260428.mbx

260428.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 28, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 84 Headlines ABBOTT LABS: Derivative Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 4 ACCURATE EMPLOYMENT: Bowling Sues Over Misleading Consumer Reports ALCLEAR LLC: Dixon Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ALP-N-ROCK LLC: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ALPHA RESIDENTIAL: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 7 ANAIAH HOSPICE CARE: Pacheco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AQUA BLUE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Patel Suit Claims AT&T WIRELESS: Summary Judgment in Unpaid Taxes Suit Upheld in Part BABCOCK & WILCOX: Cho Sues Over Exchange Act Violation BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Denies Appeal on Bond Class Action BOBS TOWING: Willer-Grinkewicz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania BOPPY COMPANY: See Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BROWN UNIVERSITY: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Choh Class Suit BROWN UNIVERSITY: Students Seeks New Law Firm for Antitrust Suit BUFFALO, NY: Spada Files Suit in W.D. New York BYHEART INC: Sepulveda Suit Transferred to S.D. New York BYHEART INC: Valenzuela Suit Transferred to S.D. New York CALIFORNIA FINE WINE: Nguyen Suit Transferred to S.D. California CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Garvey Sues Over Soup's Microwavable Labels CANON USA: Ponton Suit Removed to E.D. California CAPITAL ONE: NTech Consulting Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia CBS INTERACTIVE: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, White Says CELL MARQUE: Lor Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CELL MARQUE: Lor Suit Removed to E.D. California CERNER CORPORATION: Park Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CLOUDINARY INC: Profeta Files Suit in N.D. California COMPASS MINERALS: July 12 Fair Fund Claim Submission Deadline Set CONDUENT INC: DiStefano Data Breach Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. CONEY PARTNERS: Suit Alleges Tip Misappropriation, Retaliation DATABANK HOLDINGS: Manosca Suit Removed to C.D. California DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Garcia Files Suit in S.D. Florida DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Inadequately Protected Network DESPERADOS LLC: Garibay Sues Over Unlawful Taking of Tip Credit DETAIL GARAGE LLC: Gavidia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California DHL EXPRESS: Plaras Sues Over Illegal Imported Tariff on Products DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeal of Moore Suit Dismissal Rejected DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Tax Fees DRIVEN BRANDS: Hollywood Police Balks at 30% Drop in Share Price E. MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Frater Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California EAST ROCKAWAY ASSESSORS: Harry D. Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ESSENCIA HOME CARE: Arellano Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime FARMINGDALE ASSESSORS: Rose Lo Curto Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. FCA US: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Olson Suit FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reiser Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee FITNESS CHAMPS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit FOR WELLNESS LABS: Sanchez Suit Removed to S.D. California FREEDMAN HEALTHCARE: Barrette Files Suit Over Data Breach FUNKO LLC: Booker Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users GAINSCO INC: Gillard Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas GENX MINING: Downing Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime GILLIG LLC: Bales Suit Removed to N.D. California GOLDKRESS INVESTMENTS: Townsend Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Virginia GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Racial Discrimination Suit for $50MM HARDMAN BAR & GRILL: Gluck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HASBRO INC: Faces Class Action Over Data Security Failures HDR ENGINEERING: Gilman Suit Removed to E.D. Washington HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for May 18 HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHARTER: Brishna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HOME DEPOT: McGinity Class Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR: McMurren Suit Removed to N.D. California IDAHOAN FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Potatoes IKE'S LOVE & SANDWICHES: White Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California IMPERFECT FOODS: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. California INTER-CON SECURITY: Butron Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime INTERMOUNTAIN PACKING: Grover Sues Over WARN Act Violation INTERNATIONAL GOLF: Lucas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ISLAND PARK ASSESSORS: Meltzer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. J.G. WENTWORTH: Discloses Financial Info to 3rd Party, Suit Says J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY: Gonzales Suit Removed to E.D. Washington JR SIMPLOT: Westbrook Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. JULIE'S CAFETERIA: Faces Cerezo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. KENNEDY RICE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Espinal Suit Claims KERKERING BARBERIO: McDivitt Files Suit in Fla. Super. Ct. KEYSTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Keyes Sues Over Data Breach LACI TRANSPORT: Summary Judgment in Stingley and Johnson Affirmed LAKESHORE LEARNING: Erwin Consumer Suit Removed W.D. Wash. LANA UNLIMITED: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bowman Claims LON SMITH: Texas Court of Appeals Affirms Arbitration Order in Keys LONG BEACH ASSESSORS: A-Jlo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LOOP LLC: Oil Spill Devastates Coastal Fishing Areas, Rodrigue Says M&T BANK: Wins Summary Judgment in Proxy Fraud Suit MAV KG LLC: Perez Suit Removed to E.D. California MDL 2875: Settles Contaminated Medication Class Suit for $15.2MM MEDICAL ANSWERING: Blazek FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. New York MERASTAR INSURANCE: Hagan Suit Removed to C.D. California MERCER ADVISORS INC: Doe Files Suit in S.D. California MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Ramos Files Suit in N.D. California MGR FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Omar Alleges MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Murphy Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over Mortgage Prepayment Penalties NACOGDOCHES COUNTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Seibert Says NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: 153 Main St. Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: 160 Hicks Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Amre Associates Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: FOE Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: MCL Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NATERA INC: Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for June 9 NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO: Patch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, White Says NORTHERN METAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Abrupt Layoffs NUTRIEN AG: Conspires to Raise Fertilizers' Prices, JS Farms Says OLLY PUBLIC: Faces Class Suit Over Gummy Products' False Ads PARIS PRESENTS: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PCA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Rhynes Suit Removed to E.D. California PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS: Joseph Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PENSHURST TRADING: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS: Morris Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PLANNED BUILDING: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages QBE HOLDINGS: Faces Cook Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan RED VIOLET INC: Barrow Sues Over Pervasive Compiling of Numbers RENTGROW INC: Doe Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA REV GROUP: Unified Government Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ROANOKE, VA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sellers Alleges ROKU INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Software Updates RUG PAD: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Wood Says SACRAMENTO VALLEY: Bejgi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAK CONSTRUCTION: Vaca Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. SAN DIEGO STATE: Agrees to Settle Athletic Class Suit for $300,000 SIGNIA HOTEL: Valtierra Suit Removed to N.D. California SMURFIT KAPPA: Melendez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET: Washington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STAFFDNA LLC: Block Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STARR INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bottomley Says STATE FARM: Agrees to Settle Arkansas Class Action for $15.6MM STUDEBAKER HEALTH: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Santana Flipped SUPER MICRO: Hialeah Employees' Balks at Misleading Business Info SYNOPSYS INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Waring Alleges SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. T & C OF WELLFORD: Meyer Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers TOTAL RENAL: Del Rosario Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. UNITED HEALTH: Moe Karami Class Suit Removed to W.D. Okla. UNITED HEALTH: Odom Class Suit Removed to D. Minn. UNITED STATES: Benitez Balks at Illegal Seizures, Discrimination VANILLA CHIP: TruHeight Does Not Promote Growth, Class Suit Claims VEGAMOUR LLC: Ford Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WEST VIRGINIA: Denial of Class Certification Bid in Bryant Affirmed YELLOW DOG: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Says ZUFFA LLC: Johnson Files Bid to Transfer Suit, Compel Subpoena ********* ABBOTT LABS: Derivative Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE ABBOTT LABORATORIES INFANT FORMULA SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION CASE NO: 1:22-cv-5513 Hon. Sunil R. Harjani Hon. Laura K. McNally NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTION, FINAL SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF ABBOTT LABORATORIES COMMON STOCK PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HAS AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE TO BE SENT TO YOU THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION This notice (the "Notice") advises you of the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of derivative claims brought against certain current and former directors and officers ("Individual Defendants") of Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott" or the "Company") (collectively with the Individual Defendants, "Defendants"). The parties to the Consolidated Derivative Action, have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") before becoming final. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, all Released Claims against all Released Parties (as those terms are defined in the Stipulation) will be dismissed with prejudice. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on June 4, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. at Courtroom 1925 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Consolidated Derivative Action should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) whether the Court should award attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of expenses for Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and service awards for the Lead Plaintiffs, and in what amount; and (iv) to hear such other matters as may properly come before the Court. If you are a current Abbott Shareholder, and you wish to express an objection to any portion of the Settlement or Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, including service awards for the Lead Plaintiffs, you must send a signed letter or other signed written submission providing a detailed statement of your specific objections. Your written objection must: (i) state your name, address, and telephone number; (ii) provide the number of shares of Abbott common stock you own as of the date of the submission, accompanied by copies of brokerage statement(s) evidencing such ownership of Abbott common stock; and (iii) provide a detailed description of your specific objections to any matter before the Court, all the grounds for your objections, and any documents you wish the Court to consider. You must mail the objection and your supporting papers to the Court (or otherwise file your objection with the Court). You must also mail each of the attorneys listed at the addresses provided below to arrive no later than May 18, 2026. Court: Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Lead Plaintiff's Counsel: Carol V. Gilden COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2375 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Justin O. Reliford SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1405 Wilmington, DE 19801 Abbott's Counsel: Eric R. Swibel LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Individual Defendants' Counsel: Brenton A. Rogers KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60654 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR TELEPHONE THE COURT OR CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Any questions regarding this Notice or the proposed Settlement, or requests to obtain copies of Settlement-related documents, including copies of the papers to be submitted in support of final approval of the Settlement and the application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, including service awards for the Lead Plaintiffs, may be directed to the following Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Carol V. Gilden COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2375 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 cgilden@cohenmilstein.com Justin O. Reliford SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1405 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 578-7345 jreliford@scott-scott.com DATE: April 17, 2026 ACCURATE EMPLOYMENT: Bowling Sues Over Misleading Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONNY BOWLING, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCURATE EMPLOYMENT SCREENING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00124-CHB-MAS (E.D. Ky., April 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff applied for employment with an end user, McLane Company, Inc., in Kentucky in September of 2025. A written agreement addressing the production of consumer reports exists between Defendant and McLane which requires Defendant to produce reports that comply with the FCRA. The Defendant subsequently provided McLane with a consumer report concerning Plaintiff for employment purposes. The Plaintiff's job was terminated after McLane received a copy of the consumer report produced by Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia: (i) failing to contemporaneously notify Plaintiff and other consumers of Defendant's reporting of public record information to end users; and (ii) producing consumer reports regarding Plaintiff and other consumers that were incomplete, inaccurate, and/or misleading. Accurate Employment Screening, LLC produces background screening and other consumer reports for end users for employment purposes for a fee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Miller-Mitchell, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 North Seventh Street, #827 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (929) 223-6940 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: amillermitchell@sirillp.com ALCLEAR LLC: Dixon Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MIKALAH DIXON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALCLEAR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV05287, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03874 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages ate termination; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) unfair business practices. Alclear, LLC is a technology company that provides biometric secure identity platforms.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com ALP-N-ROCK LLC: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALP-N-ROCK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03931 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://alpnrock.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. Alp-N-Rock, LLC manufactures luxury sport-lifestyle clothing for both men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law ALPHA RESIDENTIAL: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Residential TN, LLC The case is styled as Mathew Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alpha Residential TN, LLC doing business as: Alpha Residential, Case No. 3:26-cv-00464 (M.D. Tenn., April 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alpha Residential TN, LLC doing business as Alpha Residential -- https://alpharesidential.com/ -- is a privately held investment firm with a single focus: aligning with sophisticated investors and asset managers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-mc-01404 (D.D.C., Filed Oct. 13, 2015), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order granting the parties' Consent Motion to Amend Scheduling Order regarding Class Certification and adopting the deadlines: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and any supporting expert reports is May 7, 2026 -- Deadline for Defendants' opposition to class certification motion, supporting expert reports, and to depose Pls.' experts is Nov. 12, 2026 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs' reply to class certification motion, to depose Defs' experts, and file any rebuttal reports is Feb. 25, 2027. -- Deadline for Defendants' to take depositions re: rebuttal reports is April 7, 2027. The deadlines related to the Daubert motions are as follows: -- Motions by April 28, 2027 -- Oppositions by June 16, 2027 -- Replies by July 21, 2027 The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.[CC] ANAIAH HOSPICE CARE: Pacheco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anaiah Hospice Care, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Irish Pacheco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code Section 2698 v. Anaiah Hospice Care, Inc. doing business as Monarch Hospice and Palliative Care, Jason Bliss, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV009568 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Anaiah Hospice Care, Inc. doing business as Monarch Hospice and Palliative Care -- https://monarchhospicecare.com/ -- is dedicated to offering compassionate, personalized care for those facing life-limiting illnesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Peery, Esq. THE PEERY LAW FIRM 4550 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 818-995-4079 Fax: 818-995-6514 Email: ap@peerylaw.com AQUA BLUE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Patel Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- MONEAL PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUA BLUE CAR WASH LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02245-GPC-BJW (S.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Aqua Blue Car Wash LLC offers car care services with unlimited washes and complimentary amenities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com AT&T WIRELESS: Summary Judgment in Unpaid Taxes Suit Upheld in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CITY OF UNIVERSITY CITY, MISSOURI, CITY OF BLUE SPRINGS, MISSOURI, CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, CITY OF CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI, CITY OF DEXTER, MISSOURI, CITY OF ELLISVILLE, MISSOURI, CITY OF FERGUSON, MISSOURI, CITY OF FLORISSANT, MISSOURI, CITY OF GLADSTONE, MISSOURI, CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, CITY OF JENNINGS, MISSOURI, CITY OF KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI, CITY OF MANCHESTER, MISSOURI, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MISSOURI, CITY OF MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MISSOURI, CITY OF NORTHWOODS, MISSOURI, CITY OF O'FALLON, MISSOURI, CITY OF VINITA PARK, MISSOURI, CITY OF WARSON WOODS, MISSOURI, CITY OF WELLSTON, MISSOURI, AND CITY OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, Appellants, v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. ET AL., Respondent, Case No. ED113046 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Special Division, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's order granting AT&T's motion for summary judgment. The lengthy dispute began in 2001 when University City, Missouri and 21 other Missouri municipalities (the Cities), acting as the named Plaintiffs and representatives of a class consisting of all but three of Missouri's more than 330 municipalities, sued AT&T Mobility and dozens of its affiliated companies claiming that AT&T had been failing to fully pay each City's business license tax on the gross receipts generated from its business activities occurring in each municipality. Much water has passed under this bridge since, most notably the parties' 2007 settlement agreement, later incorporated into a final judgment, in which AT&T agreed to pay to the Cities portions of its past business license tax liability and the license taxes going forward as defined by the agreement. As stated, the class action settlement agreement the parties reached in December 2007 -- later incorporated into an April 18, 2008 final judgment -- is at the heart of the case. To resolve the Cities' claims to past unpaid license taxes for the period September 1, 2005 to November 30, 2007, AT&T agreed to pay the Cities' claims to those taxes subject to the agreement's terms. AT&T's future tax obligation, that is, its agreement to pay license taxes going forward from December 1, 2007. The current iteration of this litigation springs from the Cities' 2017 motion to enforce that settlement agreement and concerns the parties' dueling summary judgment motions regarding the interpretation of that agreement. In its motion to enforce, the Cities claimed that AT&T was in material breach because it had been systematically underpaying the Cities' license taxes on its gross revenue receipts generated in each City. The parties squared off and litigated at length in the trial court. This appeal centers on whether under the agreement AT&T's business license tax base includes the gross receipts generated from these four areas of its business: 1. Prepaid wireless voice and text service; 2. Equipment sales including telephones, accessories, phone cases, charges, and batteries among other items; 3. Miscellaneous contract charges including local source revenue such as contract termination charges, late payment fees, technical customer service support charges, bill reprint fees, returned check fees, and state sales tax collection income; and 4. Data service including internet access charges. The parties' summary judgment papers, of course, took opposite views on each of these main areas of contention. In a nine-and-a-half-page judgment issued on September 30, 2024, the trial court agreed with AT&T on all four issues. It granted AT&T's motion in toto. First, the court found that section 144.010.1(16)'s definition of "telecommunications service" barred the Cities' claims entirely because none of the four categories of receipts at issue are included in that definition. Next, the court found the Cities' claims were also barred by the parties' "practical construction" because "at no point during the negotiations" leading to the agreement did the parties construe "telecommunications service" to include data services, equipment sales, or prepaid wireless. Third, the court held that "governmental estoppel" barred the Cities' claims because the "Cities expressly agreed to the exclusion of internet access from taxation and have acted inconsistently with that statement by requesting taxes be paid and suing thereon." Fourth, that the settlement agreement contained no meeting of the minds on prepaid wireless services. The Cities now appeal in seventeen points focused on whether AT&T owes the Cities' license taxes on the four areas of its business: prepaid wireless, equipment sales, miscellaneous contract charges, and data service/internet access. The Court of Appeals' analysis of the taxability of these four areas of AT&T's business depended on its interpretation of the parties' 2007 settlement agreement under Missouri's well-worn contract construction principles. First, the Court of Appeals found that AT&T's prepaid wireless services are within the agreement's purview so with regard to the prepaid wireless receipts it granted summary judgment in favor of the Cities on their motion to enforce. It remanded the issue for further proceedings as follows: For the period from December 1, 2007 until the point in 2016 when AT&T began including its prepaid wireless receipts in its tax base, the matter is remanded for further proceedings including an accounting and to determine the Cities' damages. For the period from 2016 to the present, the Court of Appeals likewise remanded for further proceedings to determine a remedy including a determination of the Cities' damages for AT&T's failure to source those receipts consistent with the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act. Next, as for the second and third categories of receipts, equipment sales and miscellaneous contract charges, the Court of Appeals affirmed based on its holding that the "future tax payments" provision of the agreement reflects the parties' intent to exclude those areas of AT&T's business in its license tax base. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that AT&T has established its right to summary judgment that internet access receipts are not part of its license tax base. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/0pba4b6 BABCOCK & WILCOX: Cho Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Caleb Cho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES, INC., KENNETH M. YOUNG, and CAMERON FRYMYER, Case No. 5:26-cv-00886 (N.D. Ohio, April 14, 2026), is brought seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired B&W securities between November 5, 2025 and March 11, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Defendants repeatedly touted the purported value of the Power Generation Contract backlog as evidence that B&W's was robust, and that demand for B&W's products and services was strong. However, Defendants did not disclose that if Base Electron defaulted on its obligations under the purportedly $2.4 billion agreement, Applied Digital could unilaterally terminate its guarantee of Base Electron's obligations under the agreement for as little as $50 million. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: B&W's largest shareholder, BRC, stood on both sides of the Power Generation Contract and had close ties to B&W's counterparty; Applied Digital did not need the products and services that B&W would purportedly supply pursuant to the Power Generation LNTP and Contract; the foregoing, at the very least, would raise questions about the parties' actual intent behind entering into the Power Generation LNTP and Contract, including whether the Company is likely to recognize revenues from these agreements; accordingly, the business and financial prospects of the Company were overstated; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on March 12, 2026, when Wolfpack Research published a short report alleging that B&W had failed to disclose the close relationship between its largest shareholder, BRC, and Base Electron, B&W's counterparty to the Power Generation Contract: Base Electron's directors included BRC Co-CEO and Chairman Riley, and Base Electron's registered address matched that of BRC's headquarters, not Applied Digital's. Following publication of the Wolfpack report, B&W's stock price fell $1.71 per share, or 11.59%, to close at $13.05 per share on March 12, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wagoner, Esq. DITTMER, WAGONER & STEELE, LLC 107 W. Johnstown Road Gahanna, OH 43230 Phone: (614) 471-8181 Facsimile: (614) 540-7473 Email: bob@dwslaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Denies Appeal on Bond Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Missouri Lawyers Media reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday, April 20, to hear a bid by Bank of America and seven other major financial institutions to prevent American cities from banding together in a $12 billion class action accusing them of artificially inflating interest rates on a popular municipal bond. The justices turned away an appeal by the banks brought after a lower court upheld a judge's decision to certify the lawsuit brought by Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Diego and other cities as a class action. The Supreme Court's action paves the way for the suit to proceed as a class action. The other banks are Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Royal Bank of Canada, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley. The cities have accused the banks of colluding from 2008 to 2016 to raise rates on thousands of long-term bonds called variable-rate demand obligations. An attorney for the city plaintiffs declined to comment. The plaintiffs previously said there are thousands of jurisdictions that are class members in the lawsuit. A lead attorney for the banks in the Supreme Court appeal did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The bonds have short-term rates that typically reset weekly. The cities contend banks drove up interest rates, reducing available municipal funding for hospitals, schools and other outlets. The banks argued in Manhattan federal court that the cities should be required to sue for damages individually, not as a group. They also have denied any wrongdoing. The banks in their appeal contend that U.S. district judges must first resolve disputes among third-party experts that address whether common issues predominate before allowing cases to move forward as class actions. They said the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong last year to uphold certification of a nationwide class of municipal bond issuers. The banks had told the Supreme Court that the 2nd Circuit's ruling, if left in place, would encourage overly broad class actions, dramatically raising potential liability and coercing settlements. The cities and other municipal issuers countered that the banks were seeking to transform class certification into a mini-trial on the merits of a lawsuit. The plaintiffs also asserted there was no conflict among appellate courts and that class certification decisions should focus first on whether common questions can be resolved on a class-wide basis, not on whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail. [GN] BOBS TOWING: Willer-Grinkewicz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Bobs Towing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Theresa Willer-Grinkewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A Bobs Towing, Inc. d/b/a Bobs Sponges, Mikina Harrison, Case No. 2:26-cv-02485 (E.D. Pa., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act.