Court seal Exhibit 16, Exhibit 25, and Exhibit 27 of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff has included alongside this letter motion a proposed sealed document for Exhibit 16. Exhibit 25 is a file disclosing Defendant's transaction records during the class period, which was produced confidentially by Defendant during discovery. Exhibit 27 is a file disclosing Defendant's internal sales data, which was produced confidentially by Defendant during discovery. The native files for Exhibits 25 and 27 are too large to file electronically so they are being submitted to the Court on a thumb drive. On June 23, 2025, this Court entered a Protective Order, in which the Court ordered that "all Confidential Discovery Material filed with the Court, and all portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose such Confidential Discovery Material, shall be filed under seal and kept under seal until further order of the Court." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upVSxS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com PORT WASHINGTON NORTH: 84 Shore Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Port Washington North. The case is styled as 84 Shore Road Development Realty Inc., and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Port Washington North and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Port Washington North, Case No. 401187/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Board of Assessors for the Village of Port Washington North -- https://portwashingtonnorth.gov/ -- is responsible for determining the assessed value of properties within the village for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP PREMIUM BRANDS: Horton Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping ---------------------------------------------------- Samantha Horton, Taylor Jeske, Alla Rada, Lynnmarie Semenza, Kenza Woods, and Kimberly Callan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO, LLC D/B/A LOFT and ANN TAYLOR, Case No. 1:26-cv-03067 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' violation the Federal Wiretap Act; California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), including Cal. Penal Code Sections 631 (illegal wiretapping) and 638.51 (unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device); California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); the California Constitution at Art. 1; Ohio's prohibition against unlawful wiretapping and/or interception and common law, including invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud and deceit, and unjust enrichment. The Websites begin placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies (the "Tracking Tools") capable of transmitting users' data the moment users visit the Websites, before they can interact with the Cookie Banner or select their preferences in the Cookie Settings. The Tracking Tools collect detailed interaction and behavioral data, including users' selections of links, buttons, forms, and other on-page elements, as well as information entered into search fields. In short, via the Websites' Cookie Banners and Cookie Settings, Defendant materially misleads users about the use and sale of their data, lulling them into a false sense of security, privacy, and control while simultaneously enabling Tracking Entities to monitor, intercept, and transmit their online behavior in real time. Such conduct deprives users of control over their Sensitive Information and violates fundamental privacy protections. While accessing the Websites from their respective home states, Plaintiffs encountered the Websites' Cookie Banners and Cookie Settings. Plaintiffs affirmatively rejected all but "Strictly Necessary Cookies," relying on Defendant's representations that the Tracking Tools would be disabled upon rejection. Despite these actions and expectations, the Websites deployed Tracking Tools that automatically intercepted and recorded Plaintiffs' Sensitive Information and transmitted Plaintiffs' Sensitive Information to the Tracking Entities. The Defendant invaded Plaintiffs' fundamental right to privacy and fraudulently misrepresented the Websites' data-collection practices by facilitating the Tracking Entities' unlawful interception of and intrusion into Plaintiffs' Sensitive Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Horton accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in Ohio. Premium Brands Opco, LLC operates commercial websites https://www.loft.com/ and https://www.anntaylor.com/, (the "Websites"), through which users browse and purchase a variety of apparel and accessories, including clothing, footwear, and seasonal collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary Ishimoto, Esq. Mark Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com mjensen@zlk.com PRIME CIGAR: Brooks Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------- Bria Brooks, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. PRIME CIGAR LLC and JAVARIUS GAY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01994-TRJ (N.D. Ga., April 13, 2026), is brought against Defendants alleging systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") for unlawfully withheld tips, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, failed to properly compensate Plaintiff by failing to pay them any base wages at all for some of the hours they worked, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, required Plaintiff to pay for various expenses to work for Defendants, including requiring them to pay for uniforms, which expenses further reduced their wages below minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants, as a regular and routine practice, withheld Plaintiff's tips and/or did not properly distribute Plaintiff's