260430.mbx

260430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 30, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 86 Headlines 15 WEST REALTY: Sagar Sues Over Failure to Maintain a Building 326 HARLEYS LLC: DeMonte Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3M COMPANY: Varline Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order 4545 SHELLEY COURT OPCO: Grant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AAA LIFE: Amador Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification AAA NORTHEAST: Watkins Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Final OK Hearing of $3.3MM Settlement Set July 30 ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Class Cert Bids in TSFLP Suit Due June 18, 2027 ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Class Cert. Bids in Brown Suit Due June 18, 2027 ACTIVEHOURS INC: Class Cert. Bid in Orubo Suit Due August 24 ADOBE INC: Hodges Sues for Intercepting Patients' Communications ADVANTAGE FIRST: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California AL JAZEERA: Ciric Files Suit Over Video Privacy Act Breach ALCHEMEE LLC: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ALERTZPRO LLC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Hightower" ALLAGASH BREWING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Anglin Says AMERICAN AIRLINES: Seeks to Stay White and Paris Claims ANNE ARUNDEL: Final OK Hearing for $2.4MM Settlement Set July 16 AVIS BUDGET: Underpays Company Employees, Alzeera Says AYA HEALTHCARE: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling on Arbitration Agreements BANK OF AMERICA: Court Extends Certain Pretrial Deadlines BERKADIA COMMERCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Todd Says BIOAGE LABS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit BLOOMBERG LP: Loses Bid to Bar Expert Witness in "Ndugga" BRITA PRODUCTS: 9th Circuit Dismisses Suit Over Mislabeled Products BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Torres Due Nov. 25 CALIFORNIA AMFORGE: Gerlach Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CAMPING WORLD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 CANON USA: Ponton Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CARECLOUD INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Salyer Says CIGNA CORPORATE: Class Certification Filing in Adair Due Nov. 30 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Halcarz Sues Over Stolen Personal Info COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gershzon Wins Class Certification Bid COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Chomicz Suit to 2nd Cir. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Colino Suit to 2nd Cir. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Dallape Suit to 2nd Cir. CREDIT CONTROL: Sends Illegal Debt Collection Texts, Pettway Says CROCS INC: Osburn Sues Over Invasion of Privacy CW STRONG CJR: Quiroga Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations DEERE & COMPANY: Farrow Balks at Defective Mower Gauge Assemblies DISC MEDICINE: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Suit Over Junk Fees for Pizza Orders EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH: Appeals Court Order in Stein Contract Suit ELAUWIT CONNECTION: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ELITE TRANSPORTATION: Etheridge Sues Over Unpaid Wages ELSEVIER INC: Class Cert. Filing in Nguyen Extended to Sept. 7 EQUIFAX INFO: Parties Seek More Time to Respond to Certain Bids EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ramirez Files Suit Over FCRA Violation FARMERS INSURANCE: Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification FLOW FOUNDATION: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barnes Due July 9 FOXBLOOD INC: McAfee Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages GERBER LIFE: Higdon Telemarketing Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ahumada Suit Due June 8 GLOBANT SA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 23 GREIF INC: Scheduling Conference Continued in Lujano Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Paley Balks at Mislabeled Garden Veggie Puffs HIMS & HERS: Dolphin Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info IHM LIVING: Paladins Civil Suit Removed to W.D. Wis. INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach INSURIFY INC: Koontz Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Messages IPPC INC: Earl Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info IPPC INC: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Hall Says JETBLUE INC: Hit With Claims Over Personal Data-Based Ticket Costs JOEST LLC: Mezoff Bid to Certify Class Tossed KALSHI INC: Kaiserman Sues Over Illegally Listed Event Contracts KRISTI NOEM: Court Holds Class Cert Bid in Abeyance LACOSTE USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hashimi Extended to August 21 LAST BRAND INC: Hawes Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks to Maintain Certain Materials Under Seal LEGATO MEGER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with Einride AB LEUCADIA BEACH: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations LGCY POWER: Class Cert. Bid Opposition Due Feb. 9, 2027 LIGHT & WONDER: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Poker Gaming Machines LIVEPERSON INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to SoundHound AI LIVINGSTON FOOD: Faces Cuenca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LKQ CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in M.D. Tenn. M&T BANK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MANAGEMENT ASSOC INC: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to July 28 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Merrell Appeals Summary Judgment Order MATCHABAR INC: Faces Suit Over Falsely Advertised Matcha Powder META PLATFORMS: Consolidated Bid to Seal Class Cert Materials OK'd META PLATFORMS: Sealing of Class Certification Docs Sought METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Aunan Says MICROSOFT CORP: CAT Certifies GBP2-Bil. Suit Over Cloud Services MICROSOFT CORP: UK Tribunal Sends Cloud Licenses Suit to Trial MIDLAND NATIONAL: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought MILLIMAN INC: Thao Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MONSANTO COMPANY: Bryan Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Chesney Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarkson Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Selhaver Suit Transferred to N.D. California MORTGAGEPROS LLC: McGee Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska MUBI INC: Final Hearing in $1.6M Deal Subscription Suit Set July 16 MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Robinson Sues Over Data Breach NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Grand Ave Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Rita Eredics Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Thermo King Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Vlahakis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Bryant Suit Removed to C.D. California NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: O'Day Files Suit in W.D. Washington NEOGEN CORP: Hycoat Equine Solution Contain Microbes, Martin Says NEW YORK HEALTH: Vaca Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd NEW YORK, NY: Expert Discovery in Z.Q. Suit Due May 15 NINTENDO CO: Gamers File Class Action Over U.S. Tariff Refunds NISSAN NORTH: Parties Seek to Set Class Certification Deadlines NORDVPN S.A.: Class Cert. Filing Extended to April 9, 2027 NORDVPN SA: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal of Subscriptions NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks Stay in Suit Over Jail Mental Health Services NORTH POLE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Clark Suit Due August 7 NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Continues to Defend Bethpage Class Suit NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: P.M. Sues Over Unguarded Information NUTRIEN LTD: Conspires to Fix Fertilizers' Prices, RH Grain Says O'REILLY AUTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 22 OCMBC INC: Bryant Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class OCMBC INC: Hudson-Bryant Seeks to File Documents Under Seal ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Arteaga Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages OSCAR HEALTH: Jones Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access OSHKOSH CORP: Fullerton Sues Over Antitrust Conspiracy PACIFICORP: Limited Judgment in James Wildfire Class Action Flipped PEACHTREE HOTEL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data Pierre, Says PEADEN AIR: Smelkinson Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices PEGASYSTEMS INC: Settlement Reached in Derivative Suit PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit PRADA USA: Denies Refunds on Non‑Conforming Goods, Lander Says RANLIFE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 31 RAPID INVESTMENTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hall Modified to May 22 REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements RELLEVATE CT: Faces O'Hora Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages RENEWABLE ENERGY: Borges Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. RESIDENT HOME: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mattresses' False Ads REYES FLEET: Gamez Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. RIGHTMOVE PLC: GBP1.6BB Suit Highlights Pricing Strategies' Risks RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Class Cert. Bid in Wolfe Due Jan. 21, 2027 RTX CORP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suits in Del. RTX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal RUSSELL ROAD: Discovery and All Discovery-Related Deadlines Stayed SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Garcia Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info SLED DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert. Bid in Cerkezoglu Due Oct. 13 SOLENIS LLC: Rojas Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty STATE FARM: Safont Seeks to File Unreadacted Reply Under Seal SUPER MICRO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 26 SYNGENTA CROP: Dionne Balks at Defective Paraquat Products TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Arbuckle Due Nov. 24 TOYOTA MOTOR: Pszwaro Suit Transferred from D.N.J. to E.D.N.Y. TRADER JOE'S: Final OK Hearing of $7.4-Mil. Settlement Set Aug. 10 UNITED HOMES: Kadiyam Files Suit Over Share Price Drop UNITED STATES: Appeals OK'd Motion to Postpone in African TPS Suit UNITED STATES: Hedling Appeals Denied Intervention Bid to D.C. Cir. VALE SA: Bid to Exclude Dr. Feinstein's Testimony OK'd in Part VNGR BEVERAGE: Class Settlement in Cobbs Suit Gets Final Nod VOZZCOM INC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid WAYFAIR LLC: Jaracuaro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. WEST MONROE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Daly Suit to 7th Circuit WEST MONROE: Daly Appeals Class Certification Order to 7th Circuit WILDERMUTH FUND: Court Allows Email Service on Elusive Defendants WOFLOW INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dominguez Says WOODFORDS FAMILY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Paradis Says ********* 15 WEST REALTY: Sagar Sues Over Failure to Maintain a Building -------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Sagar, Peter C. Leeds, Vesna Stevovic, Ljiljana Vucetovic, Lana Vucetovic, and all others similarly situated v. 15 WEST REALTY LLC, WAYFINDER PM LLC, Case No. 153566/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March 23, 2026), is brought for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief arising from Defendants' systemic failure to maintain the building located at 15 West 75th Street, New York, New York, and their deliberate course of conduct designed to interfere with, diminish, and ultimately dispossess tenants of their leasehold and possessory rights. The building has been allowed to fall into a state of severe disrepair, including: Lack of potable water; Extensive mold conditions; Structural and facade defects posing risk of collapse; Ongoing hazardous violations; and Lack of competent building management. The Defendants have engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to force tenants from their homes, including withholding essential services such as water and heat; refusing or delaying necessary repairs despite hazardous conditions; allowing conditions to deteriorate to the point of uninhabitability; failing to employ competent building management or respond to tenant complaints; and (e) selectively addressing conditions in a manner designed to pressure long-term or rent-stabilized tenants to surrender possession, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are tenants in a residential building owned and controlled by Defendants. 