[BN] A Bobs Towing, Inc. -- https://www.abobstowing.com/ -- consists of a team of experienced professionals and a fleet of well-maintained tow trucks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Lorraine Weekes, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 96815-4419 Phone: (215) 999-9767 Email: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com BOPPY COMPANY: See Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOPPY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00690-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind., April 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.boppy.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. The Boppy Company, LLC operates the website that offers breastfeeding pillows, baby carriers, pregnancy pillows, and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law.com BROWN UNIVERSITY: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Choh Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissing the case, TAMENANG CHOH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, GRACE KIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROWN UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, COUNCIL OF IVY GROUP PRESIDENTS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-2826 (2d Cir.). The two named Plaintiffs-Appellants in this putative class action played men's and women's basketball at Brown University, respectively. They bring this suit against the Defendants-Appellees (Ivy League), a group of eight member universities and a Council of their respective presidents. The putative class includes "all Ivy League Athletes recruited to play a sport by one or more University Defendants, and who, within the Class Period, attended one of the University Defendants' undergraduate programs while playing a sport for that school." The Plaintiffs allege that the University Defendants collectively agreed not to provide athletic scholarships to their Division I athletes and not to pay their athletes any compensation (or reimbursement of education-related expenses) for the athletic services they provide to the University Defendants. They assert that this agreement ("Ivy League Agreement") amounts to price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. App'x 89–90. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted the motion. As relevant to this appeal, the district court applied the rule of reason and determined that the complaint failed to satisfy the requirements for defining a plausible relevant market for either the sale of educational services or the purchasing of athletic services. As to the primary market alleged, defined solely with reference to the University Defendants themselves, it held that the complaint alleges facts which show that schools other than the University Defendants compete to sell educational services to and purchase athletic services from elite student-athletes. As to the markets alleged in the alternative, the court explained that the sale-and-purchase markets alleged to include both the Defendant Universities and a few other schools, including Stanford, Notre Dame, Duke, and Rice, did not sufficiently plead the boundaries of the relevant product market. Accordingly, the district court concluded that the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs are legally insufficient to show an adverse effect on competition as a whole in a relevant market, as would be necessary to sustain their Sherman Act Section 1 claims. It further held that Choh's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenge the district court's application of the rule of reason and its assessment of the timeliness of Choh's claims. To state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason, a plaintiff must allege a plausible relevant market in which competition will be impaired. The Second Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs' contention that their allegations of direct anticompetitive harm excuse them from pleading a relevant market. The Plaintiffs didn't sufficiently plead a relevant market. They asserted that the misconduct at issue occurs in two related markets: (l) the market for educational services for athletically and academically high-achieving ('AAHA") students who seek to graduate from college and play Division 1 sports in the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA"), and (2) the market for the athletic services of the AAHA students who seek to play for the University Defendants. They alleged that each of these two markets can, in turn, be defined with reference to the University Defendants, or, in the alternative, both the Defendant Universities and a few other schools, including Stanford, Notre Dame, Duke, and Rice. Though the Second Circuit has a relatively permissive pleading standard, it said the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy it here. The alleged Ivy-only markets do not encompass all interchangeable substitute products. Conclusory assertions that AAHA students would not view colleges or universities outside the Ivy League with Division I athletics programs to be reasonable substitutes contradict well-pleaded facts in the complaint explaining that other academically selective institutions offer athletic scholarships along with needbased aid for all other students, without sacrificing their academic standing. The Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary conflate the Ivy League brand with the applicable market for AAHA students. Moreover, the Second Circuit held that the alleged Ivy-plus markets for sale of educational services to and purchase of athletic services from AAHA students are insufficiently defined, as the complaint does not include a plausible explanation as to why these markets should be limited to exclude possible substitutes. The Plaintiffs put forth no accounting of which universities or colleges comprise the Ivy-plus market, nor do they make clear the boundaries of the market with respect to its peculiar characteristics and uses, distinct customers, or any characteristics peculiar to itself. The Second Circuit concluded that the Plaintiffs' failure to plead a relevant market is fatal to both their direct and indirect allegations of anticompetitive harm under the Sherman Act, Section 1. The district court thus properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' sole claim. Given this conclusion, the Second Circuit did not consider Choh's contention that the district court erred in concluding his challenge was untimely. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order is available at https://sl1nk.com/6urwp8g JOSHUA P. DAVIS -- jdavis@bergermontague.com --, Berger Montague PC, San Francisco, CA (F. Paul Bland, Robert E. Litan -- rlitan@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, Washington, D.C.; Eric L. Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Alan Cotler -- alancotler@gmail.com -- Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Edward Normand -- tnormand@fnf.law -- Richard Cipolla, Freedman Normand Friedland LLP, New York, NY, on the brief). FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. SETH P. WAXMAN -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (David Gringer -- david.gringer@wilmerhale.com -- Alan Schoenfeld -- alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, on the brief). FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Noah J. Kaufman -- noah.kaufman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA; Jon R. Roellke, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BROWN UNIVERSITY. Karen Hoffman Lent -- karen.lent@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY; Amy Van Gelder -- amy.vangelder@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Chicago, IL, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Norman Armstrong, Jr. -- norman.armstrong@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Emily T. Chen -- echen@mcdermottlaw.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. Ishan K. Bhabha, Douglas E. Litvack -- dlitvack@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE. Diane L. McGimsey -- mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE HARVARD UNIVERSITY. Juan A. Arteaga, Rosa Morales, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY; Jordan Ludwig, Crowell & Moring LLP, Los Angeles, CA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. Charles A. Loughlin -- chuck.loughlin@hoganlovells.com -- Benjamin F. Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Christopher M. Fitzpatrick -- chris.fitzpatrick@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE YALE UNIVERSITY. Derek Ludwin -- dludwin@cov.com -- Meaghan Ryan -- dludwin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE COUNCIL OF IVY GROUP PRESIDENTS. BROWN UNIVERSITY: Students Seeks New Law Firm for Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that students suing a group of major U.S. universities have proposed appointing New York trial lawyer Steven Molo and his law firm as lead counsel, after a federal judge in Chicago said he would not allow the class action to move forward with their original legal team. The law firms currently representing the students -- Freedman Normand Friedland and Berger Montague -- asked U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in a filing on Monday, April, 20, to appoint the law firm MoloLamken in antitrust litigation involving more than 200,000 current and former college students. Kennelly last month gave the firms three weeks to find new leadership for the lawsuit, filed in 2022 against 17 elite colleges and universities. ⁠The case alleges the schools suppressed competition for financial aid and favored wealthy applicants in admissions. The dispute over class certification stems from Kennelly's finding that another plaintiffs firm that was representing the students, Gilbert Litigators and Counselors, misled the court about its fee arrangements. The judge said the firm was not working on a fully contingent basis, as it had represented, but instead had a third‑party litigation funder. Gilbert has denied any wrongdoing. Molo said in a statement, that he and his firm would "be honored to serve as lead counsel in this important case." Freedman Normand and Berger Montague said they looked forward to taking the case to trial alongside MoloLamken and asked the court to name them as co‑counsel. The lawsuit said a group of prominent colleges and universities violated U.S. antitrust ⁠law over a 20-year span by breaching a pledge not to consider students' finances in making admissions decisions. Twelve universities, including Brown, Yale and Columbia, have already agreed to settlements with the plaintiffs worth nearly $320 million. The remaining defendants include Cornell, University of Pennsylvania and Georgetown. All the defendants, including those that have settled, have denied any wrongdoing. MoloLamken handles both defense and plaintiff‑side cases, including class actions and other complex litigation. Molo founded the ⁠firm in 2009 after earlier stints as a prosecutor and partner at large law firms. Molo is a lead trial attorney for Elon Musk in his lawsuit accusing ChatGPT maker OpenAI of violating his founding mission to develop artificial intelligence for the common good, not profit. That case is set for ⁠a three-week jury trial next week in federal court in California. The financial aid lawsuit is scheduled for trial in November, with plaintiffs seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The case is Henry v. Brown University, U.S. District Court for the Northern District ⁠of Illinois, No. 1:22-cv-00125. [GN] BUFFALO, NY: Spada Files Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Buffalo, et al. The case is styled as Zachary Spada, and others similarly situated v. City of Buffalo; New York; Buffalo Parking Authority; Buffalo Impound Lot; John Doe, all others similarly situated, in their individual and official capacities; Case No. 1:26-cv-00728-JLS (W.D.N.Y., April 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Buffalo -- https://www.buffalony.gov/ -- is a city in the U.S. state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BYHEART INC: Sepulveda Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Victor Sepulveda and Jessica Castaneda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ByHeart, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02210 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03122-AS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. ByHeart -- https://byheart.com/ -- is an American infant formula company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Justin D. Cole, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: scarson@bergermontague.com jpolakoff@bergermontague.com jcole@bergermontague.com - and - Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. Jordan C. Hughes, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (763) 340-0285 Email: akiener@bergermontague.com jhughes@bergermontague.com The Defendants are represented by: Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Esq. Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON (LA) 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: (213) 683-9292 Fax: (213) 687-3702 Email: bethany.kristovich@mto.com daniel.levin@mto.com - and - Juliana Yee, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP (SF) 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 512-4028 Fax: (415) 512-4077 Email: juliana.yee@mto.com - and - Timothy Pfenninger, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 656-3394 BYHEART INC: Valenzuela Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Monica Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ByHeart, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06333 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03126-AS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability. ByHeart -- https://byheart.com/ -- is an American infant formula company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Robert Reese, Esq. MICHAEL REESE 100 West 93rd Street, Ste. 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: mreese@reesellp.com The Defendants are represented by: Colleen Gulliver, Esq. Connor Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP (NY) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 335-4500 Fax: (212) 335-4501 Email: colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com - and - Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Esq. Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON (LA) 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: (213) 683-9292 Fax: (213) 687-3702 Email: bethany.kristovich@mto.com daniel.levin@mto.com - and - Juliana Yee, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP (SF) 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 512-4028 Fax: (415) 512-4077 Email: juliana.yee@mto.com CALIFORNIA FINE WINE: Nguyen Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Khang Nguyen, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. California Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-01445 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02440-LL-DEB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. California Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC is a liquor store in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell Murray, Esq. EMPLAW LLP 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encintas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 942-9433 - and - Nicholas Wall Schieffelin, Esq. KLINEDINST PC 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1000 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Phone: (714) 542-1800 Fax: (714) 542-3592 Email: nschieffelin@klinedinstlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Rankin Bothamley, Esq. Andres Antuna, Esq. Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Fax: (408) 454-0290 Email: sean.bothamley@jacksonlewis.com antunaa@jacksonlewis.com Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Garvey Sues Over Soup's Microwavable Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET PEGGI LOUISE GARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03097-TSH (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its microwavable soup products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents its soup products as "Microwavable." In reality, the products' lids and packaging are made of polypropylene plastic, which scientific studies have shown releases harmful microplastics directly into the soup when microwaved and, as a result, the products cannot be safely heated in a microwave. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products. The Campbell's Company is a food manufacturer based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Morris, Esq. Shane. A. Greenberg, Esq. JAMES MORRIS LAW FIRM PC 4001 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 202 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (747) 283-1144 Facsimile: (747) 283-1143 Email: jmorris@jamlawyers.com sgreenberg@jamlawyers.com - and - Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq. ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Facsimile: (314) 455-7375 Email: dan@orlowskylaw.com - and - Adam M. Goffstein, Esq. GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Facsimile: (314) 455-7278 Email: adam@goffsteinlaw.com CANON USA: Ponton Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ernesto Ponton, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. CANON U.S.A., INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV004356 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00630. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action against CUSA for: Failure To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Provide Rest Breaks; Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Furnish Timely And Accurate Wage Statements; Failure To Pay All Wages Upon Separation; Violation Of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); And Civil Penalties For Violations Of Labor Code, Pursuant To California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nisha Verma, Esq. Pavlina K. Rafter, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 Email: verma.nisha@dorsey.com rafter.pavlina@dorsey.com CAPITAL ONE: NTech Consulting Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One, N.A. The case is styled as NTech Consulting, LLC, Nikhil Navkal, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A., Case No. 3:26-cv-00308-RCY (E.D. Va., April 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ -- is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory Scott Duncan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY S. DUNCAN 222 Court Square Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 979-8556 Email: gregdun@ntelos.net CBS INTERACTIVE: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, White Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN WHITE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CBS INTERACTIVE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03064 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for embedding interception technologies in its website, www.cbsnews.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. As a result, Defendant causes the interception and transmission of the contents of users' electronic communications with the Website to servers controlled by the Third Parties. Defendant's conduct is intentional and coordinated, as the Trackers operate pursuant to Defendant's deliberate configuration and are not necessary to render the Website's core content or functionality. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff AUSTIN WHITE was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred on multiple occasions during the class period including on March 15, 2026. Defendant CBS INTERACTIVE INC. is one of the most-visited digital news platforms in the United States, publishing news, investigative reports, video content, and live event coverage across its digital properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com CELL MARQUE: Lor Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled PANG LOR, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELL MARQUE CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; EMD MILLIPORE CORPORATION a Massachusetts corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. S-CV-0057144, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00629 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts these causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) unfair business practices. Cell Marque Corporation manufactures and supplies primary antibodies to ventana medical systems.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kara A. Ritter Cole, Esq. Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: kcole@littler.com skierig@littler.com CELL MARQUE: Lor Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Pang Lor, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELL MARQUE CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; EMD MILLIPORE CORPORATION a Massachusetts corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0057144 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00629. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kara A. Ritter Cole, Esq. Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: kcole@littler.com skierig@littler.com CERNER CORPORATION: Park Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kyle Park, Michele Papadopoulos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., Ascension Health, Case No. 4:26-cv-00073 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00310-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] CLOUDINARY INC: Profeta Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloudinary, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Reuben Profeta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cloudinary, Inc., Fiverr, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-03207-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cloudinary -- https://cloudinary.com/ -- is a SaaS company providing cloud media management services for websites and apps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com COMPASS MINERALS: July 12 Fair Fund Claim Submission Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Simpluris, Inc., Fund Administrator for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a statement regarding the Compass Minerals International, Inc., Fair Fund and Plan of Distribution. NOTICE OF FAIR FUND DISTRIBUTION PLAN In the Matter of Compass Minerals International, Inc. Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-21145 For more information, visit www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com The United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has settled administrative proceedings (the "Order") against Compass Minerals International, Inc. ("Compass"). In the Order, the Commission found that from 2017 to 2018, Compass made repeated misrepresentations about its plans to reduce costs and about the production levels at its Goderich salt mine in Canada. In addition to these violations, Compass filed materials that did not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") standards. The SEC found that Compass' statements violated Section 8(A) of the Securities Act, and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC ordered the Respondents to pay a $12,000,000 civil money penalty to the Commission. The SEC also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so that the penalty collected can be distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund"). The Fair Fund will be paid out according to the Plan of Distribution ("Plan"). A summary of the eligibility criteria and claims process is below. Full details are available at www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com. You may also request a copy of the Plan from the Fund Administrator via email at info@CompassMineralsFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2446. Who is eligible to receive a payment from the Fair Fund? To receive a payment, you must have: 1. purchased Compass common stock between March 2, 2017, and October 23, 2018; 2. approved transactions that calculate to at least $10.00 of Recognized Loss under the Plan; 3. not been an Excluded Party under the Plan; 4. submitted a valid Claim Form. How do I submit a Claim? The easiest way to submit a claim is online at the Compass Fair Fund website: www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com. Claim Forms completed online must be submitted on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on July 12, 2026. If you are unable to submit a Claim Form online, you may request a copy of the paper Claim Form from the Fund Administrator via email at info@CompassMineralsFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2446. You may also download a copy of the Claim Form to print from: www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com. Claim Forms submitted via mail must be sent to the address provided on the Claim Form and postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, then received) by July 12, 2026. The Fund Administrator will send a Determination Notice advising each Eligible Claimant who timely submitted a Claim Form of their eligibility determination and will provide a calculation of the claimant's Recognized Loss. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of an Eligible Claimant's Recognized Loss calculation if timely submitted in accordance with the Plan. This notice is a summary. For more information, visit www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com CONDUENT INC: DiStefano Data Breach Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL DISTEFANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED and CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2026CV001826, was removed from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00612 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Conduent acted tortiously in connection with a cybersecurity incident involving Conduent that occurred between October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that his personal information was compromised during the data breach incident and asserts four causes of action against Conduent: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) declaratory and injunctive relief. Conduent Incorporated is an American business services provider company headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel G. Murphy, Esq. Sadie Hobbs, Esq. REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN, S.C. 1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 298-1000 E-mail: dmurphy@reinhartlaw.com shobbs@reinhartlaw.com CONEY PARTNERS: Suit Alleges Tip Misappropriation, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- DARLENE LYNN BELLEFEUILLE, an individual, and SOPHIE FALK, an individual, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONEY PARTNERS, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, d/b/a GRAND CONEY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01144 (W.D. Mich., April 8, 2026) is an action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act based on Defendant's misappropriation of tips, and retaliation. Plaintiff Bellefeuille worked as both a server and server-supervisor on third-shift at Defendant for nearly three years, earning $6 an hour, plus tips. According to the complaint, the Defendant retained and misappropriated tips that belonged to Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated. The Defendant failed to distribute tips from online orders to the servers who worked on those orders. The Defendant willfully violated the minimum wage provisions of FLSA, by improperly claiming a tip credit against the wages of Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff made her complaints directly to Defendant’ management and HR representative. The Defendant took adverse action against the Plaintiff. Following Plaintiff Bellefeuille's complaints, the Defendant reduced her hours and eliminated the tip option for online orders, therefore, depriving all servers of earning tips for handling the online orders. Further, the Defendant demoted Plaintiff Bellefeuille from her server-supervisor position, which she had held for two years, to a regular server position. The Defendant's retaliatory actions ultimately resulted in Plaintiff's constructive discharge, says the suit. Coney Partners, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Grand Coney, operates a restaurant in Grand Rapids, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Howard, Esq. CUNNINGHAM DALMAN, P.C. 321 Settlers Road Holland, MI 49423 Telephone: (616) 392-1821 DATABANK HOLDINGS: Manosca Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jerry Manosca, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. DATABANK HOLDINGS, LTD.; and DOES l through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV06783 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04103. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against DataBank in Violation of California Labor Codes: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison N. Bader, Esq. O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949.823.6900 Facsimile: 949.823.6944 Email: abader@omm.com DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Garcia Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dermcare Management LLC. The case is styled as Natalie Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dermcare Management LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61092-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DermCare Management -- https://www.dermcaremgt.com/ -- offers a full suite of support services for dermatologists and dermatology specialists at every stage of their medical career.