tips. A substantial percentage of Plaintiff's tips were retained by Defendants and/or converted to management and/or employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 8, 2024 to April 10, 2025. Prime Cigar is advertised as an "upscale cigar bar" and serves cigars, food, alcohol, and hookah to patrons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: 404.400.3600 Facsimile: 478.575.2590 Email: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: East Sues Over Fiduciary Breaches --------------------------------------------------- Jayson East and David Smith, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers District #9 Pension Plan v. PRINCIPAL GLOBAL INVESTORS TRUST COMPANY, DELAWARE CHARTER GUARANTEE & TRUST COMPANY d/b/a PRINCIPAL TRUST COMPANY, PRINCIPAL GLOBAL INVESTORS, LLC, PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-00738-YY (D. Ore., April 14, 2026), is brought to recover the losses caused by Defendants' fiduciary breaches, disgorge the profits earned by Defendants and their affiliates as a result of these breaches, prevent further mismanagement of the Principal TDFs, and obtain equitable and other relief as provided by ERISA. This is an ERISA class action case against the Principal Financial Group, Inc. family of financial services companies, the corporate affiliates of which are the investment manager and recordkeeper (among numerous other roles the Principal companies play) for a large union-sponsored defined contribution retirement plan for electrical workers in the Pacific Northwest ("the Plan"). Despite Defendants' legal status as ERISA fiduciary to Plaintiffs here, Defendants acted disloyally and imprudently with respect to Plaintiffs and the Plan and retirement plan investors nationwide invested in Principal's so-called "target date" collective trust retirement funds by extracting unreasonable fees from Plaintiffs and other retirement investors in violation of ERISA. The Defendants' failure to manage prudently and loyally the underlying investments of the Principal TDFs was not limited to index fund selection. Defendants also intentionally selected higher-fee versions of proprietary actively managed funds to increase Defendants' fee revenue at the expense of trust participants and beneficiaries like Plaintiffs and the proposed classes here. As a fiduciary, Defendants "cannot ignore the power the trust wields to obtain favorable investment products, particularly when those products are substantially identical--other than their lower cost--to products the trustee has already selected." Yet Defendants did exactly that by intentionally selecting more expensive vehicles and share classes of underlying funds managed by Principal, not because of any benefit they conferred upon participants, but because of the additional fees Defendants and their affiliates received from these more expensive options, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan. Principal Global Investors Trust has been the trustee of the Principal TDFs since January 1, 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy S. DeJong, Esq. Emily Johnson, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 Email: tdejong@stollberne.com ejohnson@stollberne.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Garrett Wotkyns, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH One Haverford Center 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com gww@chimicles.com PRODEGE LLC: Avila Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRODEGE LLC. The case is styled as Jose Avila, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. PRODEGE LLC, Case No. 26STCV11999 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Prodege -- https://www.prodege.com/ -- is a leading consumer marketing and insights platform that helps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com PSG CALIFORNIA: Feliz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASON CARLOS FELIX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PSG CALIFORNIA LLC, PSG DOVER, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2608472 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to comply with California Quota Laws, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee since on or around December 9, 2024. PSG California LLC is a provider of pumps and equipment in California. PSG Dover is a pump solution provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com RADIANT CONSULTING: Ginn Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting ------------------------------------------------------------ Jashaun Ginn, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RADIANT CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02198 (D. Kan., April 14, 2026), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), which the Defendant violated by taking adverse action based on the Consumer Report without first providing Plaintiff with a copy of the Report. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff began employee orientation. On March 10, 2026, Plaintiff began working for Defendant. During his second day of work, while riding in a vehicle with his boss and co workers, Plaintiff received an email from First Advantage, a consumer reporting agency that had been hired to prepare a consumer report relating to Plaintiff ("Consumer Report"). The Plaintiff showed his boss, "Marcel," the email from First Advantage and asked him what the email meant. In the presence of Plaintiff's co-workers, Marcel informed Plaintiff that the email meant he was fired. Marcel did not inform Plaintiff that he had the right under the FCRA to challenge the Consumer Report that was attached to the email. Plaintiff was driven back to the Defendant's office by Marcel and, in the presence of his co-workers, told to get out of the vehicle. Plaintiff was forced to purchase an Uber ride to return home after being dropped off at Defendant's office. Plaintiff did not hear from Defendant after being dropped off at its office. Plaintiff's Consumer Report shows it was completed on March 11, 2026, the same day Plaintiff was fired by Defendant. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for the hours he spent attending orientation or his two days of work. Denying Plaintiff employment, in whole or in part, based on information in the Consumer Report is an adverse action which creates an injury in law. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Consumer Report and a summary of rights under the FCRA prior to taking adverse employment action deprived Plaintiff of a critical opportunity to understand his rights and review, contest, explain and/or dispute the information being used against him. As a direct result of Defendant's failure to abide by the FCRA adverse action process, Plaintiff was left confused and unaware regarding: the basis for the denial of employment; how to challenge the action; and whether he could challenge the action., says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied for employment online with Defendant for a position at its location in Wichita, Kansas in February 2026. Radiant Consulting Inc. is engaged in the business of marketing in Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 2300 Main Street, Suite 900 - #16946775 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: 816-281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com RAW NUTRITION: Ruchman Balks at Misbranded Protein Shake Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RUCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAW NUTRITION, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-01695 (C.D. Cal., April 7, 2026) alleges that Defendant's Raw Isolate Protein shakes that it manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold are misbranded and falsely advertised because the products contain less grams of protein than is claimed on the products' labels. According to the complaint, the Defendant's products all state on the front label that they contain 30 grams of protein per shake and even repeat the same claim regarding protein content in the Nutrition Facts panel on the back label. However, the products were tested on December 10, 2025 by EMSL Analytical, an independent third-party laboratory in Cinnaminson, New Jersey, which revealed that the protein content in the products is overstated, with the shortfalls ranging from 7 to 12 percent across all flavors tested. Consumers including Plaintiff especially rely on label claims made by food product manufacturers such as the Defendant, as they cannot confirm or disprove those claims simply by viewing or even consuming the products, says the suit. The Plaintiff suffered economic injury by Defendant's alleged fraudulent and deceptive conduct as stated herein, and there is a causal nexus between Defendant's deceptive conduct and Plaintiff's injuries, adds the complaint. Raw Nutrition, Inc., is a company that provides supplements with its principal place of business in Port St. Lucie, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com RESTAURANT DEPOT: Faces Ripa Suit Over Mislabeled Olive Oil ----------------------------------------------------------- ROZALIYA RIPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02853-LJL (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the Defendant's Supremo Italiano Extra Virgin Olive Oil in the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets, labels, advertises, and sells the product to consumers with packaging that prominently and unequivocally represents that the oil is "Extra Virgin Olive Oil." Reasonable consumers believe, based on Defendant's representation, that the product is olive oil. However, independent laboratory testing has shown that the product is adulterated with rapeseed oil, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased the falsely and deceptively labeled products during the statute of limitations period, for violation of New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and fraud. Restaurant Depot, LLC distributes a variety of food products. The Company meat and produce, chicken and pork, frozen and dry foods, dry groceries, beverages, and paper goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Craig A. Eaton, Esq. EATON & TORRENZANO, L.L.P. 8416 3rd Ave Brooklyn, NY 11209 Telephone: (718) 332-7766 Facsimile: (718) 332-5898 E-mail: ce1617@aol.com RONALD BEERS: Parties Must File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. RONALD BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Ruiz entered an order directing the parties to file under seal full, complete, and unredacted copies of the memoranda filed in support of and opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as well as full, complete, and unredacted copies of all accompanying exhibits thereto. To the extent this Order conflicts with the procedures set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order, this Order supersedes the Stipulated Protective Order. The unredacted memoranda and exhibits should be filed under seal by April 3, 2026, should clearly indicate that they are "Unredacted" copies of earlier filings, and should be filed as supplements to the earlier filings. The Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed numerous briefs and accompanying exhibits in this action with redacted material. Although the parties have emailed or otherwise provided the Court with copies of various documents and/or exhibits in their unsealed form, the parties have not filed unredacted versions of the same under seal for the Court's consideration. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IKY75b at no extra charge.[CC] SARTHAK EXPRESS: Must Pay $30K to End "Kumar" Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rajat Kumar, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sarthak Express Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-4385 (LDW) (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the parties' joint motion for approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, resolving plaintiff's individual claims for a total payment of $30,000. Plaintiff Rajat Kumar commenced this putative collective action on August 11, 2023, alleging that defendants failed to pay him overtime wages for time worked in excess of forty hours per week, as well as earned and minimum wages, in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants filed an answer with affirmative defenses on November 17, 2023. The parties appeared for settlement conferences before the court on January 6 and January 8, 2026, and submitted a joint motion for approval on January 29, 2026. The $30,000 settlement includes $2,132.69 in out-of-pocket expenses and $11,146.92 in attorneys' fees payable to plaintiff's counsel, with the remaining $16,720.39 to be paid to plaintiff in twenty-six installments. As consideration, plaintiff waives and releases defendants from all claims in the complaint and the right to participate in any related collective or representative action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged total compensation owed of approximately $57,525.11, excluding liquidated damages. The court determined the settlement represents a reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute for three principal reasons: defendants denied all claims and maintained full compliance with applicable law; defendants argued plaintiff cannot recover compensatory damages under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law; and settlement avoids further delay and uncertainty. The court further noted that the agreement contains no confidentiality or non-disparagement clause. Applying the percentage of recovery method, the court approved attorneys' fees of $11,146.92 -- slightly more than one-third of the total settlement -- finding the amount reasonable given the length of the litigation (over two years) and counsel's extensive efforts to maintain contact with plaintiff. The court granted the joint motion and directed the Clerk to mark the case as closed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oESLGc from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Rajat Kumar is represented by Tiffany Troy and Aaron Schweitzer of Troy Legal, PLLC / Troy Law, PLLC. Defendants Sarthak Express Inc. and Rakesh Virdhi are represented by Saif Musvi Agha of Agha & Agha, LLP. SODERSTROM DERMATOLOGY: Davis Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- ZACCHARY DAVID; and ELIZABETH HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SODERSTROM DERMATOLOGY CENTER S.C. D/B/A CORE DERMATOLOGY & MEDSPA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01133-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill., April 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful practice of disclosing the Plaintiffs' and Class members' individually identifiable health information and protected health information to unauthorized third parties including, Google LLC, Liine, Inc., and Meta Platforms, Inc., without their consent. Soderstrom Dermatology Center S.C. dba Core Dermatology & Medspa provides skin care facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St., Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Bryan G. Faubus, Esq. Zachary O. Chambers, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street NE Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com bfaubus@classlawdc.com zchambers@classlawdc.com SRPNYC INC: Marquina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Marquina, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SRPNYC INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03018 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages due to an invalid tip credit, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff typically worked 40 hours per week. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff and the Class Members the incorrect overtime rate, at the tip credit rate. FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs and the Class similarly worked weeks of 40 hours or more. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff was compensated tip credit minimum wage. FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs and the Class were paid at similar rates. The Plaintiff and Class members were not paid all of their wages or their overtime premiums at the rate of time and one half of the regular hourly rate, for all hours worked. The Defendants knowingly and willingly operated their business with a policy of not paying the New York State minimum wage, and the proper overtime rate thereof for all hours worked to the Plaintiff, and Class members, due to an invalid tip credit, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a runner at their restaurant in March 2024. SRPNYC INC. is a domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC 426 Main St, #201 Spotswood, NJ, 08884 Phone: 718-808-2224 STATE FARM: Patel Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONEAL PATEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02248-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The complaint relates that to promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. The Defendant violated the TCPA by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m. Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. The 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, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff MONEAL PATEL is the regular user of the telephone number that received the solicitations. Defendant STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY is an American insurance company.[BN] Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 754-444-753 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com STELLANTIS NV: Harman Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER HARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STELLANTIS N.V., JOHN JACOB PHILIP ELKANN, DOUGLAS R. OSTERMANN, ANTONIO FILOSA, and JOAO LARANJO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02839 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased Stellantis common stock on the New York Stock Exchange between February 26, 2025, and February 5, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Stellantis' earnings projections for 2025. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Stellantis' ability to achieve guided earnings benchmarks, the belief in a growing electrification market and Stellantis' ability to capitalize upon it to achieve guided earnings benchmarks while improving on all key performance indicators each quarter. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Stellantis' earnings growth potential, notably, that it was not truly equipped or positioned to grow its adjusted operating income as forecasted; that electrification was either not truly growing as Defendants claimed or that Stellantis was not well positioned to capitalize upon it and convert the opportunity to growth. Instead, Stellantis would ultimately be required to take on considerable charges to adjust its priority, focus, and overall execution in a shift away from battery-powered electric vehicles. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Stellantis' securities at artificially inflated prices. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Stellantis' revelation. The price of Stellantis' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $9.54 per share on February 5, 2026, Stellantis' stock price fell to $7.28 per share on February 6, 2026, a decline of about 23.69% in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Stellantis N.V. manufactures and markets automobiles and commercial vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com SVB FINANCIAL: Asks Ct. to Sustain Objections to New Reply Evidence ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group et al. (RE SVB FINANCIAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 5:23-cv-01097-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request that the Court sustain their objections to the new reply evidence and argument, including the Cain Reply Report, or, in the alternative, permit the Exchange Act Defendants to file the proposed sur-reply. In addition, the Exchange Act Defendants respectfully seek leave pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 to file the attached 5-page proposed sur-reply to address arguments and evidence presented for the first time in Plaintiffs' Reply. The Exchange Act Defendants requested Plaintiffs' consent to the filing of a sur-reply; Plaintiffs declined. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vGkDBN at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barry Berke, Esq. Daniel Ketani, Esq. Michael D. Celio, Esq. George B. Adams III, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: bberke@gibsondunn.com dketani@gibsondunn.com mcelio@gibsondunn.com gadams@gibsondunn.com - and - James N. Kramer, Esq. Alexander K. Talarides, Esq. Tristan K. Allen, Esq. Kevin M. Askew, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com atalarides@orrick.com tallen@orrick.com kaskew@orrick.com SVB FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group et al. (RE SVB FINANCIAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 5:23-cv-01097-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to leave to file the 8-page proposed sur-reply to address new evidence and arguments presented for the first time in Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. To the extent that the Court concludes that Plaintiffs did not waive these arguments and their opportunity to present this new evidence by failing to present them in their Motion, Defendants should have an opportunity to respond. Specifically, while the upcoming April 22 oral argument on class certification allow the Securities Act Defendants to more fully address Plaintiffs' newly asserted "reply arguments," fundamental fairness requires an opportunity to address the core issues of tracing, investor knowledge, and falsity in a short written submission which will benefit the establishment of a full and complete record. SVB is a financial services holding company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1DDpwi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Adam S. Hakki, Esq. Daniel C. Lewis, Esq. Joshua T. Ebersole, Esq. John Gueli, Esq. Daniel H. Gold, Esq. Laura G. Amadon, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 E-mail: adam.hakki@aoshearman.com daniel.lewis@aoshearman.com joshua.ebersole@aoshearman.com jgueli@aoshearman.com dan.gold@aoshearman.com laura.amadon@aoshearman.com - and - Lisa R. Bugni, Esq. Richard T. Marooney, Esq. Kevin J. O'Brien, Esq. Kenneth Fowler, Esq. J. Emmett Murphy, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 318-1200 E-mail: lbugni@kslaw.com rmarooney@kslaw.com kobrien@kslaw.com kfowler@kslaw.com sjemurphy@kslaw.com The Defendant KPM is represented by: Timothy J. Perla, Esq. Jessica L. Lewis, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 600-5186 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 E-mail: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com - and - Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com - and - Timothy J. Perla, Esq. Erika M. Schutzman, Esq. 