15 West Realty LLC is a New York limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Stuart Lanza, Esq. CRAIG STUART LANZA, PLLC 734 Prospect Place, Bsmt Suite Brooklyn, NY 11216 Phone: (347) 556-9795 Email: lanza@lanzapllc.com 326 HARLEYS LLC: DeMonte Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 326 Harleys LLC, et al. The case is styled as Adam DeMonte, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. 326 Harleys LLC, Harleys American Grill & Bar, LLC, Case No. 611257/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 21, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Torts - Other (NYLL Article 6). 326 Harleys LLC operates Harleys American Grille -- https://www.harleysamericangrille.com/ -- is a restaurant with locations in Huntington and Farmingdale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Hwy Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: +1 631 257 5588 Fax: +1 631 239 5796 3M COMPANY: Varline Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYDEN VARLINE, et al., v. THE 3M COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00859-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling order to extend the class-certification discovery-related deadlines by 60 days. The Plaintiffs submit that good cause exists for the requested modification because it will allow for the completion of class certification fact discovery, thereby enabling the Plaintiffs' experts to prepare their reports on a fully developed factual record and ensuring that the subsequent class certification briefing is comprehensive and properly supported. The Plaintiffs therefore propose the following amended dates for class-certification deadlines, reflecting a sixty (60) day extension from April 15, 2026. All other deadlines established as of October 19, 2026 remain in effect. Event Deadline Fact discovery closes for any fact discovery June 15, 2026 that any party wishes to use for class certification: Deadline to complete expert depositions on Sept. 21, 2026 class‑certification issues: The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class: Sept. 23, 2026 The Defendant's opposition to Oct. 20, 2026 class‑certification motion: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Nov. 3, 2026 class‑certification motion: The proposed modification will not prejudice Defendant, who likewise benefits from expert disclosures and class-certification briefing grounded and supported in a full factual record. The Defendant is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cdnrib at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Wayne Varline, Esq. DAVCZYK & VARLINE, LLC 1400 Merrill Avenue Wausau WI 54402-1192 Telephone: (715) 675-7777 E-mail: dvarline@dvlawoffice.com - and - Gabriel M. Vázquez Segarra, Esq. Cristina M. Rodriguez, Esq. Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot Rivera, Esq. NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: gvazquez@nsprlaw.com crodriguez@nsprlaw.com pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com 4545 SHELLEY COURT OPCO: Grant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4545 Shelley Court Opco, LLC. The case is styled as Jonisha Grant, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. 4545 Shelley Court Opco, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002929 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." 4545 Shelley Court Opco, LLC doing business as Stockton Nursing Center -- https://stocktonnrc.com/ -- is a Medicare-certified skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility located on Shelley Court in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com AAA LIFE: Amador Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN AMADOR; ELMA AMADOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07826-PA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on May 11, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move for an order certifying a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, for the following class: "All persons in California who own or owned a universal life insurance policy issued by AAA Life Insurance Company on one of the following policy forms: A80011CA, A80004CA, 4701(CA), 3701(CA), 31002CA, 31502CA, U01CA, U02CA, U0169CA, 30079CA, UL4501, UL3501, UL4601CA, or UL3601CA." Excluded from the Class are AAA Life Insurance Company, its officers, directors, and employees. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court grant class certification of this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and 23(b), appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel, Joshua H. Haffner, Alfredo Torrijos, and Trevor Weinberg of Haffner Law PC, to serve as counsel to the class, and authorize notice to the class of the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(d)(2). The Plaintiffs Juan and Elba Amador are California residents who own a universal life insurance policy issued by AAA Life Insurance Company under policy form 30079CA, part of the UL99 product group.Their policy, like all class policies, contains a provision requiring AAA to determine COI rates based on its "expectations as to future experience." AAA Life is a Michigan-domiciled life insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs'motion dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vqL1ar at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Trevor Weinberg, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com tw@haffnerlawyers.com AAA NORTHEAST: Watkins Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Watkins, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AAA NORTHEAST d/b/a AAA DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00168-MRD-AEM (D.R.I., March 20, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") or ("Private Information") who were impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former student of Defendant and was required to supply Defendant with his Private Information. The Defendant is a driver education and training provider that specializes in teaching new drivers the skills necessary to operate motor vehicles safely.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Phone: (401) 831-7730 Fax: 401-861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Final OK Hearing of $3.3MM Settlement Set July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports a class action lawsuit filed against Absolute Dental Group, LLC, and Judge Consulting, Inc., over a 2025 data breach has been settled for $3,300,000. Absolute Dental is a Nevada-based dental care provider, and Judge Consulting is a provider of technology consulting, staffing solutions, and corporate training services. Absolute Dental contracted with Judge Consulting as its managed services provider and was responsible for the daily management and operations of Absolute Dental's IT systems. Absolute Dental identified suspicious activity within its network on February 26, 2025, and the forensic investigation confirmed that an unauthorized third party accessed its network between February 19, 2025, and March 5, 2025. Access was gained through an account associated with Judge Consulting. The hackers had access to names, contact information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, health information, health insurance information, financial information, and other sensitive data. The data breach was one of the largest of the year, affecting 1,223,635 individuals. Several class action lawsuits were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated into a single complaint -- Jordan et al. v. Absolute Dental Group, LLC, et al., -- in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants failed to adequately secure patient data, failed to properly monitor their systems for intrusions, and failed to provide timely notice to the victims of the breach. The lawsuit asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, violations of the Nevada Privacy of Information Collected on the Internet From Consumers Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Following mediation, the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to a settlement that was acceptable to all parties, with no admission of wrongdoing, fault, or liability by the defendants. A $3,300,000 settlement fund will be established to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration and notification costs, and service awards for the five class representatives. The remainder of the settlement fund will be used to pay for benefits for the class members. Class members may choose to submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member, or they may claim an alternative pro rata cash payment, the value of which will depend on the number of valid claims received. Residents of California at the time of the data breach also qualify for an additional cash payment. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is June 9, 2026. Claims must be submitted by June 18, 2026, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for July 30, 2026. [GN] ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Class Cert Bids in TSFLP Suit Due June 18, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE SUESSENBACH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et. al., v. ACCESS MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., et. al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01197-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mehalchick entered a case management order as follows: Fact Discovery: Dec. 11, 2026 Class certification motions and June 18, 2027 supporting briefs: Deadline for oppositions to class Aug. 18, 2027 certification: Deadline for reply briefs on class Oct. 18, 2027 certification: Summary judgment motions and supporting briefs: Oct. 18, 2027 Access is a midstream energy company, engaged primarily in the gathering, compression and processing of natural gas. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bRnjUv at no extra charge.[CC] ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Class Cert. Bids in Brown Suit Due June 18, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES L. BROWN, et. al., v. ACCESS MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., et. al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00591-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mehalchick entered a case management order as follows: Fact Discovery: Dec. 11, 2026 Deadline by which Mr. Dell'Osso may file Feb. 12, 2027 summary judgment motion that all claims against him are released pursuant to the confirmation plan: Expert Discovery Completed: June 11, 2027 Class Certification motions and supporting June 18, 2027 briefs: Deadline for oppositions to class certification: Aug. 18, 2027 Deadline for reply briefs on class certification: Oct. 18, 2027 Access is a midstream energy company, engaged primarily in the gathering, compression and processing of natural gas. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NzZ6UB at no extra charge.[CC] ACTIVEHOURS INC: Class Cert. Bid in Orubo Suit Due August 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENNAN ORUBO, MICHAEL SIMS, DEMETRICE MATHIS, and CIDNEY LETT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN, Case No. 5:24-cv-04702-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pitts entered an order granting the stipulated request to extend the case management order deadlines as follows: Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Aug. 24, 2026 expert report on class certification: Response to class certification motion and the Oct, 26, 2026 Defendant's expert reports on class certification: Reply in support of class certification motion Nov. 9, 2026 and rebuttal expert reports on class certification: Fact discovery cutoff: March 12, 2027 Trial setting conference: Feb. 15, 2028 Activehours designs and develops application software. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ObdEib at no extra charge.[CC] ADOBE INC: Hodges Sues for Intercepting Patients' Communications ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a new class action lawsuit claims Adobe intercepted, recorded and eavesdropped on patient communications on the website of health care company Optum. Plaintiff Gil Hodges accuses Adobe of intercepting communications containing personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of patients using Optum's website to search for medical providers and services. The lawsuit alleges Optum uses Adobe's "Marketo Engage" platform to "streamline, automate and measure marketing tasks and workflows so [clients like Optum] can increase operational efficiency and grow revenue faster." Hodges wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who had their PII or PHI intercepted, recorded or eavesdropped on by Adobe as a result of using Optum's website. The class action lawsuit claims Adobe's actions violate the Federal Wiretap Act and California's Invasion of Privacy Act and constitute an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution and intrusion upon seclusion. "[Adobe] intercepts, eavesdrops and/or records the plaintiff's and class members' communications while using [Optum's] website, including communications containing PII and/or PHI," the Adobe class action lawsuit says. Adobe allegedly used tracking technology without consent Hodges argues Adobe used tracking technology embedded on Optum's website to intercept patient communications without their consent. The plaintiff claims that the tracking technology secretly duplicated and transmitted patient data to Adobe's servers, allowing the company to intercept communications in real time. Hodges argues Adobe's tracking technology allowed the company to pair intercepted data with users' identities, enabling targeted advertising and marketing campaigns. The plaintiff claims Adobe's actions deprived users of their privacy rights and that Optum's website did not provide adequate notice or obtain consent for the interception of patient communications. Hodges demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and damages under the Federal Wiretap Act. Last March, Adobe agreed to a $150 million settlement after the U.S. Department of Justice alleged the company engaged in deceptive subscription practices in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. The plaintiff is represented by Ines Diaz Villafana of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Adobe class action lawsuit is Hodges v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02958, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ADVANTAGE FIRST: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantage First Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Laccinole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advantage First Financial, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02994 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Advantage First Financial -- https://www.advantagefirst.com/ -- offers personalized loan solutions to tackle your specific challenges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com AL JAZEERA: Ciric Files Suit Over Video Privacy Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- OLIVER CIRIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AL JAZEERA MEDIA NETWORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11751 (D. Mass., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). Al Jazeera Media Network operates the Al Jazeera website -- aljazeera.com) -- the Al Jazeera iOS App, and the Al Jazeera Android App which are used throughout Massachusetts and the United States. The complaint relates that the Defendant produces a wide variety of pre-recorded or "on-demand video[s]" that are watched by millions of consumers nationwide. These videos are accessible via Defendant's Website, iOS App, and Android App, and videos include "[d]igital [s]eries," "[d]ocumentar[ies]," "NewsFeed," and "TV Shows." Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed the Website, iOS App, and Android App users' personally identifiable information including a record of videos viewed by the users to unrelated third parties. By doing so, Defendant violated the VPPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other remedies resulting from Defendant's violations of the VPPA. Plaintiff Oliver Ciric is a resident of Newton, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com ALCHEMEE LLC: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALCHEMEE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02946 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.proactiv.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 28, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Blackhead Dissolving Gel from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Alchemee LLC operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALERTZPRO LLC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Hightower" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Monty Lee Hightower, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AlertzPro LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. DKC 25-2312 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Defendant's motion to stay and compel arbitration, without prejudice, in this putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Hightower alleged he received at least 24 text messages from short code 74473 to his cell phone between April 3, 2025, and July 5, 2025. He stated he never consented to the messages and did not request information or promotional materials from Defendant. Plaintiff further alleged these messages were sent 31 or more days after he registered his cell phone number with the national Do Not Call Registry, and Defendant knew or should have known his number was on the Registry. Defendant did not dispute sending the text messages. Its Head of Operations and Business Development stated that Plaintiff consented when he signed up for a website called The Class Action Guide on April 21, 2025, consented to receive text messages from, among others, AlertzPro, and interacted with various links included in the messages. Defendant also stated that Plaintiff did not opt out despite receiving reminders on how to do so. Plaintiff, however, stated that to the best of his knowledge and after reviewing his browser history, he had never heard of, visited, or used theclassactionguide.com, and had never agreed to any terms, conditions, or arbitration agreement on that website or any website associated with Defendant. Plaintiff suggested that a website scraper or bot may have submitted his personal information. Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint on July 16, 2025, followed by an operative amended complaint on July 18, 2025, seeking to bring a class action based on violation of Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The class has not been certified; the case remains at the putative stage. The court noted that treating a motion to compel arbitration under the summary judgment standard is proper when the formation of an arbitration agreement is disputed, and that the burden rests on Defendant to establish the existence of a binding contract to arbitrate. The court found that submissions from both parties showed that the making of the arbitration agreement was in issue. Plaintiff made an unequivocal denial that an arbitration agreement existed and submitted a declaration in support. The court rejected Defendant's argument that a conclusory declaration unsupported by corroborating evidence could not overcome its evidence, noting that even a self-serving and uncorroborated affidavit, if based on personal knowledge or firsthand experience, can be evidence of disputed material facts. Accordingly, the court found that Plaintiff's denial was sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether an arbitration agreement exists. The court ordered limited discovery restricted to the question of who signed up for The Class Action Guide using Plaintiff's personal information. With the benefit of limited discovery, Defendant may refile a motion to compel arbitration, or the parties may proceed to trial as contemplated in Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Defendant's motion to stay and compel arbitration was therefore denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision dated April 21, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1N5KKn from PacerMonitor.com ALLAGASH BREWING: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. ALLAGASH BREWING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03027 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on March 1, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Allagash Retro Can Tee - Pepper from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff FRANGIE ESPINAL is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant ALLAGASH BREWING COMPANY operates the Allagash online retail store, as well as the Allagash interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: brewery shop and gear, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212.228.9795 Facsimile: 212.982.6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Anglin Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN LIPTOK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SERVICES (ALLIED UNIVERSAL) SECURITY d/b/a DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE, Defendant, Case No. 260401951 (Ct. App., Philadelphia Cty, Pa., April 14, 2026) is a class action seeking all relief available under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWPCL"). The complaint relates that at the beginning of the workday, Plaintiff and other Class Members were required to walk within the Wegmans Center to their time clock, where they "punch in" for payroll purposes at time clocks located at or near their assigned work locations. Mr. Liptok estimates that his mandatory pre-shift walking time took approximately fifteen (15) minutes per day; and require to walk within the Wegmans Center from their assigned work locations after "punching out" for payroll purposes at the time clock for fifteen (15) minutes per day. Mr. Liptok was a full-time employee scheduled to work forty (40) hours per week. As such, his paid time combined with his unpaid pre-shift and post-shift walking time typically totaled over forty (40) hours per week. The Defendant did not pay Mr. Liptok for the time associated with the pre-shift and post-shift walking, says the suit. Plaintiff John Liptok, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, seeks the following relief: (i) unpaid wages, including overtime wages; (ii) prejudgment interest; (iii) litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and (iv) any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff John Liptok was employed by the Defendant at the Wegmans Center between January 19, 2026, and March 30, 2026, and paid him an hourly wage. Defendant is a security and facility services company and provides both security and facility maintenance services to locations across Pennsylvania and the United States, including the Wegmans Retail Service Center located at 820 Keystone Boulevard, Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania ("Wegmans Center").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve T. Mahan, Esq. Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Michael J. Bradley, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: smahan@weisbergcummings.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Seeks to Stay White and Paris Claims ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTRISE WHITE, BERCLINE MILCENT, MONIQUE SPRINGER, GIRAM SANCHEZ, DANIELLE PARIS, and JORGE LEZCANO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00935-O (N.