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Inadequately Protected Network ------------------------------------------------------------- Lizette Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61091-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2026), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. Recently, DermCare became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, DermCare determined that cybercriminals infiltrated this inadequately secured network and gained access to its files between February 14, 2025 and February 26, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). According to DermCare, the accessed files contained a wide variety of personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account information, credit and debit card information, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, medical treatment information, and health insurance information (collectively, "Personal Information"). As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the Personal Information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent--indeed, reckless--failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class members' Personal Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entrusted her Personal Information to the Defendant in exchange for medical services. The Defendant is a medical services provider that specializes in treating vein diseases. Defendant has locations across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com DESPERADOS LLC: Garibay Sues Over Unlawful Taking of Tip Credit --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Garibay, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Desperados, LLC, d/b/a Copper Bottom Bar & Grill, Case No. 2:26-cv-00640-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 14, 2026), is brought under the Fair labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage and unlawful taking of tip credit. The Defendant's tip credit is invalid because Desperados' management steals tips from its employees and Desperados failed to make the required disclosures before taking tip credit. Desperados therefore should have paid its employees the minimum wage but did not do so and owes Plaintiff and the likely collective members unpaid tips. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the required notice of any tip credit, including the amount of the cash wage, the amount of the tip credit claimed, and that tips belonged to the employee except as part of a lawful tip pool. Instead, Defendant affirmatively misrepresented employees' rights under the FLSA by informing them that management was permitted to take a portion of employee tips. Because Defendant failed to provide the required disclosures, any purported tip credit was invalid. As a result, Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff the full minimum wage for all hours worked and to remit all tips to Plaintiff. Defendant did neither. Through these practices, Defendant retained and diverted employee tips and failed to pay lawful wages throughout Plaintiff's employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant. Desperados is in the restaurant business, operating a restaurant called Copper Bottom Bar & Grill.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Fernandez del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E. Adams Street, Suite 1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 216-0111 Email: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com DETAIL GARAGE LLC: Gavidia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Detail Garage LLC. The case is styled as Steven Alejandro Hernandez Gavidia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Detail Garage LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02367-BTM-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Detail Garage -- https://detailgarage.com/ -- is your destination for professional auto detailing supplies, detailing equipment, car care accessories, and training.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com DHL EXPRESS: Plaras Sues Over Illegal Imported Tariff on Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PLARAS; WILLIAM HARLESS; and DIONNE DAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61015-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's tariffs on imported products are illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Dhl Express (USA), Inc., doing business as DHL Express, provides mail services. The Company offers addressed letters, parcels, air and ocean freight. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 South Dixie Hwy, # 240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 421 N. Harrington Street, Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com pwallace@leesegui.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeal of Moore Suit Dismissal Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXA MOORE, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees, Case No. 22-CV-0760 (D.C. App.), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed Moore's appeals of the trial court's grant of the District's motion to dismiss. Moore filed a putative class action complaint against the District of Columbia and multiple private contractors. After the trial court granted the District's motion to dismiss, Moore dismissed without prejudice her claims against the remaining private contractors and appealed the trial court's order. Following a data breach against the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) that revealed hundreds if not thousands of employees' sensitive information, Moore -- an MPD police officer -- filed a putative class action complaint against the District of Columbia, MPD, the Office of the Chief Technology Officer for the District of Columbia, and several technology contractors, alleging that the defendants had failed to safeguard her and other employees' sensitive data. After the complaint and amended complaint were filed, the list of defendants in the lawsuit dwindled. First, Moore voluntarily dismissed without prejudice her claims against two of the private contractors, leaving the government defendants and three remaining contractors. Next, the trial court granted the District's motion to dismiss, concluding that MPD and the Chief Technology Officer were unincorporated government bodies that could not be sued in their own right and that Moore's remaining claims against the District were barred by sovereign immunity. Finally, after moving for reconsideration of the court's dismissal of the claims against the District, Moore voluntarily dismissed without prejudice her claims against one of the private contractor defendants and asked the trial court to close her case. The trial court denied her motion for reconsideration but agreed to close the case, and Moore appealed the court's grant of the District's motion to dismiss and the denial of her request for reconsideration of that ruling. A motions panel of this court granted the District's motion to dismiss the appeal as taken from a non-final, non-appealable order because the order on appeal did not dismiss two of the named defendants in the action before closing the case at the Appellant's request, and the Appellant had not filed a notice dismissing the two remaining Defendants prior to requesting the case be closed. The motions panel invited Moore to file a motion to reinstate this appeal after filing the necessary notices in Superior Court. After receiving notice from Moore that she had dismissed without prejudice the two remaining private contractor defendants, the motions panel granted her motion to reinstate this appeal and ordered the District to brief its argument that, even after the dismissal of the remaining parties, this appeal still must be dismissed as taken from a non-final, non-appealable order. Moore argued that even though her claims against two private contractor defendants remained pending in Superior Court at the time she filed her appeal, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the trial court's grant of the District's motion to dismiss because, at the direction of a motions panel of this court, she has since dismissed her claims against those two remaining Defendants. The Court of Appeals opined that Moore had the opportunity to establish finality by dismissing her claims with prejudice against the remaining two private contractor Defendants. She, having never provided an explanation for her decision, has maintained her dismissal without prejudice against these Defendants, effectively keeping the door open to potentially resurrecting those claims, litigating them at the trial level, and, if she loses, bringing another appeal to this court. Moore suggested that it is unfair to hold that the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain her appeal because she met the criteria that it instructed her to meet to establish jurisdiction. Even granting that the order was susceptible to misunderstanding, the Court of Appeals said that the language Moore quoted does not identify dismissal without prejudice as one of the necessary notices she could file in the Superior Court. If she wished to immediately appeal the trial court's grant of the District's motion to dismiss, she could have dismissed with prejudice her claims against the private contractor or sought a Rule 54(b) certification from the Superior Court. Because Moore declined to do so, the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction and therefore dismissed her appeal. In sum, by declining to dismiss her claims against the private contractors with prejudice, Moore has maintained her ability to reinstate those claims, thus making her appeal interlocutory and depriving the District of Columbia Court of Appeals of jurisdiction. Hence, her appeal is dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/zih9de6. Arnold J. Abraham, with whom Eric J. Menhart was on the brief, for appellant. Stacy L. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, with whom Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Thais-Lyn Trayer, Deputy Solicitor General, Richard B. Raile, and Elizabeth A. Scully, were on the brief, for appellees. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Tax Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a Domino's customer filed a class action lawsuit against Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC, Domino's Pizza LLC, Ari Foods Inc. and Aai Foods Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Domino's charges consumers "junk fees" for their pizza orders that are not included in the advertised price. Where: The Domino's junk fees class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Domino's of charging consumers "junk fees" for their pizza orders that are not included in the advertised price. Plaintiff John Murphy's class action lawsuit claims Domino's charges the junk fees to offset its own business expenses and labels them as "Tax 2" on sales receipts. Murphy argues Domino's advertises prices in its stores that fail to include all mandatory fees that a customer will have to pay in the initial price displayed to customers. "Domino's controls the advertised prices, supposed taxes and fees charged to customers making purchases at Domino's restaurants in California, including the Domino's restaurants owned and operated by the franchisees and visited by the plaintiff," the Domino's class action lawsuit says. Class action alleges Domino's junk fees violate California law Murphy says Domino's junk fees violate California's Honest Pricing Act, which prohibits businesses from advertising a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges. He wants to represent a California class of consumers who were charged a fee when making an in-person purchase at a Domino's restaurant in the state. The plaintiff claims Domino's is guilty of unjust enrichment and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Murphy demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory, monetary and punitive damages for himself and all class members. In other recent junk fees lawsuits, a customer is suing Depop for charging unlawful hidden fees on purchases made through its website. The plaintiff is represented by Wesley M. Griffith and David A. McGee of Almeida Law Group LLC. The Domino's junk fees class action lawsuit is Murphy v. Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01712, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] DRIVEN BRANDS: Hollywood Police Balks at 30% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRIVEN BRANDS HOLDINGS INC., JONATHAN FITZPATRICK, MICHAEL F. DIAMOND, MICHAEL BELAND, GARY FERRERA, DANIEL RIVERA, and REBECCA FONDELL, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00283 (W.D.N.C., April 8, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a Class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Driven Brands common stock between May 3, 2023 and February 24, 2026, inclusive, against Driven Brands and certain of its officers and executives seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action alleges that the Company concealed material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, which led to inaccurate reporting of the Company's key financial metrics for nearly three years. As a result, Driven Brands misled investors about its operational and financial stability due to its materially misstated financial statements from fiscal year 2023 through the first three quarters of fiscal year 2025. The truth emerged before markets opened on February 25, 2026, when Driven Brands announced that its financial statements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024, as well as the first three quarters of fiscal year 2025, were riddled with "material errors." Driven Brands also informed investors that the affected financial statements "should not be relied upon" and would require restatement. Moreover, the Company further disclosed that it had "identified material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial reporting" and concluded that its "internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of December 27, 2025." On this news, the price of Driven Brands common stock fell $5.01 per share, or about 30%, to close at a price of $11.60 per share on February 25, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Based in Hollywood, Florida, Plaintiff City of Hollywood Police Officers’ Retirement System administers a retirement benefit plan of approximately $509 million on behalf of more than 700 active, retired, and deferred vested members and their beneficiaries. Driven Brands Holdings Inc. is an automotive services provider in North America. The Company has three business segments: Take 5, Franchise Brands, and Car Wash.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Terpening, Esq. TERPENING LAW PLLC 221 West Eleventh Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 265-1700 Facsimile: (980) 265-1729 E-mail: terpening@terpeninglaw.com - and - Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: mduenas@saxenawhite.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Nicholas Corso, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com ncorso@saxenawhite.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com E. MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Frater Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against E. Mortgage Capital, Inc. The case is styled as Stacey Frater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E. Mortgage Capital, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00884 (C.D. Cal., April 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. E. Mortgage Capital -- https://www.emortgagecapital.com/ -- is a national corporation with mom-and-pop core values, allowing us to give our clients dedicated resources with a white glove experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com EAST ROCKAWAY ASSESSORS: Harry D. Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of East Rockaway. The case is styled as Harry D. Koenig Company, Inc., and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of East Rockaway and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of East Rockaway, Case No. 401177/2026 (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 Incorporated Village of East Rockaway, NY -- https://villageofeastrockaway.org/ -- is responsible for determining the valuation of real property within the village for assessment purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP ESSENCIA HOME CARE: Arellano Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Elvira Arellano and Miosotis Lopez Pena, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Essencia Home Care and Medical Staffing, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04245 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiffs have consistently worked more than 40 hours a week. The Defendant violated and is violating the FLSA by employing non-exempt workers in a covered enterprise for workweeks longer than 40 hours without paying overtime wages at a rate not less than 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. The Defendant's unlawful conduct harmed the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers by depriving them of overtime wages that they are owed. Thus, the Defendant owes the Plaintiffs and the collective members the difference between the rate actually paid and the proper overtime rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as caregivers for Essencia. Essencia Home Care and Medical Staffing, Inc. is an Illinois Corporation that does business in at least nine states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Fernandez del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E. Adams Street, Suite 1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 216-0111 Email: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com FARMINGDALE ASSESSORS: Rose Lo Curto Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Farmingdale. The case is styled as Rose Lo Curto, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Farmingdale and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Farmingdale, Case No. 401180/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Board of Trustees -- https://farmingdalevillage.gov/departments/board_of_trustees/ -- is responsible for passing local laws and ordinances for the Village.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP FCA US: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Olson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-6527 (9th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of FCA US's motion to compel arbitration. FCA sought to enforce a "delegation clause" in an arbitration agreement appearing in a contract to which the manufacturer was not a signatory. Olson entered a contract with a car dealership to lease a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The lease agreement contained an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, which stated that questions about the scope of the arbitration agreement must be decided in arbitration. FCA was not a signatory to the lease agreement. Olson was the named plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against FCA, the Jeep's manufacturer, alleging defects in the headrest. In 2018, Shawn Alger filed a putative class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against FCA. On behalf of himself and other individuals who owned or leased certain vehicles that FCA had manufactured, Alger asserted warranty and consumer protection claims under California law, based on alleged defects in the headrests of those vehicles. Specifically, Alger alleged that certain FCA-manufactured vehicles with spring-loaded headrests designed to deploy during collisions have manufacturing defects that cause the headrests to deploy unexpectedly, potentially harming or distracting drivers. The district court certified the class. A few years later, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion to substitute class member Olson as named Plaintiff. Olson had signed an agreement with a car dealership, Autonation Chrysler Dodge Jeep, when he leased the allegedly defective Jeep that served as the basis for his claims. Olson's lease agreement includes an arbitration agreement. FCA does not claim to be an employee, agent, successor, or assign of the dealership within the meaning of the agreement. It moved to compel Olson to arbitration. FCA argued that the delegation clause in the lease's arbitration agreement required an arbitrator to decide whether Olson’s claims against FCA are arbitrable. In the alternative, it argued that the court should itself interpret the arbitration agreement to mean that Olson's claims against FCA must be decided in arbitration. The district court denied FCA's motion to compel arbitration, and FCA appealed. Olson argued that the contractual language in the arbitration agreement "expressly limits the power to invoke the arbitration agreement to him and the dealership and to no one else," so when he signed the arbitration agreement with the dealership, Olson did not also agree to arbitrate with FCA. For that reason, he argued, FCA cannot force him to arbitrate anything with it under the agreement, including the question of arbitrability. FCA responded that because the arbitration agreement in Olson's lease agreement with the dealership contained a delegation clause, the district court had no authority to decide whether FCA could enforce the arbitration agreement and instead had to send that question to arbitration. The Panel held that FCA cannot compel Olson to arbitrate. With limited exceptions, non-parties to an arbitration agreement cannot enforce the agreement's terms against a signatory. Olson never agreed to arbitrate with FCA, and no exceptions to the general rule that only parties to an arbitration agreement can enforce it apply in the present case. The Panel rejected FCA's argument that, even if it cannot enforce the delegation clause in Olson's arbitration agreement, the Ninth Circuit should compel Olson to arbitrate his dispute with FCA. First, the plain language of the agreement does not require Olson to arbitrate any claims with FCA. Second, under California law, FCA cannot use equitable estoppel to enforce the arbitration agreement in Olson's lease. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/gzm5w8x. Mark P. Chalos (argued) -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Kenneth S. Byrd -- kbyrd@lchb.com -- Christopher E. Coleman -- ccoleman@lchb.com -- and Amelia A. Haselkorn, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Nashville, Tennessee; Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@ktblegal.com -- and Ian J. Barlow -- ian@ktblegal.com -- Kershaw Talley Barlow PC, Sacramento, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Brandon L. Boxler (argued) -- brandon.boxler@kleinthomaslaw.com -- Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, Richmond, Virginia; Fred J. Fresard -- fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com -- Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, Troy, Michigan; for Defendant-Appellant. FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reiser Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Reiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Federal Express Corporation, FedEx Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-21328 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on April 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02410-SHL-atc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. FedEx Corporation -- https://www.fedex.com/ -- originally known as Federal Express Corporation, is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 275-5272 Fax: (813) 275-9295 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Shelby Renee Walton, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 8285 Tournament Drive Memphis, TN 38125 Phone: (412) 215-2687 Email: shelby.walton@fedex.com FITNESS CHAMPS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Reflector reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness Champs Holdings Ltd. ("FCHL" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FCHL). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding FCHL's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) FCHL was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; (2) FCHL's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the realized risk of fraudulent trading or market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (3) as a result, FCHL securities were at unique risk of a sustained suspension in trading by NASDAQ and severe volatility-induced decline; and (4) the sole underwriter on the IPO, Bancroft Capital LLC, had conducted numerous microcap IPOs that suffered volatility-induced declines resulting from market manipulation schemes. If you purchased FCHL shares between September 3, 2025 and September 23, 2025, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Marshall Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/fitness-champs-holdings/ for more information. [GN] FOR WELLNESS LABS: Sanchez Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Monica Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOR WELLNESS LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.FORWELLNESS.COM, Case No. 26CU013205C was transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 16, 2026, , and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02428-DMS-MMP. The Plaintiff claims she purchased "recovery gummies" from For Wellness' website. She further alleges her credit card was charged again for a second time by For Wellness a little over a month after her initial purchase. Relying on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts or Wellness is liable under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count I), the California False Advertising Law (Count II), and the California Unfair Competition Law (Count III).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen, Esq. KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 760-0404 Facsimile: (949) 760-9502 Email: ben.katzenellenbogen@knobbe.com - and - Adam B. Powell, Esq. KNOBBE. MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 12790 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 707-4000 Facsimile: (858) 707-4001 Email: adam.powell@knobbe.com - and - Mark M. Makhail, Esq. McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 622-4444 Facsimile: (973) 624-7070 Email: mmakhail@mccarter.com - and - Brendan E. Ashe, Esq. McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP 265 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 449-6500 Facsimile: (617) 607-9200 Email: bashe@mccarter.com FREEDMAN HEALTHCARE: Barrette Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JENNI BARRETTE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDMAN HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11687 (D. Mass., April 10, 2026) is a class action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on Freedman Healthcare's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive patient data. The complaint relates that Freedman Healthcare received PII from state governments. These states possessed and controlled Plaintiff's PII in order for Plaintiff to access health and public assistance programs, as well as government benefits. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class members, Freedman Healthcare stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class members' PII on its servers negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in a breach of its network and systems on May of 2025. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. This information included, non-exhaustively, individuals' names and Social Security numbers, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the data of over 40,000 people. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive Private Information. Plaintiff Jenni Barrette is a resident and citizen of the State of Rhode Island. She received confirmation that her information was included in the Data Breach from multiple third-party monitoring services. Defendant Freedman Healthcare, LLC is a Massachusetts based software company that offers a range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Levine, Esq. STANZLER LEVINE, LLC 37 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Wellesley, MA 02481 Telephone: 617-482-3198 E-mail: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202-470-520 Facsimile: 202-800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com FUNKO LLC: Booker Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Funko, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03938 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://mondoshop.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Booker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 24, 2026, while searching online for pop-culture collectibles as a gift, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website. While exploring the website, Booker discovered a Ninja Turtle figurine, and was intrigued by its 1/6-scale design. However, while browsing the website, he encountered many accessibility issues. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Booker seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Funko, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of figures, vinyl records, posters, puzzles, books, and other collectible items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law GAINSCO INC: Gillard Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gainsco, Inc. The case is styled as Jacklynn Gillard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gainsco, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01226-L (N.D. Tex., April 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. GAINSCO Auto Insurance -- https://www.gainsco.com/ -- is a property and casualty insurance company concentrating on the non-standard personal auto insurance market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com GENX MINING: Downing Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Chris Downing, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. GENX MINING CONTRACTORS, LLC; NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-00271 (D. Nev., April 14, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime and failure to timely pay all wages due and owing. Like all Miners, Plaintiff worked 84 hours per workweek, as defined by the Defendants. Under the FLSA and Nevada wage-hour law, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals are entitled to overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff's overtime rate was $60 per hour. For each 84-hour workweek, Plaintiff was entitled to overtime compensation for 44 hours. Despite working 84 hours per workweek, Plaintiff was not compensated for all overtime hours owed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an underground miner at the Nevada Gold Mine complex from July 22, 2025 to November 27, 2025. GENX is an underground mining contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Phone: (775) 284-1500 Fax. (775) 703-5027 Email: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com GILLIG LLC: Bales Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Roger Bales, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GILLIG, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV173149 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03153. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: minimum wage violations; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure to provide lawful rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages; wage statement violations; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William Faulkner, Esq. Michael Warren, Esq. McMANIS FAULKNER a Professional Corporation 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 Email: mwarren@mcmanislaw.com GOLDKRESS INVESTMENTS: Townsend Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldkress Investments, LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Townsend, Roderick S. Cobb, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Goldkress Investments, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00068-AWA-DEM (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Goldkress Investments LLC -- https://www.goldkressproperties.com/ -- offers a range of apartment properties under its management in Newport News, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM PC 5629 George Washington Memorial Highway, Suite D Yorktown, VA 23692 Phone: (757) 873-1010 Fax: (757) 873-8375 Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Racial Discrimination Suit for $50MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth, writing for ClaimDepot, reports that current or former Black or Black+ employees at Google LLC in job levels three, four, five or six in California between March 18, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2023, or in New York between Oct. 15, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Google LLC agreed to pay $50 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging race discrimination in hiring, job assignments, compensation, promotions, performance reviews and other employment practices, as well as retaliation and a racially hostile work environment. Who are the class members? Individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- Google's records identified them as Black or Black+ (meaning Black or African American and one or more other races or ethnicities). -- They worked in job levels three, four, five or six. -- Their position was located in California at any time from March 18, 2018, through Dec. 31, 2023, OR in New York at any time from Oct. 15, 2017, through Dec. 31, 2023. If an individual received a settlement notice addressed to them, Google's records show they are a class member. The settlement administrator and class counsel have a list of eligible individuals. Those who are not on the list are most likely ineligible. Who is excluded from the class? -- Those who exclusively held a job in a legal job family or subfamily at Google -- Anyone who executed a general release of claims with Google between Oct. 15, 2017 (for New York employees) or March 18, 2018 (for California employees) and Dec. 7, 2025 How much is the Google payout? Each eligible class member who participates in the settlement and submits a valid claim form will be eligible for an individual settlement payment. The total settlement fund is $50 million, but the exact amount each person receives will depend on several factors. The net settlement fund is the total settlement fund minus attorneys' fees and costs, service awards to class representatives, settlement administration costs and other costs. The settlement administrator will distribute the remaining amount to eligible class members based on the facts and circumstances of their claims. The trustee and neutrals will review each claim and recommend a payment amount based on factors such as length of service, job level, experiences of discrimination or retaliation, financial and emotional harm, and other relevant details How is the award calculated? There is no fixed minimum or maximum award. Instead, the trustee and neutrals will consider: -- Length of service at Google -- Job level(s) held -- Experiences with pay, leveling, performance reviews, discipline, office environment, exclusionary treatment, lack of advancement or career opportunities, and more -- Whether the claimant lodged an internal complaint or filed a charge/lawsuit -- Whether the claimant experienced retaliation -- Career or reputational harm -- Financial distress and post-Google income (if seeking recovery for periods after employment) -- Emotional distress -- Other relevant factors How to claim a class action payment Class members do not need to file a claim at this time. If the court grants final approval to the settlement, they will receive a separate notice advising them of their rights and the claims process. Payout options The settlement administrator will mail checks to the addresses it has on file. If a check is returned, the administrator will attempt to contact the claimant for an updated address. Class members must cash checks within 90 days of the date on the check. $50 million settlement fund The $50,000,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $12,500,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $50,000 each for three representatives ($150,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: The remaining balance Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: March 20, 2026 -- Deadline to rescind opt out: May 6, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: May 7, 2026 When is the Curley v. Google LLC payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to class members after the trustee and neutrals review each claim and recommend a payment amount. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Google engaged in race discrimination against Black and Black+ employees in hiring, job assignments, pay, promotions, performance reviews and other employment practices. The plaintiffs also claimed Google retaliated against employees who complained and maintained a racially hostile work environment. Google denied all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation. The settlement provides both monetary and nonmonetary relief, including changes to Google's employment practices. [GN] HARDMAN BAR & GRILL: Gluck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardman Bar & Grill, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Benjamin Gluck, all others similarly situated and the general public v. Hardman Bar & Grill, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV009495 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Hardman Bar & Grill, LLC is a small food service business where employees advise highlighting wine knowledge during interviews and dining there beforehand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex P Katofsky, Esq. ALEX P. KATOFSKY, APC 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-340-3600 HASBRO INC: Faces Class Action Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Lavin, writing for Rhode Island Current, reports that Hasbro Inc. is facing a federal class action lawsuit by employees and customers for exposing their personal information to hackers in a recent data breach. Sheila Standing, an Ashford, Connecticut, resident who worked at Hasbro for 37 years, is leading the complaint on behalf of "hundreds" of people allegedly harmed by a March 28 breach into the company's security network. Hasbro first reported "unauthorized access" to its network in an April 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The four-paragraph notice said the company had "activated its security incident protocols," and launched an investigation with the help of third-party cybersecurity experts. An April 4 company press release alluded to "interim measures" being taken in response to the breach which could create minor shipping delays while emphasizing that "Hasbro is open for business." The toymaker has not mentioned any specific steps taken to protect customer and employee data. Which is the problem, according to the 38-page complaint filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, April 16. It states Hasbro still has not formally notified employees about the breach, and done "little if anything" to protect those affected. "Defendant's failures placed the Class's [Personal Identifiable Information] (PII) in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals," the complaint states. "The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this Data Breach, its employees' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure." Andrea Snyder, a spokesperson for Hasbro, did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment. The lawsuit contends that potentially "thousands" of people across multiple states have had their personal information compromised, including current Hasbro workers. Standing, who retired in December 2023 according to her LinkedIn page, has received more scam and spam communications since the breach, the complaint states. The complaint warns that affected people's PII has already been published -- or will soon be available -- on the dark web, exposing them to "rampant" fraud and identity theft by skilled cybercriminals able to access the encrypted information. "It is within this context that Plaintiff and all other Class Members must now live with the knowledge that their PII is forever in cyberspace and was taken by people willing to use the information for any number of improper purposes and scams, including making the information available for sale on the black market," the complaint states. The lawsuit lists Standing's anxiety, stress, fear and frustration, alongside tangible financial and security risks, as harms created by Hasbro's failure to adequately protect its information from hackers. "Instead of providing a reasonable level of security, or retention policies, that would have prevented the Data Breach, Defendant instead calculated to avoid its data security obligations at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members by utilizing cheaper, ineffective security measures," the complaint states. "Plaintiff and Class Members, on the other hand, suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to provide the requisite security." It asks a federal judge to award damages and force Hasbro to adopt stricter security measures while also providing credit monitoring for people affected, simultaneously demanding a jury trial. Peter Wasylyk, the Providence attorney representing Standing, did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment Monday, April 20. Wasylyk, a former state representative, also represented Rhode Islanders in a 2025 class action lawsuit over the RIBridges data breach that exposed personal data of approximately 700,000 people who received food stamps and other public benefits the year before. Deloitte, the state contractor that managed the online benefits platform, agreed to a $6.3 million settlement to resolve the claims. The deal, which was projected to pay out $100 per person, also shielded Deloitte from future litigation unless a class member specifically opted out. Deloitte refused to admit wrongdoing. Lawsuits abound. Success does not. Across the country, lawsuits over personal privacy and data security have exploded as new technology, including artificial intelligence, become fodder for savvy actors to manipulate. There were 1,800 data breach class action filings in 2025 -- 25% higher than the prior year, and up over 200% from 2022 -- according to a January report by Duane Morris LLP. But class action lawsuits over data breaches remain mostly unsuccessful, with courts dismissing the complaints at high rates, often leading to pre-ruling settlements, according to the report. Data breach lawsuits, which primarily allege negligence and breach of contract as the legal basis for the complaints, are most often dismissed for failing to identify a specific harm that has already happened, or is highly likely to happen, under Article III of the Constitution, according to a 2024 article published in the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. "In many cases, the plaintiffs' injury -- fraudulent charges -- has not yet occurred and may never occur," article author Patrick Lorio, an attorney with New Orleans-based Pipes, Miles Bechman, writes. "Questions arise, for example, as to whether hackers understand the data they obtain. Nonetheless, plaintiffs reasonably spend time and money on credit monitoring and other fraud-prevention services. Showing imminency of injury, therefore, is the first -- and perhaps biggest -- obstacle for individuals seeking to recover the resources they expend in response to a data breach." Similar arguments were made by Deloitte in the class action suit against the RIBridges contractor. A settlement was reached via mediation rather than the jury trial that plaintiffs originally sought. State law requires any data breaches that compromise the personal information of more than 500 Rhode Islanders be reported to the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General within 45 days. As of April 20, Hasbro has not reported a breach to the AG's office, Tim Rondeau, an office spokesperson, confirmed via email. Roughly 700 people work out of the international company's Pawtucket headquarters, but not for much longer. The company is planning to relocate to Boston's Seaport District by the end of the year. It expects to list its 343,000-square foot office in Pawtucket for sale after the move is complete, according to a Feb. 25 SEC filing. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy. Hasbro has until May 7 to submit a response to the complaint. [GN] HDR ENGINEERING: Gilman Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Gilman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HDR ENGINEERING INC., a Nebraska corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-50307-11 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Franklin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-05055. The Complaint sets forth the following causes of action against Defendant: Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled in Violation of RCW 49.46.090; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; Failure to Provide Rest Break in Violation of WAC 296 126-092; Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of WAC 296 126-092; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Separation in Violation of RCW 49.48.010; and Willful Refusal to Pay Wages..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: Brian.Keeley@jacksonlewis.com HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for May 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rutherford. et al., v. Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00081 (D. Mont., Filed Nov. 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order setting hearing on motion to certify class and appointment of class counsel: -- Motion Hearing is set for May 18, 2026, at 10:00 AM at the Paul Hatfield Federal Courthouse in Helena, MT before Judge Brian Morris. The nature of suit states Contract -- Breach of Contract. Health Care, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States. HCSC was formerly known as Hospital Service Corporation and changed its name to Health Care Service Corporation in 1975.[CC] HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHARTER: Brishna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highlands Community Charter and Technical Schools, et al. The case is styled as Mohammad Rafi Brishna, all other similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Highlands Community Charter and Technical Schools, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV009285 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Highlands Community Charter and Technical Schools -- https://hccts.org/ -- offers high school diploma program, English language classes, and career technical education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM A Law Corporation 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-293-5623 Email: nidah@olfla.com HOME DEPOT: McGinity Class Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The case SEAN MCGINITY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C26-00794, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03103 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Civil Code. The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement specialty retailer headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Darren K. Cottriel, Esq. Ann T. Rossum, Esq. JoeAl Akobian, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 553-7539 Email: dcottriel@jonesday.com atrossum@jonesday.com jakobian@jonesday.com - and - Amanda Fitzsimmons, Esq. 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 Email: amandafitzsimmons@jonesday.com HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR: McMurren Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lindsey McMurren and Julie Decaris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR, INC., Case No. 26CV175795 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-03185. The Amended Complaint purports to allege causes of action for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code Section 1750; California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; and California's False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Section 17500.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. J. Mark Moore, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, PC 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Phone: (310) 807-1666 Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com pblandler@hammondlawpc.com mmoore@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Huffsmith, Esq. 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (415) 712-9705 Email: anne@honeylove.com IDAHOAN FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Potatoes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Idahoan Foods LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Richard Alonzo. Why: Alonzo claims Idahoan's instant mashed potatoes are falsely advertised as containing butter. Where: The Idahoan class action lawsuit was filed in New York state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Idahoan Foods falsely advertises its instant mashed potatoes as containing butter. Plaintiff Richard Alonzo claims Idahoan sells instant mashed potatoes in four-ounce bags described as "Butter & Herb" and "Russet Potatoes with Butter & Parsley" when, in reality, the amount of butter in the product is "de minimis." Alonzo argues Idahoan describes the instant mashed potatoes as being made "with Butter" and promotes its main, non-potato ingredients as "Butter & Herb," which he claims causes purchasers to expect butter is the exclusive and/or predominant fat and/or oil ingredient used, or at least present in a significant amount. "In fact, butter is listed after other additives, such as 'Mono- and Diglycerides, [and] Calcium Stearoyl Lactylate,' present in an amount only greater than 'Spice,'" the Idahoan class action lawsuit says. Class action: Idahoan instant mashed potatoes sold at premium price Alonzo claims Idahoan's instant mashed potatoes are sold at a premium price, approximately $1.49, due to the alleged false and misleading representations and/or omissions. "This price is higher than the Product would be sold for, if it were represented in a non-misleading way," the Idahoan class action lawsuit says. The plaintiff argues consumers favor butter for its natural, nutrient-dense profile over highly processed vegetable oils containing trans fats, and that the defendant uses "butter" labels to mislead health-conscious New Yorkers and circumvent legal disclosure requirements. Alonzo wants to represent a New York class of consumers who purchased the Idahoan mashed potatoes for personal, familial or household consumption and/or use in New York during the statute of limitations. Alonzo claims Idahoan is guilty of violating New York's General Business Law. He demands a jury trial and requests actual damages for himself and all class members. A consumer is also suing Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, claiming its Outshine frozen fruit bars are deceptively marketed as "made with real fruit" and plant-based ingredients when they actually contain high levels of added sugar, synthetic components and artificial flavors. The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates P.C. The Idahoan class action lawsuit is Alonzo v. Idahoan Foods LLC, Case No. 166090/2025, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. [GN] IKE'S LOVE & SANDWICHES: White Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ike's Love & Sandwiches LLC. The case is styled as June White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ike's Love & Sandwiches LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00886 (C.D. Cal., April 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ike's Love & Sandwiches also commonly referred to as Ike's -- https://www.ikessandwich.com/ -- is a U.S. based sandwich restaurant franchise that offers meat, vegan, vegetarian, and gluten free options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com IMPERFECT FOODS: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Phillip James Brown, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. IMPERFECT FOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; IMPERFECT FOODS, an entity of unknown form; MISFITS MARKET, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV486205 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03144-NC. The Complaint contains one cause of action to Violation of Labor Code Sections 2698 ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties for Failure to Pay All Wages; Failure To Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure To Provide All Meal Periods; Failure To Authorize And Permit All Paid Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages During Employment; Failure To Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Compliant Employment Records; and Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages Upon Separation (the "PAGA Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: sgroode@littler.com - and - Annureet K. Bezwada, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704.2225 Phone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile: 559.244.7525 Email: abezwada@littler.com INTER-CON SECURITY: Butron Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEX BUTRON and ERIC FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01191 (D.D.C., April 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and accompanying United States Dept. of Labor regulations, as well as the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law, and supporting District of Columbia Department of Employment Services regulations. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee at times during the past three years from the filing of this complaint. Allegedly, the Defendant engaged in an unlawful policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and all the proposed Collective members to perform work off the clock, every shift, and failed to pay these employees their regular hourly rate for all hours worked, and failed to pay the overtime premium for any time worked over 40 in a workweek, for all work performed. The Defendant's violations of the FLSA were knowing and willful. The Defendant could have easily accounted for and properly compensated Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Collective members for all work activities, but did not, alleges the suit. Inter-Con Security Systems Inc. is a U.S.-based multinational security services company headquartered in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gian Fanelli, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 978-3272 E-mail: gfanelli@hkm.com INTERMOUNTAIN PACKING: Grover Sues Over WARN Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Shayne Grover, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. INTERMOUNTAIN PACKING, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00226-DCN (D. Idaho, April 14, 2026), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendant, their employer, for WARN Act purposes. The Defendant abruptly terminated, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees, approximately 150 employees, including Plaintiff, which comprises at least 33% of active full-time employees who reported to the Facility. The Plaintiff was terminated on March 24, 2026, as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing without sufficient notice. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around March 24, 2026, and within 90 days of that date, and who were not provided the requisite 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at all relevant times at the Facility. The Defendant owns and operates a workplace facility located in Idaho Falls, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Amick, Esq. AMICK LAW OFFICES, PLLC 3367 Glen Falls Place Boise, ID 83706 Phone: (208) 580-4404 Email: todd@amicklawoffices.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com INTERNATIONAL GOLF: Lucas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Golf Maintenance, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Lucas, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Golf Maintenance, Inc., Case No. 26CUB01393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." International Golf Maintenance, Inc. -- https://golfmaintenance.com/ -- is the nation's leading contractual golf course maintenance company, providing comprehensive agronomic operations and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Yoon, Esq. YOON LAW, APC 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 102 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: 213-612-0988 ISLAND PARK ASSESSORS: Meltzer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the Village of Island Park. The case is styled as Steven and Jodi Meltzer, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the Village of Island Park and The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Island Park, Case No. 401178/2026 (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 Island Park, New York -- https://villageofislandpark.gov/assessment-taxes/ -- is responsible for establishing the valuation of real property and managing the assessment roll for tax purposes within the village.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP J.G. WENTWORTH: Discloses Financial Info to 3rd Party, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- R.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.G. WENTWORTH COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03082 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of 18 U.S.C. and California Penal Code, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged disclosure of its website users' sensitive financial information to third parties without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant embedded trackers on its website that transmit the contents of loan applications to third parties. The Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged as a result of the Defendant's invasion of their privacy and are entitled to seek just compensation, including monetary damages, suit says. J.G. Wentworth Company is a financial services company based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabanez, Esq. Taylor Applegate, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2305 Email: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com taylora@salahilaw.com J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY: Gonzales Suit Removed to E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda Gonzales, Maria Rodriguez Castaneda, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; an individual v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Case No. 26-2-50307-11 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Franklin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-05056. The Complaint contains causes of action for Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of RCW 49.46, et seq. (time clock rounding); Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of RCW 49.46 (donning and doffing of protective gear); Failure to Pay Wages for Missed Second Meal Period in Violation of RCW 49.46; Failure to Provide Second Meal Period in Violation of RCW 49.12; Failure to Provide Second Meal Period in Violation of RCW 49.30; and Willful Withholding of Wages in Violation of RCW 49.52.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam C. Cuff, Esq. Heather M. Fossity, Esq. Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. Kenneth M. Rock, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 552-2140 Facsimile: (503) 224-4518 Email: adam.cuff@ogletree.com heather.fossity@ogletree.com elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com kenneth.rock@ogletree.com JR SIMPLOT: Westbrook Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as PETER WESTBROOK, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff vs. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY; J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV004992, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01472-TLN-SCR to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants regularly failed to pay at least minimum wages to Plaintiff and the other Class Members for all hours they worked in violation of California Labor Code. Plaintiff claims "Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other Class Members were performing such work 'off-the-clock' because, among other things, Defendants' management witnessed, authorized, was made aware of, and/or required Plaintiff and Class Members to perform such work." On behalf of himself and the putative class, Plaintiff seeks to recover the unpaid balance of their minimum wage compensation, as well as interest, costs, and attorney's fees" and "liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest. Defendant J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY is an agribusiness company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Courtney S. Patton, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 E-mail: Michael.Nader@ogletree.com courtney.patton@ogletree.com JULIE'S CAFETERIA: Faces Cerezo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- TOMAS ESCALONA CEREZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JULIE'S CAFETERIA INC. (d/b/a JULIE'S PIZZERIA RESTAURANT), MAMA'S CORNER PIZZERIA I CORP. (D/B/A JULIE'S PIZZERIA RESTAURANT), LUIS PALAGUACHI, MANUEL IGNACIO TAMAY, and JULIO E. TAMAY, Case No. 1:26-cv-02078 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2026) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Cerezo worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Escalona the applicable minimum wage, and failed to pay his appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Escalona the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over 10 hours per day, says the suit. Plaintiff Escalona was employed by the Defendants as pizza maker from approximately January 27, 2025 until March 29, 2026 at Julie's Pizzeria Restaurant. Julie's Pizzeria Restaurant is an Italian restaurant owned by Luis Palaguachi, Manuel Ignacio Tamay and Julio E. Tamay situated in Ridgewood, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com KENNEDY RICE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Espinal Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENNEDY RICE MILL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02947 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.4sistersrice.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Kennedy Rice Mill, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KERKERING BARBERIO: McDivitt Files Suit in Fla. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kerkering, Barberio & Co. The case is styled as Mitchell McDivitt, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kerkering, Barberio & Co., Case No. 2026CA002105SC (Fla. Super. Ct., Sarasota Cty., April 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Negligency - Circuit (South County)." Kerkering, Barberio & Co. -- https://kbgrp.com/ -- provides accounting and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cortney Beth Szafran, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th St #2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 KEYSTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Keyes Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- Donna Keyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEYSTONE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC, and MERCY HEALTH PHYSICIANS KENTUCKY SPECIALTY CARE, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00550 (E.D. Mo., April 14, 2026), is brought arising out of two cybersecurity incidents (collectively, the "Data Breach") that occurred on computer systems hosted by Defendant The systems housed the protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of OIWK and Mercy Health. The Data Breach resulted from Defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate cybersecurity measures sufficient to protect the Private Information entrusted to them. Keystone, as the vendor hosting the data, failed to maintain reasonable safeguards over the systems on which it stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Mercy Health, as the healthcare provider that collected the Private Information from its patients and entrusted it to Keystone, failed to ensure that its vendor maintained reasonable safeguards. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was maintained on Keystone's systems in a manner vulnerable to unauthorized access. Upon information and belief, the unauthorized actors responsible for the Data Breach were cybercriminals who specifically targeted the Private Information held by Defendants for exfiltration, misuse, and sale on illicit markets, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendants as a necessary condition of receiving medical care. The Defendant is third-party healthcare information-technology vendor that provided managed services to the Orthopaedic Institute of Western Kentucky which is now operated by Defendant Mercy Health Physicians Kentucky Specialty Care, LLC as Mercy Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Silvey, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5003 Email: msilvey@brysonpllc.com lblacno@brysonpllc.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Phone: (919) 585-5634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com LACI TRANSPORT: Summary Judgment in Stingley and Johnson Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, RENEE STINGLEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LACI TRANSPORT INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. MARTANEZE JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOSMAN TRUCKING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 24-1612 & 24-1613 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in each of the cases. The plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated for disposition, are current and former shuttle truck drivers who drive routes entirely within Illinois, moving truckloads of automobile parts that were fabricated outside Illinois and their custom storage containers, to and from a Ford Motor Company assembly plant in Chicago. They filed class action suits against the Defendants alleging that the failure to pay them overtime wages violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et seq., and the Chicago Minimum Wage Law, Municipal Code of Chicago (formerly Section 1-24, now Section 6-105). Resolution of all of those claims turns on resolution of the FLSA claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs now appeal. Ford assembles vehicles at its Chicago Assembly Plant located at 12600 S. Torrence Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Some of the auto parts used at the Assembly Plant are manufactured out of state at Ford's own manufacturing plants outside Illinois as well as at third-party manufacturing plants outside Illinois, specifically for use at the Assembly Plant, based on Ford's projections, forecasts, and estimated need for those specific parts at the Assembly Plant. Those parts are transported by interstate trucking carriers. Ford selects, contracts with, pays, and schedules those interstate truck carriers. When those auto parts are not in immediate need at the Assembly Plant, the deliveries by those interstate trucking carriers are directed to certain semi-trailer storage lots which Ford owns, leases, or otherwise controls. Those storage lots are at separate locations that are geographically near the Assembly Plant. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime for work exceeding 40 hours per week, but the Defendants argue the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption applies, which excludes employees from FLSA overtime requirements if the Secretary of Transportation has authority to regulate their qualifications and hours; this authority exists when employees of a motor carrier transport property across state lines and perform duties that directly affect the safety of motor vehicle operations in interstate commerce. The central issue was whether the MCA exemption applied, allowing the Defendants to deny overtime pay under the FLSA to shuttle drivers transporting trailers between storage lots and the Assembly Plant; although the drivers operated on intrastate routes, they could still fall under the MCA exemption if those routes were part of a continuous interstate journey, since temporary stops like storage at lots do not break the flow of interstate commerce when they are routine, intermediate steps, meaning overtime eligibility ultimately depended on whether the drivers' trips were part of that ongoing interstate transportation process. In making that determination in Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd., the Seventh Circuit considered four criteria: (1) the shipper, although it doesn't have to have lined up its ultimate customers when the product arrives at the warehouse, bases its determination of the total volume to be shipped through the warehouse on projections of customer demand that have some factual basis; (2) no processing or substantial product modification of substance occurs at the warehouse; (3) while in the warehouse, the merchandise is subject to the shipper's control and direction as to the subsequent transportation; and (4) the shipper or consignee must bear the ultimate payment for transportation charges even if the warehouse or distribution center directly pays the transportation charges to the carrier (this goes to the shipper's responsibility for the original interstate journey). If these conditions are satisfied, the intrastate leg at the end of the shipment should be deemed part of an interstate shipment. Applying those criteria to the case at hand, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court properly held that the routes by the Plaintiffs were part of an interstate shipment. The circumstances of the Ford shipments are analogous to that of the wine shipments by Heritage in the Collins case. The storage lots are at locations geographically distinct from the final destination for the products– the Assembly Plant–and the parts can only be transported to the Assembly Plant from those storage lots by traveling over public roads, thus allowing the Department of Transportation to have authority over the transport. There is no additional distance requirement in the law that would alter the legal status, and the claim that it is all one campus is not factually supported. As was true of the deliveries of the warehoused goods in Collins, the Seventh Circuit opined that the transportation by the shuttle drivers to and from the storage lots is a part of the interstate shipment of the parts from the out-of-state manufacturing plants to the Assembly Plant. Similarly, the shipment of the empty custom containers from the Assembly Plant to the storage lots by the shuttle drivers, where an interstate carrier retrieves them and transports them back to the manufacturing plants for reuse in the next cycle, is part of an interstate shipment, because from the moment the empty containers leave the Assembly Plant, the intended destination is clearly the out-of-state manufacturing plant. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in each of the cases. The decision of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/ah8ro2r LAKESHORE LEARNING: Erwin Consumer Suit Removed W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MELISSA ERWIN, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-02405-31, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Snohomish County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01236 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff in this action alleges that on December 1, 2025, Lakeshore Learning sent an email to her promoting its Cyber Monday Sale with the subject line "One Day Only! 30% Off One Nonsale Item!" The complaint alleges that the body of the December 1 email emphasized that the sale was for a "LIMITED TIME ONLY" and the offer was accessible through code "9312" through December 1, 2025. According to the Plaintiff, Lakeshore Learning's practices constitute a deliberate "bait and-switch" email marketing strategy in violation of consumer protection laws, as each promotional message falsely suggested limited availability or imminent expiration to induce purchases. Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC is a chain of educational supply stores. The company is one of the largest retail and online suppliers of educational materials to teachers with more than 60 stores in 29 states.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lisa M. Straehle, Esq. Taylor A. Dumaine, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 401 Union Street, 5th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4510 Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 E-mail: LStraehle@fenwick.com TDumaine@fenwick.com - and - Molly R. Melcher, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP One Front Street, 33rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 E-mail: MMelcher@fenwick.com - and - Kimberly Culp, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Telephone: (650) 335-7138 Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 E-mail: KCulp@fenwick.com LANA UNLIMITED: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bowman Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lana Unlimited, Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03939 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://lanajewelry.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff Bowman was searching for a minimalistic bracelet with gemstones and discovered the Defendant's website. While navigating the available products, she became interested in the Turquoise & Diamond Bangle and attempted to purchase it. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing her purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Bowman and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Lana Unlimited, Co. operates the website that offers a variety of jewelry items, including necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, anklets, and pendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law LON SMITH: Texas Court of Appeals Affirms Arbitration Order in Keys ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LON SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND A-1 SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A LON SMITH ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION, Appellants, v. JOE AND STACCI KEY, Appellees, No. 02-25-00254-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's order denying the Appellants' First Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration. The general background of this litigation may be found in Lon Smith & Associates, Inc. v. Key, 527 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. denied) (Lon Smith 1) and Lon Smith & Associates, Inc. v. Key, No. 02-21-00227-CV, 2022 WL 1112388 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 14, 2022, no pet.) (Lon Smith 2). The Appellants are in the roofing repair business. The Appellees (Keys) were their customers. As is pertinent in the appeal, the trial court certified a class of Appellants' customers as class plaintiffs with the Keys named individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The trial court's Order Certifying Class Action with Trial Plan, states that the primary issue to be resolved is whether the contractual provision with the customers violates the Texas Insurance Code and, thereby, renders such contracts illegal, void, and unenforceable. The trial court ordered that the action will be certified as a class action as to the (a) Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim, (b) Plaintiffs' DTPA claim based on Section 17.50(a)(3) (Unconscionability), and (c) Plaintiffs' DTPA claim based on Section 17.50(a)(4) (Violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code). It ordered the certified class to consist of "all Texas residents who from June 11, 2003, through the present signed agreements with Lon Smith that included the following language, or language substantially similar to the following: "This Agreement is for FULL SCOPE OF INSURANCE ESTIMATE AND UPGRADES and is subject to insurance company approval. By signing this agreement homeowner authorizes Lon Smith Roofing and Construction ("LSRC") to pursue homeowners' best interest for all repairs at a price agreeable to the insurance company and LSRC. The final price agreed to between the insurance company and LSRC shall be the final contract price." In Lon Smith 1, the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the part of the Order Certifying Class Action with Trial Plan that "certifies for class treatment the Keys' declaratory judgment claim and the Keys' Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) claim based on section 17.50(a)(4) (Violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code). It also reversed as to "the Keys' DTPA claim based on section 17.50(a)(3) (Unconscionability). Among other issues resolved in Lon Smith 2, the Court of Appeals of Texas held that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the Keys and the Appellants and that the dispute in question fell within the scope of that arbitration agreement. However, it also held that the Appellants had waived their right to compel arbitration with the Keys individually by virtue of their litigation conduct. Finally, the Court of Appeals of Texas dealt with the trial court's denial of the Appellants' Motion to Compel Arbitration with the plaintiff class members. It held that there was no justiciable controversy between the plaintiff class members and the Appellants at the time the trial court denied the Appellants' motion to compel arbitration. After Lon Smith 2, the plaintiff class members were eventually served with notice of the class action and the opt-out period passed. The Appellants then filed their First Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration, seeking to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act as to the 22,258 plaintiff class members—out of the 36,899 in the entire plaintiff class—who allegedly have arbitration provisions in their customer agreements with Appellants. However, the motion was ambiguous regarding the nature of the arbitration relief sought by the Appellants against the class members, e.g., class or collective arbitration for all, or some, of the class members, or 22,258 bilateral arbitrations between each class member and Appellants, or some combination thereof. Nothing said on the record during the hearing on the First Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration shed any light on the question of the type of arbitration process being requested. After sustaining the Keys' objections to the Appellants' evidence tendered in support of the motion, the trial court denied the First Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration without specifying any reasons. The present appeal ensued. The Appellants raised what can be described as one general issue with subparts. The general issue is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their First Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration. Under that general issue, they contended that the trial court erred in sustaining the Keys' objections to several of their exhibits offered in support of the Motion. The Court of Appeals of Texas overruled the Appellants' issue and subparts and affirmed the trial court's Order. It opined that the Appellants failed to meet their burden of proof regarding the existence of valid arbitration agreements with the class members who allegedly had arbitration agreements in their contracts with them. Among other things, it found that there's no enforceable agreement for class or collective arbitration was established under the AAA arbitration provisions and the Appellants did not introduce their actual contracts with the class members. Additionally, it said that courts should examine and consider the entire contract to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless. The Appellants only argued from four sets of "standard" contract provisions. For the trial court to have considered each customer's contract in its entirety, it would had to have sorted through 22,528 customer files looking for the contract for each customer. Thus, regardless of the evidentiary rulings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the First Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/vhbaqi3 LONG BEACH ASSESSORS: A-Jlo Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the City of Long Beach. The case is styled as A-Jlo Products Co. LLC and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors and The Board of Assessment Review of the City of Long Beach, Case No. 401192/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Assessor -- https://www.longbeachny.gov/tax-assessor -- is responsible for the inspection, data collection and valuation of all real property within the boundaries of the City of Long Beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP LOOP LLC: Oil Spill Devastates Coastal Fishing Areas, Rodrigue Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- COASTAL CHARTER SERVICES, LLC, RODRIGUE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, LLC, and OLDEN RODRIGUE, JR., Plaintiffs v. LOOP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00757 (E.D. La., April 10, 2026) arises from a significant oil spill that has caused substantial harm to Louisiana's coastal fishing communities. The complaint relates that on February 26, 2026, a cargo hose under the custody and control of Defendant LOOP, LLC ("LOOP") failed during a crude oil transfer operation at its offshore deepwater port located approximately 18 miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of America, in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish waters. The failure released more than 31,500 gallons of Venezuelan sour crude oil, one of the densest and most environmentally persistent grades of crude oil in the world, directly into federal and Louisiana waters. Rather than responding swiftly and transparently, LOOP initially minimized and misrepresented the scope of the disaster. The heavy Venezuelan crude had migrated more than 18 miles into Louisiana's territorial waters, coating marshlands, contaminating oyster beds, fouling shrimping and fishing grounds, and covering boats, traps, nets, and live seafood with a viscous black sludge. For Mr. Rodrigue, his charter services company, and his associated marine business, the contamination of the very barrier islands and coastal marshes on which their livelihoods depend has caused, and continues to cause, devastating economic and reputational harm. LOOP has operated a "Claims Center" that Plaintiffs allege does not comply with the Oil Pollution Act ("OPA"). LOOP's representatives have pressured claimants into signing sweeping releases of all present and future claims, without counsel, under threat of losing any recovery, while withholding the disclosures OPA mandates, says the suit. The Plaintiffs now bring this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons and entities to hold LOOP accountable for the full measure of its misconduct. OPA's mandatory advertising provisions require a Responsible Party to publicly advertise, for a minimum of 30 days, that it has been designated as the Responsible Party and to describe the procedures by which claims may be presented. OPA further requires that this advertising specifically inform potential claimants of their right to seek interim, short-term partial settlements without foreclosing the right to pursue additional damages in the future. Plaintiff Coastal Charter Services, LLC ("Coastal Charter") provides year-round guided fishing trips targeting speckled trout and redfish, seasonal waterfowl hunting, and nightly bowfishing excursions. Plaintiff Rodrigue Business Associates, LLC ("Rodrigue Business") owns and operates The Redfish Camp, a commercial fishing and charter boat enterprise whose operations depend entirely on the health and accessibility of Louisiana's coastal and inshore waters. Plaintiff Olden Rodrigue, Jr. is a licensed charter boat captain and commercial fisherman with more than 18 years of professional experience operating in Louisiana's coastal waters out of Cocodrie, Louisiana. Defendant LOOP, LLC owns and operates the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, the only deepwater offshore port in the United States capable of receiving, storing, and distributing crude oil from ultra-large and very-large crude carriers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Corley, Esq. DALY & BLACK, P.C. 400 Poydras Street | Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 713-655-1405 Facsimile: 713-655-1587 E-mail: clathrop@dalyblack.com bcorley@dalyblack.com www.dalyblack.com M&T BANK: Wins Summary Judgment in Proxy Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as David Jaroslawicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M&T Bank Corporation et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00897-EJW (D. Del.), Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach sitting by designation of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that a genuine dispute of fact remains on any element of their claim. This case arises out of a merger agreement between M&T Bank Corporation and Hudson City Bancorp Inc. in which M&T was to acquire Hudson City. Hudson City, facing difficulties in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, began assessing future options for its survival. On August 27, 2012, the two banks entered into a Merger Agreement where M&T would absorb Hudson City and Hudson City shareholders would receive a mix of 40% cash and 60% M&T stock in exchange for their Hudson City stock. M&T and Hudson City filed a Joint Proxy, declared effective on February 22, 2013, to inform shareholders of the terms of the merger. Plaintiff alleged that the Joint Proxy contained material misrepresentations or omissions about the merger and the regulatory challenges it faced, causing it to close significantly later than expected. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to disclose the extent of regulatory risks posed to the merger from Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) deficiencies and consumer violations involving M&T's free checking account practices. Plaintiff sought benefit-of-the-bargain damages comprising trading damages, closing damages, and dividend damages. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant made material misrepresentations or omissions in the proxy materials. The Court held that certain disclosures in the proxy materials would have disclosed confidential supervisory information (CSI) and violated the bank examination privilege, a qualified privilege that protects agency opinions, agency recommendations, and banks' responses from disclosure. Accordingly, Defendant was barred as a matter of law from certain disclosures. Plaintiff offered no rebuttal expert testimony and did not address Defendant's expert report, which concluded that the privilege would strictly limit M&T's ability to disclose the specifics of the ongoing regulatory investigations of its BSA/AML compliance program and its remedial efforts. The Court further held that the Supplemental Disclosures, issued on April 12, 2013, before the shareholder vote on April 18, 2013, sufficiently disclosed the regulatory concerns. After those disclosures, shareholders were aware that the merger would be delayed due to M&T's BSA/AML regulatory deficiencies. Further details regarding the specifics of the BSA/AML deficiencies and the Federal Reserve's examination would not alter the total mix of information available to stockholders. Therefore, the alleged omissions or misrepresentations were immaterial as a matter of law. As to the consumer violations related to M&T's free checking practices, the Court found there was no evidentiary showing that in February 2013, prior to the issuance of the Joint Proxy, M&T knew or should have known that the free checking practice posed an independent regulatory risk to the merger. The Court held that Plaintiff's alleged trading and closing damages were wholly speculative and there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding economic loss. Plaintiff sought to prove economic loss using the DeRosa Event Study, which analyzed four dates on which M&T stock price declined following its disclosures about regulatory challenges: April 12, 2013; October 17, 2014; April 6, 2015; and September 30, 2015. The Court held that the Event Study failed to show that the alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the proxy materials were the proximate cause of any purported economic loss. The Event Study was based on only four selectively picked dates and did not consider other market changes or intervening causes. On October 17, 2014, Defendant identified that M&T's Third Quarter 2014 earnings call, which concurrently announced unexpectedly negative financial results, was a specific intervening factor that Plaintiff's expert admitted he had not considered. On April 6, 2015, the Board had twice taken discretionary action to extend the Merger Agreement, which the Court held broke the chain of causation. On September 30, 2015, the market had fully reacted to the news by the end of trading that day, and Plaintiff provided no explanation for selecting October 1 as the relevant date. The Court noted that when the merger closed on November 1, 2015, both M&T's and Hudson City's stock rose significantly. Plaintiff clearly benefited from the merger: the Belinas, who alleged trading damages, earned a 47% return on their investment, while Mr. Krublit, who alleged closing damages, earned a 61% return on his. As to dividend damages, the Court held they were not viable as a matter of law because dividends at a certain level were nowhere promised or guaranteed in the Joint Proxy. Plaintiff cannot claim that the benefit they were promised includes dividends at a certain level if they were not included as a benefit in the bargain to which they agreed. The Court held that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the merger transaction as approved by shareholders directly caused Plaintiff's injury. The Board's four discretionary extensions of the merger agreement attenuated the causal chain between the proxy solicitation and the alleged injury. The alleged trading and closing damages would have allegedly resulted from those extensions, not from the merger as originally approved by shareholders. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all remaining issues and directed the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff and to close the case. A copy of the court's decision is avaialable at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=64IoZh from PacerMonitor.com MAV KG LLC: Perez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frank Perez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MAV KG, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CV2026-0332 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on April 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00647. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts individual and class claims. violation of California Labor Codes for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and violation of California Business and Professions Code (Unfair Competition Law).