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com - and - Richard H. Zelichov, Esq. Bruce G. Vanyo, Esq. Paul S. Yong, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 788-4400 E-mail: bruce@katten.com richard.zelichov@katten.com paul.yong@katten.com The Defendant John S. Clendening is represented by: Christopher Johnstone, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 E-mail: chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com - and - Peter G. Neiman, Esq. Jessica N. Djilani, Esq. 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com jessica.djilani@wilmerhale.com SVR MANAGEMENT II: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SVR Management II, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joshua Gonzales, all other similarly situated v. SVR Management II, LLC, SVR Management, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV009475 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." SVR Management II, LLC operates as the management entity for the Silverado Resort in Napa Valley, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2624 Phone: 310-277-9945 Fax: 424-277-3727 Email: anthony@counselonegroup.com TRAJECTOR INC: Charges Unlawful Fees to Veterans, Quijada Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GILBERT QUIJADA, JR., JEFFREY PHILLIPS, and KIMBERLY PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. TRAJECTOR, INC., and TRAJECTOR MEDICAL, LLC, formerly known as VET COMP AND PEN MEDICAL CONSULTING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03792 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their deceptive, unlawful, and abusive practices towards the Nation's disabled persons who have served in the United States armed forces ("Veterans") and their spouses. The complaint relates that the Defendants engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices and predatory collection practices in their unlawful scheme to induce disabled Veterans to retain their services, only to systematically take advantage of them throughout the VA disability claims process by intentionally ignoring federal regulations and laws which are designed to protect Veterans from overcharging "claim sharks." The Defendants' conduct violates the Federal Statute, which explicitly prohibits the charging of fees for assistance with preparing and filing an initial VA disability benefits claim, as well as ancillary federal laws protecting Veterans and consumers, asserts the complaint. The Defendants' conduct and actions also violate the Federal Statute regarding unreasonable contingency fee agreements. The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and monetary damages on behalf of the proposed Classes who have been wrongly charged by the Defendants, which acted unlawfully in providing services assisting and preparing Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits claims, which by law require proper accreditation. Plaintiff Staff Sergeant GILBERT QUIJADA, JR. is a disabled Veteran who honorably served in the United States Armed Services, specifically, in the United States Airforce. Plaintiff Chief Petty Officer JEFFREY PHILLIPS is a disabled Veteran who honorably served in the United States Armed Services, specifically, in the United States Navy. Plaintiff KIMBERLY PHILLIPS is the spouse of Plaintiff Chief Petty Officer Phillips and eligible to receive payment as part of Chief Petty Officer Phillips' VA disability payment. Defendants Trajector Inc. and Trajector Medical, LLC, and its predecessor Vet Comp and Pen Medical Consulting, LLC, are Florida-based corporations whose business model consists of marketing "medical evidence" and "consulting" services to Veterans seeking VA disability benefits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31355 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 210 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Jennifer Caldwell Byrd, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. S. Mary Liu, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: jbyrd@awkolaw.com E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com E-mail: mliu@awkolaw.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com TRUVIEW BSI LLC: Whatley Files Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TruView BSI LLC. The case is styled as Ashley Whatley, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. TruView BSI LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02178 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TruView -- https://truviewbsi.com/ -- specializes in background screening, business intelligence, and investigative services, combining traditional methods with modern technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Bautista Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Bautista, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2684CV00601 was removed from the Suffolk Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-11727. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising from UPS' alleged discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiff under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act. While the Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for damages in a specific amount, his civil action cover sheet states that he seeks "treble wages, fees, and interest totaling over $50,000."