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order severing and staying the claims brought by Plaintiff Santrise White and Danielle Paris into separate actions, so they may be litigated in a fair and efficient manner. Accordingly, to facilitate the efficient resolution of all six Plaintiffs' claims, American requests that the Court sever White's and Paris's claims from the remaining four Plaintiffs and stay White's and Paris's claims pending (1) closure of the EEOC's investigation; and (2) a definitive statement from White and Paris as to whether they intend to pursue their retaliation claims in this action. A stay will allow time for the EEOC to complete its investigation into White's and Paris's retaliation claims, provide time for White and Paris to clarify how they wish to pursue those claims, and avoid American requesting a continuation of the scheduling order for an unknown period of time due to the current ambiguity. Issuing a stay until the EEOC issues its findings will resolve the procedural timing issues and simplify this case for the parties and the Court. The six plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim American failed to accommodate their disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In December 2025—with this lawsuit already pending—Plaintiff Santrise White and Plaintiff Danielle Paris filed new EEOC charges asserting retaliation claims against American for its alleged, continued failure to accommodate their disabilities after they filed this lawsuit. The Defendant offers airline services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e4C4Ld at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Russell D. Cawyer, Esq. Lanie N. Bennett, Esq. KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332-2500 Facsimile: (817) 335-2820 E-mail: russell.cawyer@kellyhart.com lanie.bnnett@kellyhart.com - and - Mark W. Robertson, Esq. Kelly S. Wood, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com kwood@omm.com ANNE ARUNDEL: Final OK Hearing for $2.4MM Settlement Set July 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Anne Arundel Dermatology has agreed to a $2.4 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2025 data breach that compromised patient information. The Anne Arundel Dermatology settlement benefits individuals who provided personal information to Anne Arundel Dermatology or about whom Anne Arundel Dermatology collected, received or possessed personal information on or before Dec. 9, 2025. Anne Arundel Dermatology is a dermatology practice with locations in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Maryland. According to a class action lawsuit, Anne Arundel Dermatology failed to prevent a 2025 data breach that compromised patient information. Plaintiffs claim that they were put at risk because the company could have prevented the breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Anne Arundel Dermatology has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.4 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Anne Arundel Dermatology class action settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or an out-of-pocket refund. All members will receive medical data monitoring services. Class members who experienced documented out-of-pocket losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement as part of this class action settlement. These payments cover unreimbursed fraud losses, bank charges, professional fees, credit expenses and more. Class members who did not experience out-of-pocket losses can receive an alternative pro rata cash payment. These payments are estimated to be around $100, but may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed. All class members are eligible for three years of free medical data monitoring services. These services include real-time credit monitoring, dark web scanning, public record monitoring, medical record monitoring, up to $1 million in identity theft insurance and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 9, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Anne Arundel Dermatology settlement is scheduled for July 16, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 8, 2026. Who's Eligible All persons in the United States who provided personal information, including but not limited to PII or PHI, to AAD, or about whom AAD otherwise collected, received, or possessed personal information, including but not limited to PII or PHI, on or before Dec. 9, 2026. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses, or an alternative payout estimated at $100. Proof of Purchase Documentation other than the claim form that is needed in order for a class member to submit a claim such as receipts, work orders and credit card statements. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/08/2026 Case Name In re: Anne Arundel Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-02274-GLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Final Hearing 07/16/2026 Settlement Website AnneArundelPrivacySettlement.com Claims Administrator AAD Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 1788 Baton Rouge, LA 70821844-467-4798 Class Counsel Gary Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Tyler Bean SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP James Pizzirusso HAUSFELD LLP Gary E. Mason MASON LLP James P. Ulwick KRAMON & GRAHAM P.A. Defense Counsel Brenda R. Sharton Benjamin M. Sadun Theodore E. Yale DECHERT LLP [GN] AVIS BUDGET: Underpays Company Employees, Alzeera Says ------------------------------------------------------ ALI ALZEERA 1009 Tottenham Court Sterling, Virginia 20164 Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC 6 Sylvan Way Parsippany, New Jersey 07054\ SERVE: Corporation Service Company 100 Shockoe Slip, Floor 2 Richmond, Virginia 23219, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01026-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking recovery of earned and unpaid overtime premium wages, statutory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), and the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"). The complaint relates that each pay period during the Class Period, Defendant knowingly, recklessly, willfully, and in the absence of good faith withheld and failed to pay Named Plaintiff and Class Members earned and FLSA and Virginia law required earned half time due and owed to Named Plaintiff and Class Members for all weekly compensable overtime work performed exceeding forty (40) hours. Named Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other Class Members, prays for relief and judgment against Defendant for actual damages in the amount of all wages found due to them; all available statutory liquidated damages as provided by the FLSA, VOWA, and VWPA; pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate; attorneys' fees and costs; and all further legal or equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, or proper. Plaintiff Ali Alzeera was employed by the Defendant as an Operations Manager or similar job title. Defendant Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC operated continuously as business entity engaged in renting automobiles out of locales within the Commonwealth of Virginia including Washington Dulles International Airport, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Charlottesville Airport, Lynchburg Regional Airport, Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, Norfolk International Airport, Richmond International Airport, Roanoke Regional Airport, and Shenandoah Valley Airport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.COM Matt@SutterAndTerpak.Com AYA HEALTHCARE: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling on Arbitration Agreements ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Ninth Circuit in O'Dell v. AYA Healthcare Services, Inc. (9th Cir. No. 25-1528) unanimously held that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not allow the use of collateral estoppel to preclude enforcement of arbitration agreements and reversed the lower court's ruling barring enforcement of employee arbitration agreements. In O'Dell, four former employees of a travel-nursing agency brought a putative class and collective action against their employer for wage-related violations under state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The agency's employees had executed identical arbitration agreements which precluded arbitration on a class basis and gave the arbitrator authority to determine the agreement's validity. Consistent with the agreements' terms, the district court sent the four employees' claims to separate arbitrations. Two arbitrators held that the agreements were unenforceable (reasoning that the fee and venue provisions were unduly one-sided), and the other two arbitrators ruled that the agreements were enforceable (one severed terms it found unconscionable, and the other held a savings clause rescued unconscionable terms in the agreement). After the district court confirmed all but one of the arbitrators' rulings as to enforceability, the defendant moved to compel arbitration of the claims by the 255 additional plaintiffs who had opted into the putative FLSA collective action. Thereafter, the district court, on its own accord, questioned whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded arbitration of the additional plaintiffs' claims because two arbitrators had found the agreements unenforceable. After briefing, the district court denied the defendant's motion, holding that arbitrators' decisions that the agreements were unenforceable precluded the defendant from enforcing the arbitration agreements against the 255 other plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that "[a] hallmark of the FAA is the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the resolution of disputes in individualized, one-on-one proceedings" and that "[d]oing away with such bilateral proceedings between mutually consenting parties, because other arbitrators in other proceedings involving other parties have already decided the issue, is anathema to the FAA." (Emphasis in original). The court held that the FAA recognizes only "generally applicable contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability" as grounds for revoking an arbitration agreement and the doctrine of collateral estoppel was not a contract defense. The court reasoned that applying collateral estoppel to revoke an arbitration agreement would "contravene critical features of the FAA" and "render the parties' consent [to arbitration] meaningless." The court further reasoned that invalidating hundreds of separate arbitration agreements based on rulings from different arbitrators in different proceedings effectively imposed an unconsented class action procedure in violation of Supreme Court precedent. The appellate court remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Court Extends Certain Pretrial Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballard v. Bank of America, N.A. et al. (RE: BANK OF AMERICA UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNT OPENING LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00422-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Keesler entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend certain pretrial deadlines. The case deadlines relating to class certification briefs and export reports are vacated. The parties shall propose new deadlines within 30 days of the Court's ruling on "Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Amend The Consolidated Complaint." Bank of America provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sGJphv at no extra charge.[CC] BERKADIA COMMERCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Todd Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RICK TODD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff  v.  BERKADIA COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03017 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2026) arises out of Defendant Berkadia's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. On or about March 20, 2026, the threat actor "ShinyHunters" successfully breached Berkadia's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive customer data. The incident was publicly reported on DeXpose on March 20, 2026. As of the filing of this complaint, Defendant has not provided any kind of notice to affected individuals. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which it was entrusted for either business purposes or employment or both. In addition, Defendant Berkadia failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Berkadia properly monitored its property, it would have discovered the intrusion sooner rather than allowing cybercriminals unimpeded access over the course of several days to the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) declaratory relief. Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC is an organization that provides commercial real estate finance and mortgage banking services to clients, including Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com BIOAGE LABS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on March 3, 2026, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleging that a biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and certain corporate officers violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). In re BioAge Labs, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 25-cv-00196 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2026). After dismissal of the original complaint (the "Original Complaint") in October 2025 -- which we covered here -- plaintiff amended the complaint to include additional alleged statements they argued were misleading even under the Court's earlier decision. The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. In 2024, the Company, which develops products to address metabolic disease, was conducting phased clinical trials of its lead product candidate, a weight-loss drug. Approximately two months after the phase two trial began, the Company went public. The Company's IPO offering materials allegedly acknowledged that the risk of trial failure was high and that the materialization of "severe, unexpected" risks or low efficacy might lead the Company to abandon the trial. Nine weeks after the IPO, the Company discontinued its trial because a handful of participants allegedly developed transaminitis -- a condition characterized by elevated liver enzymes in the blood that is allegedly a common, non-serious side effect of weight-loss drugs. Plaintiff claimed that (1) defendants' offering materials created the false impression that transaminitis did not pose a substantial risk to the clinical trial because they allegedly only discussed the risk of "unexpected, atypical, or more severe" side effects, and (2) the offering materials' hypothetical language about side effects -- i.e., using qualifiers like "if," "may," or "could" -- created an impression that transaminitis had not already presented in participants. The Court rejected plaintiff's first theory based on the risks posed to the trial by transaminitis because it relied on the impermissible negative inference that defendants' choice to acknowledge that unexpected or severe risks to the trial somehow implied that more common, less serious side effects posed no risk to the trial. The Court found that plaintiff's inclusion of new statements from the offering documents regarding the Company's goal of improving "tolerability" of weight loss drugs and the occurrence of a mild side effect that had occurred in a patient at the time of the IPO did not change the analysis. The Court determined that a reasonable investor would still understand that defendants were concerned about -- not tolerant of -- the impact of all side effects during the trial. The Court then rejected plaintiff's second theory based on the allegedly conditional nature of the Company's risk disclosures. The Court noted that defendants' risk disclosures explicitly discussed the risks to the trial if "serious," "atypical," and "more severe than the known" side effects occurred. And, as the Court observed, plaintiff contended throughout its Amended Complaint that transaminitis was a common or mild side effect of weight-loss drugs. As such, the hypothetical language addressing more serious side effects could not apply to the risk of transaminitis. The Court further held that plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that transaminitis had manifested among the trial's participants at the time of the IPO. Finding that plaintiff failed to cure the Original Complaint's defects in its Amended Complaint, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. [GN] BLOOMBERG LP: Loses Bid to Bar Expert Witness in "Ndugga" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Naula Ndugga, Plaintiff, v. Bloomberg L.P., Defendant, No. 20 Civ. 7464 (GHW) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Bloomberg's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of plaintiff's expert David Neumark, and recommended denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff Naula Ndugga sued Bloomberg L.P. for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of a proposed class of news personnel who worked at Bloomberg in 2021, and for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law on behalf of a proposed subclass of news personnel who worked at Bloomberg from 2017 through 2020. She alleged systemic sex discrimination in compensation directed from the highest levels at Bloomberg. Ndugga retained Dr. David Neumark, a distinguished professor of economics at the University of California-Irvine, to evaluate evidence of pay discrimination against women at Bloomberg. Neumark used data produced by Bloomberg containing employment history and compensation records for employees in the proposed classes to construct a dataset of annual employee records. He analyzed the data to compare compensation at Bloomberg for similarly situated female and male employees using a regression model that controlled for race, experience, education, employment city, Job Profile, year-end performance rating score, Cost Center, and Business Unit, among other variables. Neumark's supplemental regression analysis found that female employees in the proposed U.S. Class were paid 3.1% below similarly situated male employees, a difference of 1.64 standard deviations. For the proposed New York Class, he found that female employees' total compensation was 4.4% below that of similarly situated male employees, a difference of 2.29 standard deviations. Bloomberg moved to exclude Neumark's opinions, arguing that his analysis was irrelevant and unreliable. The court denied the motion. On the inclusion of Cost Center as a control variable, Bloomberg argued that Neumark had no basis to assume Cost Center affected employee compensation. The court found that the Second Circuit has held that the failure by either side to include a relevant variable, or the inclusion of an irrelevant variable, goes to the probative value of the analysis, not its admissibility. Accordingly, Neumark's inclusion of Cost Center did not affect the relevance of his report and testimony. Bloomberg also argued that Neumark's aggregated analysis ignored variations in performance ratings and compensation decisions made by over 100 individual managers. The court found that Neumark could properly assume the centrality of deputy editor Reto Gregori's decision-making for purposes of conducting his analysis, as his report was used only to answer the common question of whether a pay disparity exists. Assertions that an expert's testimony is based upon unfounded assumptions go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony. On reliability, the court found that Neumark's analysis was not rendered unreliable by its failure to account for starting pay. Starting pay is not an external confounding variable that could provide a neutral explanation for differences in pay between men and women -- Bloomberg itself set the starting pay. Neumark explained at deposition that starting pay would be a bad control, or tainted variable, because it can itself reflect discrimination. The court further found that Neumark's exclusion of 89 observations out of 1,983 in the New York class and 29 out of 783 in the U.S. class did not render his methodology unreliable, as imperfect data goes to the weight of the expert's opinion, not its admissibility. Turning to class certification, the court recommended denial of the motion. Ndugga sought to certify a U.S. Class of approximately 338 female Reporters, Producers, and Editors subjected to Bloomberg's compensation systems for work performed in the United States from February 3, 2021 through December 31, 2021, and a New York Class of approximately 315 similarly situated women for work performed in New York from August 9, 2017 through December 31, 2020. The crux of the case was commonality under Rule 23(a)(2). As to the proposed U.S. Class, the court found that the difference of 1.64 standard deviations that Neumark observed is, by Neumark's own admission, not statistically significant. The number of records in Neumark's analysis (750) is significantly larger than the threshold below which the standard deviation rule does not apply. Ndugga offered no other indicia raising an inference of discrimination. The court therefore found that Neumark's statistics do not demonstrate common questions of fact because they do not tend to show that being female has had a widespread effect on compensation for this proposed class. As to both proposed classes, the court found Neumark's statistical evidence flawed because Cost Center, which does not play a role in compensation guidelines, was unjustifiably included as a control variable. Bloomberg's expert identified that when Cost Center is excluded, any pay disparity between men and women is no longer statistically significant at either the 5% or the 10% level. The court found that the inclusion of Cost Center turns Neumark's analysis into the sort of analysis that obfuscates the principal explanatory variable to create the appearance of difference. The court also found that Ndugga had not provided adequate evidence that any disparity in pay is traceable to Gregori. Even accepting that Gregori had his hands in all aspects of compensation decision-making, this does not establish that he is responsible for any pay disparity. On the question of a common mode of exercising discretion, the court found that Gregori made just 12% of the total number of compensation changes. As a result, 88% of proposed class members' claims rest not on Gregori's intervention but on the intervention of whoever was responsible for the remaining 88% of changes. Their claims therefore do not depend upon a common contention, as required under Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. Because Ndugga cannot meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23, the court recommended that the motion for class certification be denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pNEO7I from PacerMonitor.com BRITA PRODUCTS: 9th Circuit Dismisses Suit Over Mislabeled Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that in Brown v. Brita Prods. Co., No. 24-6678 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against The Brita Products Company, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws and other claims. The plaintiff purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with the Standard Filter for approximately fifteen dollars. Based on the product's labels and packaging, he alleged that he understood the filter to remove or reduce common contaminants hazardous to health down to below lab detectable limits. He claimed he would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had he known it does not reduce to below lab detectable levels various hazardous contaminants, including arsenic, chromium-6, PFOA, PFOS, and others. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that he had stated a claim for a material omission and leave to amend should have been granted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal and reasoned that under California law, an omission is actionable only if it contradicts a representation actually made by the defendant, or if the defendant was obliged to disclose the omitted fact. The parties agreed that a duty to disclose arises if a product contains a defect that either poses an unreasonable safety risk or defeats its central function, and that even if one of those tests is met, the omission must be material. The Ninth Circuit held that even assuming the plaintiff's allegations met either test, he could not establish that Brita had a duty to disclose that its products do not completely remove all common hazardous contaminants to below lab detectable levels. It reasoned that such a disclosure would not be important to a reasonable consumer given Brita's existing packaging disclosures, that made specific contaminant data available via QR code on the package and the objective unreasonableness of such an expectation. This decision is particularly instructive because the court evaluated the product's packaging disclosures in context, including information accessible via a QR code on the label, and considered the product's price point in assessing reasonable consumer expectations. Critically, the court declined to infer that language describing a product's ability to "reduce" contaminants implies their complete elimination. [GN] BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Torres Due Nov. 