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. George J. Theofanis, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com george.theofanis@ogletree.com MDL 2875: Settles Contaminated Medication Class Suit for $15.2MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Aurobindo, Hetero and Vivimed agreed to class action settlements totaling more than $15.2 million to resolve claims that their blood pressure medications were contaminated with cancer-causing substances. Aurobindo agreed to a $2 million class action settlement, Hetero a $11,365,489.80 settlement and Vivimed a $1,899,000 settlement to resolve claims that their irbesartan, valsartan and losartan blood pressure medications were contaminated with cancer-causing substances. All three class action settlements are part of the same larger federal litigation -- In re: Valsartan, Losartan and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation -- currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Aurobindo settlement benefits consumers who paid for irbesartan medications manufactured with Aurobindo irbesartan active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) since Jan. 1, 2016. The Hetero settlement benefits consumers who paid for valsartan medications manufactured using Hetero Process III API sold between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. The Vivimed settlement benefits consumers who paid for Vivimed losartan finished drug formulations sold under specific impacted National Drug Codes (NDCs). The class action lawsuit claimed that medications from pharmaceutical manufacturers Aurobindo (irbesartan), Hetero (valsartan) and Vivimed (losartan) were contaminated with nitrosamine impurities -- NDEA, NDMA and NMBA, respectively -- all alleged to be human carcinogens. The plaintiffs in the cases say that each manufacturer knew or should have known that its medication was contaminated with these impurities. However, the companies allegedly failed to warn consumers and retailers about the contamination. As a result of each defendant's alleged failure to warn, consumers were forced to overpay for the contaminated medications. Aurobindo, Hetero and Vivimed have each denied any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these allegations with their respective settlements. Under the terms of the Aurobindo class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid for irbesartan medications. Class members who paid out of pocket for irbesartan medications can receive a reimbursement of up to $100. Class members who have documentation of their purchases can receive a larger reimbursement of up to $200. Under the terms of the Hetero settlement, consumers can generally receive up to $40 for each 30-day supply purchased, with a maximum total payment of $120. However, consumers who can sufficiently document purchases in excess of $40 for a 30-day supply may receive a higher payment without regard to the standard caps. Payment amounts for individual Vivimed class members have not yet been specified, as the allocation method is to be determined by class counsel and reviewed by the court prior to the final approval hearing. For the Aurobindo and Hetero class action settlements, the deadline for exclusion, objection and claim submission is June 2, 2026, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for June 30, 2026. Deadlines for the Vivimed settlement have not yet been set by the court. Who's Eligible The Aurobindo settlement benefits consumers who paid for irbesartan medications manufactured with Aurobindo irbesartan active pharmaceutical ingredients since Jan. 1, 2016. The Hetero settlement benefits consumers who paid for valsartan medications manufactured using Hetero Process III API sold between May 1, 2018 and July 31, 2018. The Vivimed settlement benefits consumers who paid for Vivimed losartan finished drug formulations sold under specific impacted National Drug Codes. Potential Award Aurobindo class members can receive a cash payment of up to $100 based on the amount they paid for irbesartan medications. Class members who have documentation of their purchases can receive a larger reimbursement of up to $200. Hetero class members can receive up to $40 for each 30-day supply purchased, with a maximum total payment of $120. Members with proof of purchase in excess of $40 for a 30-day supply may receive a higher payment without regard to the standard caps. Vivimed class members have not yet been specified, as the allocation method is to be determined by Class Counsel and reviewed by the court prior to the final approval hearing. Proof of Purchase Documentation such as pharmacy receipts Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/02/2026 Case Name In re: Valsartan, Losartan and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:19-md-02875-RBK-SAK, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Final Hearing 06/30/2026 Settlement Website SartanMedicationSettlement.com Claims Administrator Sartan Medication Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3376 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@SartanMedicationSettlement.com (866) 875-9644 Class Counsel John R. Davis SLACK DAVIS SANGER LLP Ruben Honik HONIK LAW Conlee S. Whiteley KANNER & WHITELEY LLC Defense Counsel Aurobindo: John P. Lavelle MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Hetero: Eric Abraham HILL WALLACK LLP Terry M. Henry BLANK ROME LLP Andrew F. Albero LEWIS BRISBOIS Vivimed: Douglas Tween John Eichlin LINKLATERS LLP [GN] MEDICAL ANSWERING: Blazek FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Blazek, Absolute 1 Transport LLC, AOT Transportation Arrive On Time LLC, Robert Kendrick, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Medical Answering Services, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01671 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on April 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00717-AJB-CBF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Medical Answering Services, LLC (MAS) -- https://www.medanswering.com/ -- provides Medicaid Transportation Management and Prior Authorization Services for New York State Department of Health.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee N. Jacobs, Esq. LEE JACOBS & ASSOCIATES LLC 97 Newkirk Street-Suite 207 Jersey City, NJ 07306 Phone: (646) 212-7234 Email: lee@jacobslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Louis Orbach, Esq. BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC - SYRACUSE One Lincoln Center Syracuse, NY 13202 Phone: (315) 218-8000 Fax: (315) 218-8100 Email: lorbach@bsk.com - and - Michael S. Barnett, Esq. Natalie C. Vogel, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 22 Corporate Woods Blvd.-Suite 501 Albany, NY 12211-2503 Phone: (518) 533-3281 Fax: (518) 533-3299 Email: mbarnett@bsk.com nvogel@bsk.com MERASTAR INSURANCE: Hagan Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mabel Hagan, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERASTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; KEMPER CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV01174 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-03970. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Properly Pay Accrued Sick Days; Failure to Properly Pay Unused Vacation Pay; Failure to Pay Timely Wages During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Maintain Required Records; Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenditures; Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices; and Civil Penalties Pursuant to The Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert S. Blumberg, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: rblumberg@littler.com - and - Edgar Sargsyan, Esq. Dyanna Castaneda, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: esargsyan@littler.com dcastaneda@littler.com MERCER ADVISORS INC: Doe Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercer Advisors Inc. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercer Advisors Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02414-LL-MMP (S.D. Cal., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mercer Advisors -- https://www.merceradvisors.com/ -- is a full-service wealth management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 929-9303 Fax: (760) 929-9260 Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Ramos Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercor.io Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Elana Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercor.io Corporation doing business as: Mercor, Case No. 4:26-cv-03215-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mercor.io Corporation -- https://www.mercor.com/ -- is an American artificial intelligence hiring startup that provides experts to train AI models and chatbots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Email: rschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law MGR FREIGHT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Omar Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- ABDINASSER OMAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MGR FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.; MGR LEASE, LLC; RD EXPEDITED, INC.; and RADOMIR DOBRASINOVIC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03912 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 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 Omar was employed by the Defendants as a driver. MGR Freight System, Inc. is a transportation services company, which moves full trailer, container loads of freight from origin to final destination. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Murphy Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cabrina Murphy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC.; and MONEYLION INC., Case No. 26-2-07563-8 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01308. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and also asserts a derivative claim under Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), premised on the purported CEMA violations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-467-1816 Fax: 206-624-5128 Email: evan@northlawpllc.com - and - Evan E. North, Esq. NORTH LAW PLLC 1900 Market Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 202-921-1651 Email: evan@northlawpllc.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place, Suite 200 Pittsburg, PA 15206 Phone: 412-314-0515 Email: ek@waykayslay.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin B. Sweeney, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98101-1355 Phone: +1 206 452 8700 Fax: +1 206 452 8800 Email: bsweeney@cooley.com - and - Scott D. Dailard, Esq. Megan L. Donohue, Esq. COOLEY LLP 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, California 92121-1117 Phone: +1 858 550 6000 Fax: +1 858 550 6420 Email: sdailard@cooley.com mdonohue@cooley.com - and - Caroline A. Lebel, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: +1 415 693 2000 Fax: +1 415 693 2222 Email: clebel@cooley.com - and - Richard Koch, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 Phone: +1 202 842 7800 Fax: +1 202 842 7899 Email: rkoch@cooley.com MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over Mortgage Prepayment Penalties --------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA Mag, reports that Mr. Cooper, one of the country's biggest mortgage servicers, is facing a proposed class action over how it calculates prepayment penalties on home loans. The lawsuit, filed on April 20, 2026, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, was brought by a California borrower, Michael E Kasaba LLC, on behalf of itself and a proposed nationwide class, along with a California sub--class. The case, Michael E Kasaba LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, lands Nationstar Mortgage -- the Coppell, Texas, servicer better known to borrowers as Mr. Cooper -- in the middle of an unusually technical fight that the filing says could reach borrowers across the country. According to the filing, Nationstar services a portfolio with $1.5 trillion in unpaid principal balance and has more than six million customers nationwide. The plaintiff also alleges that Nationstar provided services through its wholly owned entities Rushmore Servicing and Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC. The dispute boils down to two words: "anniversary date." In April 2024, Michael E Kasaba LLC took out a $399,000 mortgage from Investor Mortgage Finance LLC on a home at 810 Joyce Drive in Port Hueneme, California, with monthly payments of $2,661.26 starting that June. The loan's Fixed Rate Note laid out a sliding prepayment penalty -- 5% if the loan was paid off on or before the first anniversary of the loan, 4% by the second, and so on down to zero after the fifth year. What the note did not do, according to the filing, was define what "anniversary date" actually meant. That ambiguity, the borrower says, is where the trouble started. After the loan was transferred to Mr. Cooper, the borrower paid it off in full on May 27, 2025. Mr. Cooper, then operating under the Rushmore Servicing brand, charged a prepayment penalty of $19,748.32 -- 5% of the $394,966.38 balance. The borrower argues the penalty should have been 4%, or $15,798.66, because the payoff came more than a year after the loan funded on April 4, 2024. That is a difference of $3,949.66. When the borrower called Mr. Cooper on June 5, 2025, to dispute the charge, the filing says the company refused to refund it. The borrower's position, backed by a citation to a Seventh Circuit case, is that "anniversary date" in the mortgage world commonly refers to the date the loan was issued -- not the date the first payment came due. Mr. Cooper, according to the filing, read it the other way, using the later first-payment date and applying the higher 5% penalty. The lawsuit brings four claims: breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, the filing pegs the aggregate amount in controversy at more than $5 million and says the class could include thousands of borrowers. Mr. Cooper has not yet responded, and no decision has been made on the merits or on class certification. [GN] NACOGDOCHES COUNTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Seibert Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GENE SEIBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NACOGDOCHES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a NACOGDOCHES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-00258 (E.D. Tex., April 8, 2026) is an action alleging the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information (the "Private Information"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by its negligent, if not reckless, IT practices. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of prescription drugs, proprietary drugs, and non-prescription medicines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Stewart, Esq. K STEWART LAW, P.C. 4597 Belfort Avenue Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (972) 308-6166 Email: kelly@kstewartlaw.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: 153 Main St. Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as 153 Main St. Realty LLC, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and The Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau, Case No. 401315/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Nassau County Department of Assessment, led by an appointed Assessor, is responsible for listing and appraising all real property within Nassau County, New York, for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP 300 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 516-393-8262 Fax: 516-393-8282 Email: amahony@jaspanllp.com NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: 160 Hicks Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as 160 Hicks Holding Corp., and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and The Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau, Case No. 401314/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Nassau County Department of Assessment, led by an appointed Assessor, is responsible for listing and appraising all real property within Nassau County, New York, for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP 300 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 516-393-8262 Fax: 516-393-8282 Email: amahony@jaspanllp.com NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Amre Associates Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as Amre Associates LLC, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and The Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau, Case No. 401306/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Nassau County Department of Assessment, led by an appointed Assessor, is responsible for listing and appraising all real property within Nassau County, New York, for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP 300 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 516-393-8262 Fax: 516-393-8282 Email: amahony@jaspanllp.com NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: FOE Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as Fraternal Order of Eagles, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and The Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau, Case No. 401310/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Nassau County Department of Assessment, led by an appointed Assessor, is responsible for listing and appraising all real property within Nassau County, New York, for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP 300 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 516-393-8262 Fax: 516-393-8282 Email: amahony@jaspanllp.com NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: MCL Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors of the of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as Malverne Center LLC, and all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and The Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau, Case No. 401309/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Nassau County Department of Assessment, led by an appointed Assessor, is responsible for listing and appraising all real property within Nassau County, New York, for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP 300 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 516-393-8262 Fax: 516-393-8282 Email: amahony@jaspanllp.com NATERA INC: Securities Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRITISH AIRWAYS PENSION TRUSTEES LIMITED & KEY WEST POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATERA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:22-cv-00398-DAE SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PRELIMINARILY GRANTED MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS SECTION 12(a)(2) CLAIMS FROM ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED NATERA, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 27, 2020, AND MARCH 8, 2022, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23 and by Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, that the action ("Action") filed against Natera, Inc. ("Natera"), certain of Natera's officers and directors during the relevant time period, and the underwriters that sold Natera common stock in Natera's secondary public offering conducted in July 2021 (collectively, "Defendants"), has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class. The Court has appointed British Airways Pension Trustees Limited and Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund as Class Representatives and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs have been preliminarily granted voluntary dismissal of claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 from the Action without prejudice. If this voluntary dismissal motion is finally granted, the Underwriter Defendants will be dismissed from the Action without prejudice. This notice is not an admission by Defendants or an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of the Action, or a finding by the Court that the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the Action are valid. This notice is not a settlement notice and is intended only to inform members of the Class that the Action is currently in progress. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LAWSUIT. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed, long-form Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Preliminarily Granted Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Section 12(a)(2) Claims from the Action Without Prejudice ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice from the website for the Action, www.NateraSecuritiesAction.com, or by contacting the Administrator: British Airways Pension Trustees Limited, et al. v. Natera, Inc., et al. c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170700 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-866-830-1050 info@NateraSecuritiesAction.com If you are a Class member you should receive a Postcard Notice regarding the Action by mail. If you are a Class member and you do not receive a Postcard Notice by mail, please send your name and address to the Administrator so that you will receive any future notices disseminated in connection with the Action. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Court-appointed Class Counsel: KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com www.ktmc.com BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 inquiries@blbglaw.com www.blbglaw.com If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in Natera common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable to you. If you are a Class member and do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Class. If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion by mail or email postmarked or received no later than June 9, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Your request for exclusion must be signed. If you request exclusion via email, an e-signature is acceptable. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4), the Court has discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement in the Action. Moreover, if you are a Class member and you wish to object to Plaintiffs' preliminarily granted motion to voluntarily dismiss the Section 12(a)(2) claims and Underwriter Defendants from the Action without prejudice, you must do so by no later than June 9, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Further information regarding the Action may be obtained by contacting the Administrator or by visiting the website, www.NateraSecuritiesAction.com. Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions. DATED: March 13, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO: Patch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Oilwell Varco, L.P. The case is styled as Guy Patch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Mike Pensinger, Case No. 26STCV11856 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." National Oilwell Varco LP (NOV) -- https://www.nov.com/ -- manufactures and distributes mechanical components and integrated systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. STONEBROOK LAW 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6251 Phone: 310-553-5533 Fax: 310-553-5536 Email: jft@stonebrooklaw.com NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, White Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AUSTIN WHITE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03042 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website, www.nbcnews.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. As a result, Defendant causes the interception and transmission of the contents of users' electronic communications with the Website to servers controlled by the Third Parties. Defendant's conduct is intentional and coordinated, as the Trackers operate pursuant to Defendant's deliberate configuration and are not necessary to render the Website's core content or functionality. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff AUSTIN WHITE was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred on multiple occasions during the class period including on March 17, 2026. Defendant NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC is one of the most-visited digital news platforms in the United States, publishing news, investigative reports, video content, and live event coverage across its digital properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com NORTHERN METAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Abrupt Layoffs -------------------------------------------------------------- Conor Wight, writing for CBS News, reports that dozens of former employees are now suing their former bosses after they were all abruptly laid off from a metal fabrication plant in western Wisconsin. David Olsen is one of those employees. He said that ownership at Northern Metal Fab, Inc. called a meeting early March 30, where they were told to pack their bags. "There absolutely was no warning that the company was potentially going belly up, that was a shock to everyone," Olsen said. Since 1987, Northern Metal Fab, Inc. took on large metal welding and crafting projects that Olsen said others in the area simply couldn't handle. There had been highs and lows over the years, he said, but he felt blindsided when his bosses told him and his colleagues that the plant was no longer financially viable. That was the first surprise. The second would come days later when Olsen and others said that they did not receive their final two weeks of pay; they claim that Northern Metal Fab, Inc. also failed to provide them the financial equivalent for their unused vacation days. Most alarming, Olsen said, was that they learned their insurance was canceled as of late February despite the employees still paying their premiums. "We have one employee where his family actually delivered a baby in March. Come to find out now they had no insurance to cover that," Olsen said. "Fifteen, 20, 25 years people have been here and they've got nothing to show for it here at the end. This is how they're treated." President and co-owner John Felix declined to speak to WCCO, directing us instead to attorney Joseph Skokan, who provided a statement. Co-owner Jeffrey Cabson was not immediately available. "After a thorough review of business operations and the current economic climate, the owners of Northern Metal Fab. Inc. determined the business was no longer financially viable. Despite their best efforts to find alternatives, they made the difficult decision to cease operations and seek relief through a chapter 7 bankruptcy. The case is expected to be commenced early next week, Northern Metal Fab. Inc. hopes that the liquidation of its business assets will result in a quick and meaningful distribution to its employees and other creditors," Skokan said in an email. The class action lawsuit against Northern Metal Fab, Inc. accuses ownership of violating both state and federal laws surrounding failure to pay owed wages and the lack of warning ahead of the layoffs. The state of Wisconsin confirmed that an investigator is now looking into the latter issue; typically, a company with more than 50 employees like Northern Metal Fab, Inc. is meant to provide 60 days' notice before a plant closure. There was no indication on the company's website that it had shut down. In fact, there were still multiple job openings listed with links to apply. Jody Olsen, David Olsen's wife, used to work at the facility in Human Resources. She left of her own accord in 2025 and is now working to support her husband and try to help his laid-off colleagues find work. "A failure is one thing, to then take advantage of employees is another," she said. [GN] NUTRIEN AG: Conspires to Raise Fertilizers' Prices, JS Farms Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JS FARMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00554 (D. Conn., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) fertilizers. According to the complaint, the prices of these fertilizers increased dramatically throughout 2021 and 2022 as a result of the Defendants' conspiracies. The Plaintiff and Class members paid more for NPK fertilizers than they otherwise would have and thus suffered antitrust injury and damages due to the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, suit says. JS Farms, Inc. is a farm owner and operator in Indiana. Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nutrien Ltd., with its principal place of business in Loveland, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Cherepanov, Esq. Patrick McGahan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S. Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: pcherepanov@scott-scott.com pmcgahan@scott-scott.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 Email: cburke@burke.law - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com OLLY PUBLIC: Faces Class Suit Over Gummy Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez filed a class action lawsuit against Olly Public Benefit Corporation. Why: Rodriguez claims Olly's Metabolism Gummy Rings do not provide the benefits of apple cider vinegar, as advertised. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Olly Public Benefit Corporation misrepresents the benefits of its Metabolism Gummy Rings by marketing that they contain apple cider vinegar and a component called "mother." According to the complaint, the "mother" is a living structure that contains enzymes and the "good" bacteria found in unpasteurized apple cider vinegar. However, plaintiff Miguel Rodriguez claims the Olly metabolism gummies contain an insignificant amount of acetic acid, the active ingredient in apple cider vinegar, and that the manufacturing process destroys the beneficial enzymes and bacteria that are supposed to be present in the "mother." Rodriguez further argues the gummies are primarily composed of sugar, which contradicts the advertised benefits of supporting metabolism and lean body mass. "In direct contravention of [Olly's] label representations, the products are principally comprised of sugar, which is responsible for weight gain and metabolic disease -- the exact opposite effects of the purported benefits touted on the Product labels," the Olly class action lawsuit says. Rodriguez wants to represent a California class of consumers who bought the Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings within four years prior to the filing of the complaint. Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings allegedly contain insufficient acetic acid Rodriguez argues Olly's Metabolism Gummy Rings are marketed as supporting metabolism and lean body mass, featuring prominent labels that highlight the presence of apple cider vinegar, vitamin B12 and chromium. In spite of this, independent scientific testing commissioned by his counsel found the gummies contain only 2.6% acetic acid, falling short of the 4% required for a product to be labeled as an apple cider vinegar product, the Olly class action lawsuit alleges. Rodriguez claims testing also revealed each gummy contains just 7.80 mg of acetic acid, which is approximately 1% of the amount found in a tablespoon of liquid apple cider vinegar. "Because the products do not contain the required minimum of acetic acid, [Olly's] label statements that they are an apple cider vinegar product and are 'MADE WITH ACV' are false and misleading," the Olly class action says. Rodriguez claims Olly is guilty of breach of express warranty and quasi-contract, and of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and monetary damages for himself and all class members. Last year, a consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Olly's parent company Unilever over claims it sneakily adds junk fees to consumers' shopping carts on Olly.com. The plaintiff is represented by Naomi Spector of KamberLaw, LLP. The Olly class action lawsuit is Rodriguez v. Olly Public Benefit Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-02034-RBM-SBC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] PARIS PRESENTS: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARIS PRESENTS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02864 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.realtechniques.