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katherine G. Rigby, Esq. Alicia Maziarz McFarland, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. One Financial Center, Suite 1520 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 603-1100 Fax: (617) 249-1573 Email: KRigby@ebglaw.com AMcFarland@ebglaw.com US FOODS INC: Moreno Suit Transferred to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ismael Negrete Moreno, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. US Foods Inc., US Foods Culinary Equipment & Supplies, LLC, Rob West, Rennie DePrue, Case No. 3:25-cv-10818 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01523-JDP the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. US Foods Holding Corp. -- https://www.usfoods.com/ -- is an American food service distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan LaCour, Esq. Lisa Noveck, Esq. EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW 1 S Fair Oaks Ave., Ste 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (310) 853-3461 Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com lisan@pierrelacour.com The Defendant is represented by: Annie Chen, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 612-2438 Email: annie.chen@orrick.com - and - Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (650) 614-7447 Fax: (650) 614-7401 Email: jliburt@orrick.com - and - Lauren Renee Leibovitch, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 631 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2c Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 633-2800 Fax: (310) 633-3849 Email: lleibovitch@orrick.com - and - Katie Elizabeth Briscoe, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 233-9728 Email: kbriscoe@orrick.com VALLEY STREAM ASSESSORS: VSTC Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Valley Stream. The case is styled as Valley Stream Townhouse Condominium, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Valley Stream and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Valley Stream, Case No. 401191/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Board of Assessors (or Tax/Assessment Department) for the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream -- https://valleystreamny.gov/officials -- is responsible for assessing real property, maintaining property records, managing tax exemptions, and preparing the assessment roll for approximately 11,000 parcels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Reese Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT L. REESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0462 (Del. Ch., April 7, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Verizon, arising out of provisions in the Bylaws of Verizon Communications Inc. that purport to vest Verizon's board of directors with exclusive and final authority to interpret and apply the Bylaws and preclude judicial review of any Board interpretation or application (the "Conclusive and Binding Provisions") in violation of the Delaware General Law. DGCL provides that Delaware corporations cannot exculpate directors from monetary damages stemming from breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. The Conclusive and Binding Provisions violate the DGCL not only because they purport to insulate the Company's directors from liability for loyalty breaches in connection with interpretation and application of the Bylaws, but also because they purport to render any such breaches injusticiable, says the suit. Recognizing that this is an unambiguous issue lending itself to a relatively quick fix to bring the Bylaws into compliance with the DGCL, the Plaintiff made a pre-suit demand upon the Board. The Board, however, rejected the demand, necessitating this lawsuit. Verizon Communications Inc. is an American telecommunications company headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR., PC 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 - and - F. Troupe Mickler, IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com VILLAGE OF CEDARHURST ASSESSORS: BM Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Cedarhurst. The case is styled as BM Washington LLC and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Cedarhurst and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Cedarhurst, Case No. 401176/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Assessor -- https://www.cedarhurst.gov/tax-department/assessments/ -- is responsible for determining a valuation on each parcel of real property in the Village for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP XMAX INC: Yuan Derivative Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------ XMax Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2026, that the on March 8, 2019, Jie Yuan filed a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of the Company against its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) and directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh Patel, and Min Su) and vice president (Steven Qiang Liu). The plaintiffs have since then filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice. In this action, the putative derivative plaintiffs seek to recover any losses the Company sustains as a result of alleged securities violations that were alleged in the matter of Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California. It is alleged that the Defendants caused the Company to make the alleged false and/or misleading statements giving rise to the Barney Action. The Plaintiff also alleges that President and CEO Lam engaged in self-dealing transactions by leasing her property to Diamond Bar, a Company subsidiary, and asserts, in conclusory fashion, that Lam, former CEO and director Ya Ming Wong, former CFO and director Yuen Ching Ho, and director Umesh Patel sold securities during the period of time when the alleged false and/or misleading statements were made "with knowledge of material non-public information." In the Barney action, the putative class plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated its share