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LAZARO TORRES, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. BUNZL DISTRIBUTION MIDCENTRAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06210-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered Parties' Joint Stipulation and Request to Modify Scheduling Order as follows: 1. The Stipulation is granted as set forth in this Order. 2. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Aug. 7, 2026. 3. All expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 23, 2026. The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than Aug. 21, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than Sept. 23, 2026. 4. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than Aug. 7, 2026. 5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 25, 2026. Bunzl wholesales and distributes food products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bnpyu1 at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA AMFORGE: Gerlach Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KURT GERLACH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA AMFORGE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV38143, was removed from the Superior of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01294 to the proceeding. In his complaint, Plaintiff Gerlach asserts claims against Amforge for: (1) failure to pay all earned wages, (2) failure to pay all earned overtime wages, (3) failure to permit 10-minute rest periods, (4) failure to permit 30-minute meal periods, (5) failure to timely pay all earned wages and compensation, (6) failure to timely pay all earned wages and compensation upon cessation of employment, (7) failure to provide lawful wage statements, and (8) unfair business practices. The Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. California Amforge Corporation manufactures aircraft parts. The Company produces torque housings, disks, blisks, shafts, actuators, pressure control modules.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Liat L. Yamini, Esq. Samantha E. Dyar, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2452 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 489-3939 E-mail: lyamini@jonesday.com sdyar@jonesday.com CAMPING WORLD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Camping World Holdings, Inc. ("Camping World" or the "Company") (NYSE:CWH) in The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Camping World securities between April 29, 2025 and February 24, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 11, 2026 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. What are the Allegation Details? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company overstated its ability to "surgically manage [its] inventory" to optimize profit using "data analytics;" (2) the Company overstated the retail demand of consumers it was experiencing and/or reasonably expected; (3) as a result, the Company would require "strict, corrective inventory management objectives," negatively impacting gross profit and margins; (4) the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate disclosures and/or guidance, including about the health of its balance sheet and/or the ability to manage SG&A expenses; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. What are the Next Steps? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Camping World shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] CANON USA: Ponton Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ERNESTO PONTON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. CANON U.S.A., INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, 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. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01531-DC-CKD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts eight causes of action against CUSA for: (1) Failure To Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure To Provide Rest Breaks; (3) Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; (5) Failure To Furnish Timely And Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failure To Pay All Wages Upon Separation; (7) Violation Of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); And (8) Civil Penalties For Violations Of Labor Code, Pursuant To California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Defendant Canon U.S.A., Inc. is one of the leading provider of consumer, business-to-business, and industrial digital imaging solutions to the US, Latin America, and the Caribbean (excluding Mexico) markets.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nisha Verma, Esq. Pavlina K. Rafter, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 E-mail: verma.nisha@dorsey.com rafter.pavlina@dorsey.com CARECLOUD INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Salyer Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ROMA SALYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARECLOUD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03868 (D.N.J., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information, and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. On no later than March 16, 2026, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII and financial information. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII and financial information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, alleges the suit. CareCloud Inc. is a healthcare technology company that offers electronic health records, practice management, and revenue cycle management services to medical providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com CIGNA CORPORATE: Class Certification Filing in Adair Due Nov. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY M. ADAIR, et al., v. CIGNA CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, and THE CIGNA GROUP, Case No. 2:25-cv-02384-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The Defendants shall file and serve an answer, motion to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint on or before July 11, 2025. 2. Should the Defendants file a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs shall file and serve a response in opposition to said motion on or before Sept. 3, 2025. 3. Should the Defendants wish to file a reply in support of said motion to dismiss, such reply shall be filed and served on or before Sept. 23, 2025. 4. All fact discovery shall be completed by June 29, 2026. 5. Any expert reports are due no later than July 28, 2026. 6. Any motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before Nov. 30, 2026. 7. Any opposition to motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before Jan. 29, 2027. 8. Any replies in support of any motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before March 8, 2027. 9. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed and served on or before May 7, 2027. Cigna refers to the administrative, operational, and support functions of The Cigna Group, a global health service company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ri7eIZ at no extra charge.[CC] COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Halcarz Sues Over Stolen Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW HALCARZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03880-MCA-AME (D.N.J., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on November 28, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is a professional services and consulting firm based in Teaneck, New Jersey. TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cognizant based in Earth City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Heo, Esq. Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Email: aheo@barrack.com jgolan@barrack.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gershzon Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, et al., v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04086-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Spero entered an order denying the motions to exclude expert testimony of J. Michael Dennis and expert testimony of Colin B. Weir. The class certification motion is granted. The Court certifies the following class and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3): Class: "All persons who purchased, in the State of California, a Colgate or Tom's of Maine brand toothpaste products with the language "Recyclable Tube" on the outer package ("Products") between Aug. 29, 2019, and the date of notice of pendency, except the Excluded Products." The Excluded Products are defined as MaxFresh 6 oz. (UPC No. 35000764522); MaxFresh 6.3 oz. (UPC No. 35000996671); and Tom's of Maine Sensitive Rapid Relief Toothpaste Fresh Mint Fluoride (UPC No. 77326835623). Subclass 1: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim or chasing arrows with an asterisk on the front panel of the outer package, and without "check locally" stated on the outer package." Subclass 2: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim on the back and/or side panel of the outer package, with no such claim appearing on the front panel, and without "check locally" stated on the outer package." Subclass 3: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim on the back and/or side panel of the outer package, with no such claim appearing on the front panel, and with "check locally" stated on the outer package." Subclass 4: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim or chasing arrows with an asterisk on the front panel of the outer package and with "check locally" stated on the outer package." The Court appoints Mikhail Gershzon, Kristin Della, and Jill Lienhard as class representatives. The Court appoints Gutride Safier LLP as Class Counsel. The parties shall meet and confer and propose a schedule for class notice, including briefing of any disputes relating class notice, no later than April 8, 2026. The Plaintiffs bring a false advertising case against the Defendant, alleging that Colgate's labeling of its toothpaste tubes as "recyclable" is misleading and amounts to "greenwashing." The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells Colgate and Tom’s of Maine brand toothpastes in the United States, including California. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cBcHQu at no extra charge.