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. Paris Presents Incorporated produces and distributes beauty tools and accessories. The Company offers cosmetic and bath accessories, puffs, brushes, sponges, and other cleaning products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PCA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Rhynes Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Rhynes, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PCA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CORRUGATED, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Corporation; SACRAMENTO CONTAINER CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV003725 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-01824. The Plaintiff pleads nine causes of action, all styled as state law claims involving violations of wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). However, the Plaintiff's claims, namely his overtime and minimum wage claims, are preempted under Section 301 because such claims are necessarily contractual claims under the CBA. The Plaintiff's derivative claims for wage statement penalties under Labor Code Section 226, waiting time penalties under Labor Code Section 203, and restitution under the UCL are preempted under Section 301 because such claims rise or fall based on the underlying substantive (and preempted) unpaid wage claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: sgroode@littler.com - and - Annureet K. Bezwada, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704.2225 Phone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile: 559.244.7525 Email: abezwada@littler.com PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS: Joseph Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pendulum Therapeutics, Inc. The case is styled as Terrel Joseph, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pendulum Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. CU26-03615 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Tort: Business." Pendulum Therapeutics -- https://pendulumlife.com/ -- is the leading innovator in microbiome science, delivering research based probiotic formulations to support metabolic health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com PENSHURST TRADING: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSHURST TRADING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03946 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.juliska.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. Penshurst Trading Inc. wholesales home furnishings. The Company offers pendants, vases, linens, cookware, glassware, dinnerware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS: Morris Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, LLC and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-00002-08635-4 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01309. The Complaint sets forth seven causes of action against Defendant, including: Failure to Compensate for Noncompliant Meal and Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave; Paid Sick and Safe Time Claim Under Seattle Municipal Code 14.16; Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance; and Noncompetition Restrictions on Low-Wage Employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: 866.276.7637 Fax: 310.510.6429 Email: ryan@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Rhim, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: drhim@littler.com PLANNED BUILDING: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Roselio Alvarez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLANNED BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-03973-WJM-MAH (D.N.J., April 15, 2026), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendant committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR") The Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work forty-two and one-half hours per week, over the course of five days, with what was supposed to be a thirty-minute meal break each day, and paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis for forty hours of work. However, in practice, Plaintiff was only permitted to take his meal break once per week, meaning that he worked two hours a week in excess of his scheduled forty hours and Defendant did not pay him at all for that time. Additionally, Defendant routinely required Plaintiff to start his shift early, thereby requiring him to work hours outside his scheduled shifts, all of which were generally over forty hours in a week, and did not pay him at all for this pre-shift work either. Thus, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at any rate, let alone at his overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, for the hours that he worked over forty in a week, in violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL, which also constituted not paying Plaintiff all of his earned wages in a timely manner and taking unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's earned wages, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a porter at two neighboring residential buildings in the Bronx, New York, from October 18, 2022, until November 21, 2025. The Defendant is a New Jersey corporation that provides building services to residential and commercial buildings throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 QBE HOLDINGS: Faces Cook Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- VELDINA COOK and TORY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QBE HOLDINGS, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF QBE HOLDINGS, INC., THE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF QBE HOLDINGS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00318 (W.D. Wis., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence, failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries, and prohibited transaction pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they owed to the QBE 401(k) Savings Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance, and failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and administrative costs. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries suffered financial losses. QBE Holdings, Inc. is an insurance company, based in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, PC 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com RED VIOLET INC: Barrow Sues Over Pervasive Compiling of Numbers --------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Barrow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED VIOLET, INC., Case No. 9:26-cv-80418-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its pervasive practice of compiling and commercially disseminating the cellular telephone numbers of Colorado citizens without their explicit, affirmative consent indirect violation of Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" ("PTFA"), a consumer privacy law designed to protect the privacy of Colorado citizens. The PTFA prohibits the commercial listing of a cell phone number in a directory without the individual's consent. The legislature found that "widespread practice of fraudulent and deceptive commercial telephone solicitation has caused substantial financial losses to thousands of consumers, and, particularly, elderly, homebound, and otherwise vulnerable consumers, and is a matter vitally affecting the public interest." Despite this clear statutory language, the Defendant operates a website, www.idicore.com ("Website"), which openly collects and lists a variety of personal information, including cell phone numbers, without any type of consent from the individuals to whom the phone numbers belong and pertain. The Defendant makes the personal data, sourced from various public records and third-party data brokers, readily available to anyone with Internet access and who pays a membership fee. Therefore, the Defendant monetizes personal data, including the cell phone numbers of Colorado citizens, through its publicly accessible directory, thereby profiting from the unauthorized disclosure of private information. As such, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of every person in the state of Colorado whose cell phone number was listed on Defendant's directory without required PTFA affirmative consent within the applicable statute of limitations period, and seeks to compel Defendant to cease its unlawful practices and to recover statutory damages provided by the PTFA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cell phone number was listed by Defendant in its directory, available at the Website, for a commercial purpose. The Defendant is a data broker operating a publicly accessible online directory at www.idcore.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com RENTGROW INC: Doe Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENTGROW, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02316-KSM (E.D. Pa., April 9, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Rentgrow, Inc. provides resident screening services for the rental housing industry. The Company delivers screening reports to property owners and managers, assists consumers in obtaining their reports, and processes disputes regarding report information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Jamie Gullen, Esq. David Huang, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 1424 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 981-3700 - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 REV GROUP: Unified Government Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, and others similarly situated v. REV GROUP, INC.; OSHKOSH CORPORATION; PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.; ROSENBAUER AMERICA, LLC; ROSENBAUER SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC; ROSENBAUER MINNESOTA, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02057 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00636-WCG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. REV Group -- https://revgroup.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of ambulances, buses, commercial vehicle, firefighting vehicles, recreational vehicles and other specialty vehicles, as well as aftermarket parts and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean M. Sturdivan, Esq. Jamie Powell, Esq. SANDERS WARREN & RUSSELL LLP 11225 College Blvd, Suite 450 Overland Park, KS 66210 Direct: (913) 234-6137 Phone: (913) 234-6100 Fax: (913) 234-6199 Email: s.sturdivan@swrllp.com j.powell@swrllp.com - and - Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq. James R. Martin, Esq. Sabrina A. Nelson, Esq. Noah Wolfenstein, Esq. Desmond Sims, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 899-4100 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 Email: jmartin@zellelaw.com jhackett@zellelaw.com snelson@zellelaw.com nwolfenstein@zellelaw.com dsims@zellelaw.com - and - Basel J. Musharbash, Esq. Anureet Sandhu, Esq. Domenic Powell, Esq. ANTIMONOPOLY COUNSEL 500 Clarksville Street P.O. Box 795 Paris, TX 75461 Phone: (903) 205-8422 Fax: (903) 347-2917 Email: basel@antimonopoly.us anu@antimonopoly.us domenic@antimonopoly.us The Defendants are represented by: Mari Grace, Esq. Sean Stefanik, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 1050 17th St NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 962-7000 Email: mari.byrne@davispolk.com sean.stefanik@davispolk.com - and - Matthew J. Salzman, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 2811 W. 66th Terrace Mission Hills, KS 64106 Phone: (913) 558-1221 - and - Ashley B Eickhof, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 815 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 923-6870 Email: ashley.eickhof@bakermckenzie.com ROANOKE, VA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sellers Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW SELLERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00301-RSB-CKM (W.D. Va., April 9, 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 Sellers was employed by the Defendant as a fire protection employee. Roanoke is a mountain city and hub for innovation offering a hundred miles of paved and natural surface trails trails, parks within walking distance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT LAW 4227 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Telephone: (540) 283-0802 Email: thomas@vaemployment.law ROKU INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Software Updates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Roku regularly rolls out defective updates for its operating system software, effectively crippling tens of thousands of smart televisions. The 43-page false advertising lawsuit claims that although Roku-powered smart TVs and licensed partner models are advertised as consumer-friendly integrated smart televisions equipped with "the #1 selling TV operating system" in the United States, the defendant's regular Roku OS updates have rendered many televisions "entirely unusable," or otherwise significantly degraded the devices' performance. The complaint alleges that the faulty Roku OS software updates at issue are the result of "a platform which cuts corners," as Roku has apparently failed to ensure that its software updates are free of defects at both the testing stage and at scale. Further, the suit says that Roku fails to take corrective action once a defective software update is released, including adequately informing consumers, offering compensation, or releasing updates to patch any problems. "Despite consumers' persistent complaints of repeated system failures, often leaving their TVs completely inoperable, Defendants offer no recourse," the case claims. Roku uniformly promotes the scale and "maturity" of the Roku OS, with reassurances that devices will be "optimized" by the ongoing software updates and well supported for routine and long-term household use, the filing states. Software updates are a necessary component of Roku's business model as the digital platform would be unable to run without addressing concerns related to security, user experience, and support for the devices' features, the case relays. However, the class action lawsuit contends that official software updates for Roku TVs -- including devices manufactured by third parties like TCL -- are defective in that they can "brick" a television or otherwise substantially degrade its functionality. Per the case, the loss of functionality can "corrupt" user experience on the Roku devices to the extent that the screen remains blacked out, video capabilities are lost, screens flash on/off repeatedly, and the devices are rendered unusable. Essentially, the software updates deprive consumers of the "fundamental purpose" of the Roku TVs, which is to reliably display audio and video content, the filing says. Per the suit, Roku has not disclosed to consumers that its TVs are susceptible to faulty software updates, despite a plethora of consumer complaints on Roku's Community Support Forum. Moreover, when consumers share complaints with Roku or TCL, the companies will merely direct them to a self-guided troubleshooting page, the case explains. Even with Roku's troubleshooting instructions, the lawsuit alleges, many consumers are unable to successfully restore their televisions to full functionality without investing additional time and money for repair or replacement. The Roku TV class action lawsuit seeks to cover all United States residents who, from December 16, 2024 to the present, purchased Roku TV products manufactured by Roku, Inc. or TCL, including but not limited to the following models: Roku Select Series; Roku Plus Series; and TCL 3/4/5/6 Series Roku TVs. [GN] RUG PAD: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Wood Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rug Pad USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03955 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.rugpadusa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Wood's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Michael Wood has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On March 25, 2026, Wood was searching online for rug pads with waterproof protection. During his search, he came across the Defendant's website, Rugpadusa.com, which offered a wide selection of custom-cut rug pads for various floor types, including non-slip, cushioned, and eco-friendly options. He proceeded to explore the Website with the intent to make a purchase. However, Wood encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from effectively navigating the Website and completing his transaction. As such, the Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Wood and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Wood seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Michael Wood is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Rug Pad USA LLC provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of floor solutions for hardwood, laminate, stone, tile, carpet, and vinyl floors, including non-slip rubbers, felt blends, memory foams, eco-friendly options, and waterproof styles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SACRAMENTO VALLEY: Bejgi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Valley Diversified Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Negin Bejgi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sacramento Valley Diversified Corporation, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV009496 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sacramento Valley Diversified Corporation, a General Corporation, is a business entity located in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com SAK CONSTRUCTION: Vaca Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as ANTONIO ARIAS VACA, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company dba SAK Pipeline Infrastructure, Solve; and DOES 1 Through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. S-CV-0057131, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Placer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01498-CSK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brought this suit against the Defendants alleging eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to pay all wages upon termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (8) unfair competition. SAK Construction, LLC provides contracting services. The Company offers designing, building, finishing, and carpentry services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie A. Marquis, Esq. Nixson A. Murgia, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 1010 B Street, Suite 400 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 394-9500 Facsimile: (833) 317-0293 E-mail: jmarquis@fmglaw.com nixson.Murgia@fmglaw.com - and - Dane M. Willis, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 130 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 472-3300 Facsimile: (833) 297-6235 E-mail: dane.willis@fmglaw.com SAN DIEGO STATE: Agrees to Settle Athletic Class Suit for $300,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ KPBS reports that San Diego State University has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a class action lawsuit brought by a group of female student-athletes who claimed the school deprived them of equal athletic financial aid in violation of Title IX. The settlement approved Monday, April 20, by a San Diego federal judge ends what the plaintiffs' attorneys said was the first case to recover class-wide damages from a school for allegedly depriving its female athletes of equal athletic financial aid. It also included what U.S. District Judge Todd Robinson wrote was an "unprecedented monetary award." In a statement, plaintiffs' lead counsel Arthur Bryant said, "These women have made history. This is the first school to pay class-wide damages to female athletes for discriminating against them in violation of Title IX. But it sure won't be the last." Among the settlement terms are an agreement from SDSU to ensure Title IX compliance by the end of the 2026-27 academic year, hire an outside expert to conduct a gender equity review, and develop a gender equity plan. SDSU maintained that the school did not violate Title IX and noted the judge did not make any determination regarding which side had prevailed in the case. "The settlement expressly states that any payments are non-precedential and are not an agreement that student-athletes are entitled to damages," the school's statement said. "SDSU does not discriminate against its female student-athletes. Its funding level for women's scholarships is a point of pride. The university supports and promotes its female student-athletes, and is proud of their accomplishments. Throughout the history of our program, our female student-athletes have represented a wide range of sports and are high achievers both on and off the field." The lawsuit filed in 2022 by more than a dozen former and then-current SDSU student-athletes alleged female athletes were illegally denied aid, as Title IX requires schools to grant athletic financial aid in amounts proportional to male and female athletic participation rates. The lawsuit claimed that 57.22% of SDSU student-athletes were female in the 2020-21 year, so they should have received 57.22% of the athletic financial aid awarded, but actually received 50.64%. The plaintiffs' attorneys said this amounted to SDSU's then-305 female varsity-student athletes getting around $570,000 less than they should have. "This lawsuit should not have been necessary, but SDSU refused to give women athletes the equal athletic aid, treatment and benefits they deserve and Title IX requires," plaintiff Carina Clark, a former track and field athlete, said in a statement released Tuesday, April 21. [GN] SIGNIA HOTEL: Valtierra Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carmen Angela Valtierra, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIGNIA HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HILTON DOMESTIC OPERATING COMPANY INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV488092 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03200-NC. On February 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action Complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following eight causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices (California Business & Professions Code).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Connie L. Chen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Connie.Chen@jacksonlewis.com - and - Samuel J. Maselli, Esq. Manson Tung, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 341-0404 Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 Email: Samuel.Maselli@jacksonlewis.com Manson.Tung@jacksonlewis.com SMURFIT KAPPA: Melendez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case MARTA MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMURFIT KAPPA NORTH AMERICA LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV27537, 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 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03878 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor Code. Smurfit Kappa North America LLC is a provider of paper-based packaging based in Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Kris Khodaverdian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com Kris.Khodaverdian@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET: Washington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brandon Washington, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., SFM LLC aka Sprouts Farmers Market, Case No. 26STCV12330 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. -- https://www.sprouts.com/ -- is a supermarket chain headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.[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 STAFFDNA LLC: Block Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against StaffDNA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jessica Block, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. StaffDNA, LLC, DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26CV009676 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." StaffDNA LLC -- https://staffdna.com/ -- provides software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ashkan Shakouri, Esq. SHAKOURI LAW FIRM 401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 261-2824 Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com STARR INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bottomley Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN BOTTOMLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARR INSURANCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00903-JPW (M.D. Pa., April 8, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information from criminal hackers, resulting in a devastating data breach. Several online sources have recently reported Defendant experienced a data breach in or around April 2026, perpetrated by Akira ransomware group. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained. The Defendant has failed to properly monitor and implement security practices regarding the computer network and systems that housed the private information. Had Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the breach sooner or possibly prevented it altogether, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now and forever will be at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct, as the private information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, the suit contends. Starr Insurance Inc. is a full-service independent insurance agency providing quality coverage to over 18,000 individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tyler Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com STATE FARM: Agrees to Settle Arkansas Class Action for $15.6MM -------------------------------------------------------------- AutoBodyNews reports that how insurers calculate actual cash value on totaled vehicles directly shapes how much work stays in collision repair bays versus moving to salvage. A new class settlement in Arkansas puts one specific mechanism, the "typical negotiation adjustment" applied inside Audatex valuation reports, on the record as legally contested. This follows a jury verdict that already went against State Farm. State Farm has agreed to pay $15.6 million to resolve a class action alleging the insurer underpaid Arkansas policyholders for totaled vehicles by using a valuation method plaintiffs argued systematically undervalued their cars. A jury ruled in favor of approximately 37,000 Arkansas class members in June 2025, finding State Farm violated its contractual obligation to pay actual cash value. U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. granted preliminary approval to the settlement on March 27, according to his order in Chadwick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The class covers Arkansas policyholders who filed a total loss claim between Nov. 29, 2016, and Oct18, 2021, and whose payout was based on an appraisal report from Audatex, Claims Journal reported April 20. Policyholders will receive an average of $489 under the agreement. State Farm denies the allegations and stopped using Audatex in October 2021. The repair-or-total-loss calculation At the center of the Arkansas case is a line item called a "typical negotiation adjustment." According to the complaint filed by lead plaintiff Rose Chadwick in November 2021 in the Eastern District of Arkansas, Audatex valuation reports pulled comparable vehicles listed online and then applied an approximately 9% downward adjustment to each one before arriving at actual cash value. Plaintiffs argued the adjustment does not reflect how used vehicles actually sell, where online list prices already account for competitive shopping pressure. Chadwick's vehicle was declared a total loss in December 2020, and State Farm valued the claim at $4,121 using an Audatex valuation report. The suit alleged the adjustment practice violated proper appraisal methodology and the terms of the policyholder's contract. In his preliminary approval order, Marshall wrote that "the use of the Audatex system was the common and predominant issue." A pattern across state courts The Arkansas settlement adds to a growing legal record on total loss valuation methodology, with similar cases targeting different insurers and different software platforms on the same underlying theory. In 2024, Progressive agreed to a $48 million settlement with a class of 93,000 New York drivers who alleged the insurer's use of WorkCenter Total Loss software applied an improper 6.5% "projected sold adjustment" that systematically underpaid claims. Plaintiffs have pursued comparable cases against insurers in Washington, Illinois, Texas, and California, though outcomes have varied. Two Progressive class actions in Pennsylvania failed in 2025 after a judge ruled underpayment claims could not be proven on a class-wide basis. How valuations shape repair volume For collision repair shops, the legal record matters because the methodology carriers use to calculate actual cash value directly affects which vehicles land on the total loss side of the line. CCC Intelligent Solutions' Crash Course 2026 report, released in March, found total loss frequency reached a record 23.1% in 2025, which is a trend that continues to narrow the band of repairable work entering shops. A final approval hearing in the Arkansas case is scheduled for July 15, 2026. [GN] STUDEBAKER HEALTH: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Santana Flipped --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, J. ASENCION SANTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STUDEBAKER HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B343640 (Cal. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Seven, reversed the order denying Studebaker's motion to compel arbitration. Santana began working at a skilled nursing facility in December 2020. Studebaker purchased the facility in January 2023 and became Santana's employer. As part of its onboarding process, Studebaker asked Santana to sign three arbitration-related agreements He did. The first document, titled "California Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement" (California ADR agreement), included a mutual agreement to resolve disputes through binding arbitration. The second document, titled "Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy" (ADR policy), also included a mutual agreement to submit all employment disputes to binding arbitration. The third document, titled "Agreement to Be Bound by Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy" (ADR agreement), also included a mutual agreement to resolve disputes solely through binding arbitration. Each of the three documents also included a waiver of the right to participate in class or collective actions (except representative actions under PAGA). Santana also signed a confidentiality agreement. This document prohibited him from disclosing confidential information or trade secrets he acquired during his employment and from soliciting Studebaker's customers and employees for three years following his employment termination. Santana worked for Studebaker for approximately one year. After leaving his employment Santana filed a wage-and-hour class action suit against Studebaker in May 2024. He alleged causes of action based on violations of the Labor Code: failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to indemnify for necessary expenditures; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages at the time of discharge from employment; and a cause of action under PAGA. Santana also alleged a cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. for unfair business practices. Studebaker filed a motion to compel arbitration of Santana's individual claims, including his individual PAGA claim, and to enforce the class action waiver. It argued that, because the agreement to arbitrate included enforceable class action waivers, the court should dismiss most of Santana's class-based wage-and-hour claims. Regarding the causes of action based on Labor Code violations Santana suffered individually, Studebaker argued those causes of action fell within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. And regarding Santana's PAGA claim, Studebaker argued that, because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed the agreement to arbitrate, the court should compel arbitration of Santana'd individual PAGA claim and stay his non-individual PAGA claim pending the arbitration. Santana opposed. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration on two grounds. First, the court ruled there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Second, it ruled that, even if there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the agreement was unconscionable. Studebaker timely appealed, arguing the trial court erred in ruling that, because of various "conflicts" among the three arbitration-relate documents, there was no valid agreement to arbitrate. It also argued that the trial court erred in ruling in the alternative the agreement to arbitrate was unconscionable and unenforceable. This appeal involves two such grounds: lack of mutual assent and unconscionability. The Second District agreed with Studebaker on both counts. It opined that though the agreement to arbitrate contains a few ambiguities, those ambiguities do not undermine the parties' clear agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes. And though the agreement to arbitrate reflects some procedural unconscionability—as contracts of adhesion generally do—the agreement does not contain any substantively unconscionable terms and is not unenforceable. Therefore, it reversed. The order denying Studebaker's motion to compel arbitration is reversed. The trial court is directed to enter a new order granting the motion to compel arbitration. Studebaker is to recover its costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/o1nybb6 Eisenberg & Associates, Michael B. Eisenberg -- mbe@laborlitigators.com -- Bryan W. Edgar -- bedgar@edgarlegal.com; Joseph S. Socher -- jss@socherlaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. The Sentinel Firm, Seung Yang -- seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com -- Tiffany Hyun -- tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com -- Jeffrey Jackson -- jeffrey.jackson@thesentinelfirm.com -- Christine Noh; Work Lawyers, Justin Lo and Jarrod Nakano -- jarrod@nakanolawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. SUPER MICRO: Hialeah Employees' Balks at Misleading Business Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., CHARLES LIANG, DAVID WEIGAND, and YIH-SHYAN "WALLY" LIAW, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03018 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro common stock between February 2, 2024, and March 19, 2026, inclusive, against Super Micro and certain of the Company's senior officers brought pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants expressly stated that Super Micro "follows all U.S. export control requirements on the sale and export" of Nvidia chips. Further, the Defendants represented that sales to China accounted for around 1% of its revenues and that its revenue growth was being driven by its "technology and product leadership in the AI infrastructure market." The Defendants also purported to warn that "if we fail to comply with laws and regulations restricting dealings with sanctioned countries or companies and/or persons on restricted lists, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties." As a result of these representations, the price of Super Micro common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Allegedly, the Defendants' Class Period representations were false. In truth, Super Micro and one of its former board members intentionally flouted export control rules and rerouted billions of dollars' worth of servers incorporating advanced Nvidia chips into China in violation of U.S. law. Moreover, Super Micro's sales growth was driven, in part, by the fact that it was illegally selling products into the Chinese market, says the suit. Super Micro is a technology company that designs, builds, and sells high performance servers, data storage systems, and related hardware used by businesses for applications such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and managing large-scale data centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A. 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33315 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com SYNOPSYS INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Waring Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA WARING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SYNOPSYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03068 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of its business practices and to provide services and employment, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains employees' confidential PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Defendant Synopsys discovered on December 3, 2025, that it suffered a Data Breach between June 17, 2025 and December 4, 2025. The type of information accessed and exfiltrated in the Breach includes files that contained at least first and last names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and/or other government identification numbers, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses, bank account numbers and/or other financial information, and/or medical or health insurance information ("Private Information"). The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, diminution of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and other additional damages, says the suit. 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. Plaintiff Diana Waring is a former employee of Defendant and provided her Private Information to Synopsys in exchange for employment. Defendant Synopsis, Inc. is an American software company that provides electronic design automation software, semiconductor intellectual property, and software security solutions used to design, verify, and test advanced computer chips and electronic systems across a variety of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. Kevin S. Dicker, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 600-8504 E-mail: chris@frostllp.com SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sysco San Francisco, Inc. The case is styled as Eduardo Huerta, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc., Case No. 26CV182196 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sysco SF -- https://sysco.com/en-us -- is the largest food distributor in the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristy R. Connolly, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 424-290-3095 Email: kristy@protectionlawgroup.com T & C OF WELLFORD: Meyer Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------------- HANNAH MEYER, JORDAN CANNON, and JESSICA ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T & C OF WELLFORD, LLC, D/B/A NIKITA'S PLAYROOM; TIMOTHY TREADWELL; and LANIE TREADWELL, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-01509-BHH (D.S.C., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and unlawful kick-backs. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as dancers at T & C of Wellford's adult entertainment club in Spartanburg County, South Carolina at any time between 2021 and 2026. T & C of Wellford, LLC, doing business as Nikita's Playroom, is an adult entertainment club owner and operator in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Johanna Valenzuela, Esq. Grant Burnette LeFever, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA 912 Lady Street, Second Floor P.O. Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7920 Email: JValenzuela@burnetteshutt.law GLeFever@burnetteshutt.law - and - Chad H. Gunnells, Esq. GUNNELLS LAW FIRM 340 A. Main Street Greenwood, SC 29646 Telephone: (864) 822-7000 Email: Chad@gunnells.law TOTAL RENAL: Del Rosario Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANGELO Q. DEL ROSARIO, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., a California corporation; DAVITA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C26-00528, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-03099 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants under the California Labor Code for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, underpaid sick pay, underpaid meal period premiums, underpaid rest period premiums, and failure to provide proper wage statements, failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses, and failure to pay all wages due upon separation. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of individuals who worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees in California since June 18, 2024. Total Renal Care, Inc. offers health care services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Jennifer J. McDermott, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com jslowik@proskauer.com jmcdermott@proskauer.com UNITED HEALTH: Moe Karami Class Suit Removed to W.D. Okla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case MOE KARAMI, D.D.S., INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. CJ-2026-237, was removed from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on April 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Oklahoma assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00772-SLP to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to prevent a network outage that affects medical care payments and reimbursements. UnitedHealth Group Inc. is a health insurance company, with its principal place of business in Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Courtney D. Powell, Esq. Anthony J. Ferate, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 9400 N. Broadway Ext., Suite 600 Oklahoma City, OK Telephone: (405) 844-9900 Facsimile: (405) 844-9958 Email: cpowell@spencerfane.com aferate@spencerfane.com UNITED HEALTH: Odom Class Suit Removed to D. Minn. -------------------------------------------------- The case ODOM HEALTH and WELLNESS, LAKE ACUPUNCTURE LLC, KAI SHIN CLINIC, TWIN CITIES COUNSELING and DULUTH CHIROPRATIC CLINIC, PA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 27-CV-26-4480, was removed from the Fourth Judicial District Court of Hennepin County, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02213 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to prevent a network outage that affects medical care payments and reimbursements. UnitedHealth Group Inc. is a health insurance company, with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Change Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare technology company, with its principal place of business is in Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter H. Walsh, Esq. Alicia J. Paller, Esq. Anthony Ufkin, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 12255 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 402-3000 Facsimile: (612) 339-5167 Email: peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com tony.ufkin@hoganlovells.com UNITED STATES: Benitez Balks at Illegal Seizures, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- RENE ANTONIO BENITEZ, J.R.H.L., DARWIN GARCIA MEDRANO, H.L.A.O., A.M.C., HESLER ASAF GARCIA LANZA, R.C.R., and F.R.P., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and WORKERS’ CENTER OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Senior Official Performing the Duties of Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KENNETH GENALO, in his official capacity as Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, New York City Field Office; TAMMY MARICH, in her official capacity as Acting Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Buffalo Field Office; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. BORDER PATROL; MICHAEL W. BANKS, in his official capacity as Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as the Acting Attorney General of the United States; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; KASH PATEL, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE; and GADYACES S. SERRALTA, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Marshals Service, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02082 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2026) is brought against the Defendants under the under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act arising from their systematic policies and practices of racial profiling, suspicionless stops, and warrantless arrests without probable cause. According to the complaint, throughout New York State, from Buffalo to New York City and Long Island, federal agents are seizing people outside their homes, on their way to work, while driving their children to school, and in the parking lots of stores. The widespread targeting of people going about their daily lives has led many to limit their activities out of fear that they will be next. Even citizens and those with lawful immigration status fear that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will detain and arrest them based on their apparent race or ethnicity. Recently released data shows that between August 2025 and March 2026, ICE arrested, in New York City alone, over 800 people who were not the intended target of any enforcement operation. This campaign violates basic constitutional and statutory protections. Instead of targeting only those people they have reasonable suspicion to believe are present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws, the Defendants have broadly sanctioned a policy and practice of stopping people, like Plaintiffs, based solely on their perceived Latino ethnicity, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, Defendants' warrantless arrest policy and practice ignores statutory and regulatory limits on their arrest authority, which require agents to have probable cause that a person is both in the United States unlawfully and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, before making a warrantless arrest, says the suit. Due to his Latino ethnicity, Plaintiff Benitez asserts that he is at significant risk of being stopped, arrested, and detained while going about his daily life. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a department of the executive branch of the United States government charged with the administration and enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Gimbel, Esq. Giovanni Scarcella, Esq. Cecile Duncan, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 E-mail: mgimbel@cov.com gscarcella@cov.com cduncan@cov.com - and - Jeffrey Cao, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: jcao@cov.com - and - Meghna Philip, Esq. Hasan Shafiqullah, Esq. Brian Perbix, Esq. Evan Henley, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas St., 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 E-mail: mphilip@legal-aid.org hhshafiqullah@legal-aid.org ewhenley@legal-aid.org bperbix@legal-aid.org - and - Amy Belsher, Esq. Ifeyinwa Chikezie, Esq. Wafa Junaid, Esq. Molly Biklen, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org ichikezie@nyclu.org wjunaid@nyclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.org - and - Paige Austin, Esq. Harold Solis, Esq. MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK 301 Grove Street Brooklyn, NY 11237 Telephone: (718) 418-7690 E-mail: paige.austin@maketheroadny.org harold.solis@maketheroadny.org VANILLA CHIP: TruHeight Does Not Promote Growth, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of TruHeight children's nutritional supplements faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the products do not promote or accelerate growth as advertised. The 24-page false advertising lawsuit contends that TruHeight children's dietary supplements, marketed for kids between five and 10 years old, purport to "Help Kids Grow," with claims that the products' formula "Supports Growth" and "Supports Bone Growth and Development." However, the case says that the primary clinical study to support claims for its powders, capsules and gummies showed that children in the target age range who took the supplements had "worse growth outcomes" than those who did not. "In that study, children under the age of 10 who consumed no Product at all experienced growth equal to or greater than children who consumed Defendant's supplement," the complaint summarizes, noting that TruHeight "omits these material facts from its advertising." Per the filing, defendant Vanilla Chip LLC's allegedly false claims about the effectiveness of its TruHeight supplements are based on a six-month clinical study that evaluated the height differences in children between the ages of four and 17. The case explains that the study used a height standard deviation score (SDS) that compared a child's height to the average for other children of the same age and sex, which would reveal any "meaningful increase" in a child's growth from the supplements. The lawsuit alleges that the clinical study, which is referenced repeatedly on the TruHeight website and product pages, was riddled with issues, namely that it covered an "unusually broad" range of ages spanning "multiple developmental stages," which is critical given that the product is supposedly geared toward kids five to 10. Furthermore, the study had no proper control group, as children who were not given the supplement continued with their non-standardized "usual diet," which the case insists introduced "significant expectation and reporting bias." Notably, results from the clinical study showed that children taking TruHeight supplements demonstrated "no statistically significant increase" in growth compared to children who did not. In fact, children who did not take TruHeight supplements had a height SDS of +0.10, while those who did had a height SDS of +0.09, the lawsuit says. "Incredibly," the case continues, control group children under the age of 10 grew more in "raw centimeters," adding a combined total of 3.33 centimeters to their height compared to 3.14 centimeters from the test group who consumed the TruHeight supplements. "The study therefore does not merely fail to substantiate [Vanilla Chip's] growth claims for younger children; it associated the product with inferior growth outcomes relative to ordinary diet alone in that age group," the lawsuit reads. Furthermore, the TruHeight website includes a section titled "Other Relevant Studies," which features ostensible scientific evidence to support claims that the growth enhancement supplements perform as advertised, the lawsuit says. However, the suit drills down into the studies, saying that none of them were conducted with or on TruHeight products. The class action lawsuit accuses Vanilla Chip of selectively using the studies to create an "inferential chain" supporting the purported efficacy of its products. "[E]ach source establishes a genuine but general scientific proposition, and [Vanilla Chip] asks consumers to chain those propositions together to reach a conclusion that no cited study ever reaches," the lawsuit contends. According to the case, Vanilla Chip "sponsored, funded, and controlled" the clinical study on TruHeight supplements' effectiveness and had "direct access" to information that demonstrated the products were not associated with any meaningful growth increase for children ages five to 10. Per the complaint, TruHeight's website and marketing materials "prominently displayed" a claim that "[i]n a clinical study kids who took TruHeight grew 32.63% more than those who didn't" until public scrutiny led to the company removing the representation. TruHeight then substituted a claim that said that children taking the supplements experienced 43.91 percent higher levels of Collagen X, a "surrogate biomarker" that is "not a direct measure of height or growth," the lawsuit says. "Defendant's removal of the '32.63% more growth' claim following public scrutiny of its marketing practices, and its replacement with a different but equally misleading metric, demonstrates Defendant's awareness that its growth claims are false and unsupportable, and evidences consciousness of the wrongful nature of its conduct," the lawsuit charges. The case says there is no legitimate evidence to suggest the advertising claims that TruHeight supplements have any impact on a child's growth. The TruHeight class action lawsuit seeks to cover all consumers who purchased TruHeight products in the United States during the class period. [GN] VEGAMOUR LLC: Ford Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Vegamour, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3952 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://vegamour.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Ford’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Ford has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On March 25, 2026, Ford was searching online for hair health products. During her search, she found the Defendant’s Website, Vegamour.com, which ranked among the top search results. To learn more about the company, Ford reviewed customer feedback praising the company's plant-based hair care offerings and the effectiveness of its clean ingredients. Thus, she decided to explore the products presented by the company. While navigating the available products, she became interested in the GRO+ Advanced Balancing Conditioner and attempted to purchase it. However, Ford encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Ford, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Ford and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Sandra Ford is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Vegamour, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase various hair care and wellness products, such as serums, shampoos, conditioners, supplements, dermarollers, and scalp massagers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law WEST VIRGINIA: Denial of Class Certification Bid in Bryant Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHEREE N. BRYANT, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION, Defendant Below, Respondent, Case No. 25-ICA-239 (W. Va. App.), the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's August 17, 2023, order dismissing Counts I, II, and IV of Bryant's complaint against Respondent West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission and denying the request for class certification made in the complaint, and its May 12, 2025, final order. Bryant was employed with the Commission and initiated a hostile work environment grievance in 2022. During discovery in that proceeding, she was provided with several surveillance camera videos taken in the hallway of the office where she worked that depicted her interacting with her supervisor. Each of the videos included audio recordings. Before she received the videos, Bryant was allegedly unaware that the Commission's video surveillance was also recording audio and was allegedly upset that her conversations were being recorded. In October 2022, Bryant filed this action against the Commission related to recording audio of its employees and other people in the Commission's building. In the complaint, she alleged claims for violations of West Virginia Code Section 62-1D-12 (1987) of West Virginia's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, invasion of privacy, hostile work environment and sexual harassment, negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"), and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("Outrage"). Under Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, Bryant sought to certify the following proposed class as it relates to the Wiretap Act, invasion of privacy, NIED, and Outrage claims: "All current and former employees of West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission on and after April 1, 2019, who worked in the building located 1018 Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, West Virginia 25703 where video surveillance cameras recorded activity." The complaint did not specify the number of employees affected by the Commission's surveillance recordings but alleges that the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. It complaint further alleged that she will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; that there are no known conflicts of interest between her and members of the class; that her claims under Counts I, II, and IV, are typical of the putative class and based on the same legal and factual theories; and that a class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of these claims. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure requesting denial of the class certification and dismissal of the Wiretap Act claim, the invasion of privacy claim, and the NIED claim. The parties briefed the motion to dismiss and submitted proposed orders to the circuit court. In its August 17, 2023, order, the circuit court denied the request for class certification. Further, the circuit court dismissed the Wiretap Act claim, the invasion of privacy claim, and the NIED claim for failing to state claims against the Commission. The parties litigated the remaining hostile work environment and sexual harassment and Outrage claims set forth in Counts III and V of the complaint until Bryant voluntarily dismissed these claims, which the circuit court confirmed in its final order entered May 12, 2025. Bryant's appeal of the circuit court's final order and the August 17, 2023, order followed. In her first assignment of error, Bryant asserted that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her request for class certification. She argued that under West Virginia's notice pleading standards, she alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the prerequisites to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(a). The Court of Appeals disagreed. It concluded that Bryant did not make sufficient factual allegations in the complaint to satisfy the four prerequisites provided in Rule 23(a). Bryant next contended that the circuit court erred in dismissing the Wiretap Act claim, arguing that the Commission is a "person" under the Wiretap Act and that she sufficiently alleged that she reasonably expected her oral communications to be private. The Court of Appeals found no error in the circuit court's conclusion that the Commission is not subject to the terms of the Wiretap Act because the state, nor its agencies, including the Commission, are included in the statutory definition of "person." In her third assignment of error, Bryant asserted that the circuit court erred in concluding that she did not adequately plead an invasion of privacy claim. Again, the Court of Appeals found no error in the circuit court's conclusion that Bryant failed to adequately plead a claim for invasion of privacy. While she claimed that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the facts alleged in her complaint did not reasonably justify that expectation. Lastly, Bryant asserted that the circuit court erred in concluding that she did not adequately plead a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It found no error in the circuit court concluding that she did not sufficiently plead a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals found no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. Hence, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's August 17, 2023, order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at https://l1nq.com/wjq02bs YELLOW DOG: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Yellow Dog Flyfishing L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03961 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.yellowdogflyfishing.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bennett's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Bennett has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On December 15, 2025, while searching online for fishing gear, he discovered the Defendant's Website, Yellowdogflyfishing.com which features high-quality fly-fishing equipment, apparel, and travel equipment. While exploring the website, Bennett wanted to purchase a fishing net for a more convenient and more comfortable fishing process. However, while browsing the website, he encountered many accessibility issues. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Bennett, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Bennett and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Livingston Bennett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Yellow Dog Flyfishing L.L.C. is a leading fly-fishing travel and outfitting company that helps anglers book guided freshwater and saltwater fly-fishing trips around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ZUFFA LLC: Johnson Files Bid to Transfer Suit, Compel Subpoena -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the class action styled as KAJAN JOHNSON, CLARENCE DOLLAWAY, and TRISTAN CONNELLY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST ROUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-mc-22389 (S.D. Fla.), filed a motion for an order in the underlying class action captioned Johnson et al. v. Zuffa LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), granting transfer of Plaintiffs' motion to compel First Round Management's subpoena compliance to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), or in the alternative to compel FRM to comply with the subpoena issued in the Nevada Court on January 16, 2025. The underlying action is a class action alleging that Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC, has unlawfully obtained market power in the mixed martial arts industry, which it exploits to suppress compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated MMA fighters, in violation of Section 2 the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs moved the Court for: (1) an Order transferring this motion to the District of Nevada, Judge Richard F. Boulware presiding, ("Underlying Court"), to manage this dispute in the context of multiple related and ongoing discovery proceedings, including a finding of spoliation by the defendants related to documents and communications sought by Plaintiffs' subpoena and a court order granting a motion to compel relating to an identical subpoena, as well as additional circumstances warranting transfer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f); or, in the alternative, (2) an Order compelling FRM to produce documents responsive to Requests 5 through 11 of a subpoena issued by the Underlying Court and served on FRM on January 16, 2025, under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) & 45(d)(2)(B)(i). First Round Management, LLC is a sports management agency that represents professional MMA fighters, many of whom fight for the UFC or other MMA promoters.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. Itak Moradi, Esq. T. Brent Jordan, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com imoradi@saverilawfirm.com tbjordan@saverilawfirm.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 ***