price by issuing a press release announcing a strategic relationship with Shanxi Winqing Senior Care Service Group, claiming in the Company's Annual Statements on Form 10-Ks for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years that Shanxi Winqing and Merlino Lewis LLP were among the Company's largest customers, and reporting revenues from sales transactions with these entities. Plaintiffs claimed that Shanxi Winqing was a fictitious entity and Merlno Lewis LLP dissolved in 2013, so that the announcement of a strategic alliance was false and the reported revenues non-existent. The Company denied these allegations and all liability. It asserted that the entities referenced in its public disclosures were actual companies and the revenues booked from those entities were genuine and actually collected. The Company alleged that no registration exists for Shanxi Winqing because the Company slightly mistranslated its Chinese name in its public disclosures. Similarly, the Company claimed to have previously sold products to Merlino Lewis LLP and failed to update its customer name when the customer restructured its business. On May 15, 2019, Wilson Samuels (the "Samuels Action") filed a largely duplicative putative derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against the same current and former directors and officers named in the Jie Action other than Steven Qiang Liu. That action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Samuels repeats the allegations of the Complaint in the Jie Action. Additionally, Samuels claims that, in announcing its change of auditing firms in September 2016, the Company asserted that it made this move because its existing auditor ceased auditing public companies subject to regulation in the United States without disclosing that its new auditing firm was created in a merger of three accounting firms, including a firm whose registration was revoked by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Samuels also claims that the Company redeemed its stock in reliance upon the same purported fraudulent recognition of revenues claimed in the putative class action. Samuels purports to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. On March 3, 2020, the defendants filed motions to stay the derivative actions until the Barney Action is resolved or alternatively to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs’ failure to make demand upon the Board of Directors was not excused and the Complaints otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. By Order entered April 7, 2020, the Court granted defendants’ Motion to Stay and stayed the Jie Action until the Barney Action is resolved. The Court subsequently entered a similar Order in the Samuels Action. As previously reported, the parties have now settled the Barney Action. The agreed $750,000 settlement payment was entirely funded by the Company's insurance carrier and has been tendered to a claims facility. With the final settlement of the Barney Action, the conditions for the stay in the Derivative Actions expired. The parties accordingly filed a stipulation to lift the stay and consolidate the actions. The Stipulation also set deadlines for plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint and for defendants to respond to this complaint. By January 7, 2025 Orders, the Court adopted the Stipulation. On February 6, 2025, the deadline for filing an amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice. While plaintiffs should have sought Court approval, the Clerk accepted the Notice of Dismissal and the lead case has been marked closed. XMax Inc., formerly known as Nova LifeStyle, Inc. and Stevens Resources, Inc, is a U.S.-headquartered innovative designer and distributor of contemporary styled residential and commercial furniture incorporated into a dynamic marketing and sales platform offering retail as well as online selection and global purchase fulfillment. The Company was incorporated in the State of Nevada on September 9, 2009. The Company's products are marketed through wholesale and retail channels as well as various online platforms worldwide. ZILLOW INC: Hossfeld Sues Over Illegal and Negligent Contacting --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hossfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZILLOW, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00917 (W.D. Tex., April 13, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy, specifically for claims under the National Do Not Call provision of the TCPA. This case is brought to enforce the consumer privacy provisions afforded by the TCPA, a federal law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices. Defendant has violated the TCPA by bombarding Plaintiff and other similarly situated cellular telephones with non-emergency communications and consumers' telemarketing phone calls without prior express written consent. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited and unwanted telephone communications exactly like those alleged in this case. In response to Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telemarketing phone communications to non-consenting consumers, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations) for Plaintiff and each of the Class Members, per violation, together with court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with the Cell Phone number at any point in time, nor did Plaintiff give permission for Defendant to call or text the Cell Phone. The Defendant is in the business of providing online real estate listing services, including advertisement and promotion of residential and commercial properties throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: abbas@kazlg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***