[CC] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Chomicz Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Chomicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Health Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-586, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals following a data breach. On Feb. 9, 2026, Judge Michael P. Shea filed an Order to show cause to allow the Defendant to explain why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Defendant responded on Feb. 23, 2026. On Mar. 26, 2026, the Court has reviewed the Defendant's response to the show cause order and concludes that remand is warranted because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the ruling on the motion to remand in Frankfurter v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-344. The appellate case is captioned as Chomicz v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 26-928, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOSEPH CHOMICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael John Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Defendant-Appellant COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented by: Philip Bieler, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Colino Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Nicholas Colino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Health Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-346, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals following a data breach. On Feb. 9, 2026, Judge Michael P. Shea filed an Order to show cause to allow the Defendant to explain why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Defendant responded on Feb. 23, 2026. On Mar. 26, 2026, the Court has reviewed the Defendant's response to the show cause order and concludes that remand is warranted because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the ruling on the motion to remand in Frankfurter v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-344. The appellate case is captioned as Colino v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 26-927, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee NICHOLAS COLINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Defendant-Appellant COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented by: Philip Bieler, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Dallape Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Gregory Dallape, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Health Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-511, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals following a data breach. On Feb. 9, 2026, Judge Michael P. Shea filed an Order to show cause to allow the Defendant to explain why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Defendant responded on Feb. 23, 2026. On Mar. 26, 2026, the Court has reviewed the Defendant's response to the show cause order and concludes that remand is warranted because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the ruling on the motion to remand in Frankfurter v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-344. The appellate case is captioned as Dallape v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 26-929, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee GREGORY DALLAPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ian Wise Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Defendant-Appellant COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented by: Philip Bieler, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 CREDIT CONTROL: Sends Illegal Debt Collection Texts, Pettway Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsi Pettway, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11698-AK (D. Mass., April 13, 2026) is a class action for damages resulting from Defendant's placement of debt collection text messages in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. As part of its debt collection operations, the Defendant sends consumers multiple debt collection text messages in an attempt to collect alleged debts, even after consumers have communicated in writing that they do not wish to receive further communications. The Plaintiff is one such consumer. After receiving a series of debt collection messages from Defendant attempting to collect alleged debts owed to Allstate Insurance Company and New Jersey E-ZPass, the Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing that she wished Defendant to cease further debt collection text messages. Nonetheless, the Defendant continued to send Plaintiff debt collection text messages after Plaintiff communicated her desire to cease further communications, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Credit Control Services, Inc. is a nationwide debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: omer@edelsberglaw.com CROCS INC: Osburn Sues Over Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------- Jessa Osburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01170-GPG-CYC (D. Colo., March 20, 2026), is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy, specifically for claims under the internal do not call provision of the TCPA. This case is brought to enforce the consumer privacy provisions afforded by the TCPA, a federal law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices precisely like those described herein. The Defendant has the TCPA by bombarding Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers' cellular telephones with non-emergency communications and telemarketing phone calls after such consumers revoked prior express written consent. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited and unwanted telephone communications exactly like those alleged in this case. In response to Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telemarketing phone communications to non-consenting consumers, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations) for Plaintiff and each of the Class Members, per violation, together with court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received two or more telephone solicitations from Defendant. The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling foot ware throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: abbas@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com CW STRONG CJR: Quiroga Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Manuel Diaz Quiroga, individual and class representative on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees v. CW STRONG CJR SD LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; CW STRONG EAST BAY LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; CW STRONG RESTAURANTS CALIFORNIA DHC LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV177032 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 20, 2026), is brought against the Defendant as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper compensations. The Plaintiff bring this class action to recover, among other things, wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. The Defendants are, and at all times relevant hereto were, companies authorized to do business in the State of California and doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 DEERE & COMPANY: Farrow Balks at Defective Mower Gauge Assemblies ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY FARROW, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & COMPANY and JOHN DEERE CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00087-WMR (N.D. Ga., April 10, 2026) is a consumer class action arising from Defendants' design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of defective John Deere riding mower gauge assemblies used on John Deere S100-series riding mowers. According to the complaint, the subject gauge assembly is powered by a small internal lithium coin-cell/button battery. That battery is a low-cost consumable component, typically worth only a few dollars. But rather than designing the gauge so that the battery can be replaced in an ordinary and inexpensive manner, the Defendants designed and sold the gauge assembly such that, when the battery dies, consumers are forced to replace the entire gauge assembly. The Plaintiff purchased a John Deere riding mower from Lowe's in 2023. After ordinary use, the battery in the mower's gauge assembly failed. Because the battery could not be replaced in a simple, reasonable, and economical manner, the Plaintiff was forced to purchase a new replacement gauge assembly at substantial cost, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, a proposed nationwide class, and a proposed Georgia subclass to recover damages, restitution, and other relief arising from Defendants' defective and unfair conduct. Deere & Company manufactures and distributes a range of agricultural, construction, forestry, and commercial and consumer equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre R. Belanger, Esq. GO BIG INJURY LAW 1 Glenlake Parkway NE, Suite 650 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 777-7777 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com DISC MEDICINE: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Disc Medicine, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRON) resulting from allegations that Disc Medicine may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Disc Medicine securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56641 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 13, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") to Disc Medicine regarding its bitopertin program. The FDA stated they could not approve Disc Medicine's new drug application ("NDA") as there were uncertainties in the NDA that would need additional evidence. On this news, Disc Medicine's stock price fell 22% on February 13, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Class Suit Over Junk Fees for Pizza Orders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Mwai of AL.com, Domino's is facing a class action lawsuit that accuses it of charging customers "junk fees" for pizza orders. The lawsuit was filed on February 26 by the Almeida Law Group in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case alleges that Domino's charged customers additional fees to cover its own business expenses, printing them as "Tax 2" on receipts, according the Top Class Actions website. Plaintiff John Murphy argues that Domino's advertised prices did not include the fees or charges customers would have to pay in its stores. He claims Domino's violated California's Honest Pricing Act, which requires businesses to include all mandatory fees in the advertised price. "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 lawsuit says. Murphy seeks to represent a class of California consumers who were charged "mandatory fees" when making an in-person purchase at Domino's. The plaintiff wants a jury trial, declaratory and injunctive relief and a reward of statutory, monetary and punitive damages for all class members, including himself. [GN] EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH: Appeals Court Order in Stein Contract Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Arnold Stein, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Edward-Elmhurst Health, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14515, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is brought against the Defendant for insurance contract violation. The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Stein, et al. v. Edward-Elmhurst Health, Case No. 26-1742, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ARNOLD STEIN, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 - and - Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Defendant-Appellant EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH is represented by: David A. Carney, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Key Tower Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 - and - Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 ELAUWIT CONNECTION: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Elauwit Connection, Inc. (NASDAQ: ELWT) resulting from allegations that Elauwit may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Elauwit securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=55125 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 27, 2026, during market hours, Elauwit filed a Current Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K announcing non-reliance on "previously issued interim financial statements included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, filed on December 10, 2025." The report stated that the "an error specific to network construction project revenue recognition during the first nine months of 2025," and the "restatement originates from work done by a third-party national accounting firm hired by the Company to assist in its accounting work prior to and immediately following its initial public offering; it did not involve any intentional misconduct with respect to the Company, its management or employees." On this news, Elauwit's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 6.8%, to close at $7.12 per share on March 2, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] ELITE TRANSPORTATION: Etheridge Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ James Etheridge, II, Carmela Lawrence, and Ashley Walker, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. ELITE TRANSPORTATION OF TEXAS, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01823-OLG (W.D. Tex., March 24, 2026), is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), challenging the Defendant's unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors and for unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiffs and other shuttle drivers were paid an hourly rate, set by Elite Transportation. However, Plaintiffs and the other shuttle drivers were only paid by Elite Transportation for the time in which passengers were in the vehicle. The Plaintiffs and other shuttle drivers were not paid for any of the additional time they worked in the course of fulfilling that duty—including the time spent picking up and dropping off the vehicle, driving to and from the pick-up location, and waiting for the passenger(s) to arrive. The Plaintiffs and other drivers working for Elite Transportation received a set hourly rate. They did not receive time-and-a-half for any hours worked in excess of 40 a week. They were also paid only for the time they actually were transporting passengers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as shuttle drivers for Elite Transportation. Elite Transportation describes itself as a "luxury Charter service" and offers shuttle services to individuals, groups, and employers within Austin, San Antonio, and across Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817-479-9229 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Fax (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com ELSEVIER INC: Class Cert. Filing in Nguyen Extended to Sept. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMSA NGUYEN and DAVID GARCIA, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ELSEVIER INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00825-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathaneal Cousins entered an order modifying the case schedule as follows: For discovery on class certification issues: Aug. 24, 2026 For Plaintiffs to file Class Certification Sept. 7, 2026 Motion and omnibus Daubert motion on class certification experts: For the Defendant to file Class Oct. 12, 2026 Certification Opposition, omnibus Daubert motion on class certification experts, and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion: For the Plaintiffs to file their Class Nov. 9, 2026 Certification Reply, Daubert Reply, and Opposition to the Defendant's Daubert motion: Hearing on class certification and Daubert Dec. 9, 2026, motions: 11:00 a.m Elsevier is a global information analytics business specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jyR7ef at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel E. Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher A. Ott, Esq. David A. Forrest, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2000 E-mail: cott@loeb.com EQUIFAX INFO: Parties Seek More Time to Respond to Certain Bids --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALDON MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609-TPB-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Parties' deadlines to respond to certain motions, granting leave to file certain reply briefs, and permitting additional pages for the responses in opposition to certain motions. The Parties request: (a) a 9-day extension, through and including May 6, 2026, of their deadlines to respond to the class certification motion, Turner Daubert, MSJ, King Daubert, and Hendricks Daubert; (b) an additional 5 or 10 pages for Equifax's opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion (for a total of 25 or 30 pages); (c) leave to file a 5- or 10-page reply in support of the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion; (d) an additional 5 pages for the Plaintiff's MSJ opposition (for a total of 25 pages); and (e) an additional 3 pages for Equifax's MSJ reply (for a total of 10 pages). The Parties request a 9-day extension to file their responses to the Class Certification Motion, Turner Daubert, MSJ, Hendricks Daubert, and King Daubert because of: (i) the volume of motions requiring a response; (ii) the complexity of the legal issues at issue; and (iii) competing deadlines in other matters. This is the first request for an extension of the deadlines to file responses to the above-mentioned motions and will not impact other pre-trial deadlines, as the pretrial statement is not due until Aug. 17, 2026. Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=USumUZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. Joseph Kanee, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com joseph@marcuszelman.com The Defendant is represented by: Ross E. Linzer, Esq. John C. Toro, Esq. Alexandra H. Titus, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP Southeast Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 462-6000 E-mail: rlinzer@kslaw.com jtoro@kslaw.com atitus@kslaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ramirez Files Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ SARA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00371 (E.D. Va., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for statutory, actual, and punitive damages, costs and attorney fees, brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The complaint relates that the Defendant blindly accepted and reported loans fraudulently generated by now bankrupt Power Home Solar, LLC d/b/a Pink Energy ("Pink Energy") and its affiliated lending partners. Those entities acted as "furnishers" of credit information, and Experian simply repeated verbatim their reporting in Plaintiff's and other consumers' credit reports without undertaking any meaningful effort to verify its accuracy. The loans were created as a way to sell supposed solar panel systems, usually door-to-door or by phone. The systems were not genuine and are now the subject of a bankruptcy filed on October 7, 2022, in the Western District of North Carolina, and also actions by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia filed in both Virginia and Minnesota. The loans were also grossly inflated and did not conform with ordinary consumer credit instruments more typically reported through Experian. Additionally, the loans that were created to finance these solar sales were themselves fraudulent and void. The Defendant violated the FCRA on a systematic basis by ignoring inconsistent information it received from: consumer disputes, Attorneys General correspondence and public statements, and widespread press coverage of the Pink Energy accounts. Instead, Defendant deferred to contradictory and unverified information reported by automated transmission from its paying subscribers, the Pink Energy Partners. Experian also violated the FCRA when it failed to delete or permanently block the reporting of the disputed Pink Energy Partner accounts when it knew the accuracy of the accounts was in dispute, says the suit. Plaintiff Sara Ramirez is a consumer. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a "Big Three" consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com E-mail: adam@clalegal.com E-mail: mark@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carleen Bongat of Insurance Business Mag reports that an Ohio appeals court has handed insurers a notable win, ruling that a binding appraisal clause can shut down a total-loss class action. The Eighth Appellate District in Cuyahoga County reversed a trial court's class certification order in a decision released on April 23, 2026. The ruling turned on a question that many in the insurance industry have been watching closely: can the appraisal process baked into an auto policy effectively end a policyholder's lawsuit -- and a class action along with it? The case began in 2022 when Farmers Insurance Exchange issued an auto policy to James Stewart covering his 2008 Honda Element. That December, Stewart was involved in an accident and Farmers declared the vehicle a total loss. The insurer elected to pay the claim in cash and sent Stewart $9,795 -- the adjusted vehicle value of $10,295 plus fees, minus his $500 deductible. Stewart did not dispute the payment or invoke the policy's appraisal process at the time. Several months later, Stewart filed a class-action complaint alleging that Farmers had breached its policies by using CCC Intelligent Solutions to apply an undisclosed "condition adjustment" when calculating payouts on total-loss vehicles. The adjustment, Stewart claimed, reduced payments by subtracting an arbitrary amount from the value of comparable vehicles used to determine what the insurer owed. He alleged this practice was never disclosed in the policy and amounted to breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. After the lawsuit was filed, Farmers invoked the appraisal provision in the policy. That provision allowed either party to demand an appraisal, with each side appointing an appraiser. The appraisers would independently determine the actual cash value and the amount of loss, and a written award by any two of them would be binding on both parties. The trial court granted Farmers' motion to compel the appraisal in December 2023, finding the policy language made the process mandatory. The court also rejected Stewart's argument that the appraisal clause could not be triggered once litigation had already begun. The appraisal wrapped up in April 2024. The appraisers determined the actual cash value of Stewart's vehicle to be $11,564.08 -- higher than what Farmers had originally paid. Farmers issued a check for $1,393.29 to cover the difference. Notably, that amount also exceeded the condition adjustment Stewart had complained about. Stewart, however, refused to cash the check and pressed ahead with the lawsuit. In the meantime, Stewart had moved for class certification with a revised class definition that removed the original exclusion of appraisal-based claims and narrowed the class period to claims on or after June 16, 2017. The trial court sided with Stewart, finding that the appraisal did not moot his claims and certifying the class. The appellate court saw it differently. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Kathleen Ann Keough drew a clear line between this case and the "pick-off" scenarios Stewart had relied on. In those earlier cases -- including the Eighth District's own decision in Hoban v. National City Bank and the Sixth District's ruling in Wilson v. Directions Credit Union -- defendants had unilaterally reversed charges or deposited funds into a plaintiff's account as a way to kill the lawsuit before class certification could be pursued. The courts in those cases refused to let that tactic work. But what happened here, the appellate court concluded, was fundamentally different. Farmers did not make a strategic settlement offer or try to buy off the named plaintiff. It followed a binding contractual process that the trial court itself had ordered the parties to complete. Stewart never challenged the enforceability of the appraisal provision, nor did he move to set aside the appraisal award once it was issued. And because the appraisal determined the actual cash value of his vehicle -- the very thing he claimed Farmers failed to pay -- there was no longer a live dispute between the parties. The court also declined to apply either of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine. While it acknowledged that the underlying question about condition adjustments is capable of repetition, it found the procedural circumstances of this particular case were not the kind that would permanently evade judicial review. As for the public interest exception, the court noted that the broader legal question is already heading to the highest level -- the Ohio Supreme Court accepted Davenport v. Progressive Direct Insurance for review in November 2025, a case that directly addresses whether a class can be certified when the dispute centers on a single adjustment within an insurer's valuation process. The bottom line for the industry is straightforward. The appellate court held that because Stewart's individual claims were resolved through the binding appraisal before the class was certified, the entire action -- including the class claims -- had to be dismissed. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded. The decision does not resolve the merits of whether condition adjustments violate Ohio insurance law. That question remains open and will likely be shaped by whatever the Ohio Supreme Court decides in Davenport. But for now, the Stewart ruling reinforces the appraisal clause as a meaningful tool in an insurer's litigation defense -- one that, under the right circumstances, can neutralize class exposure before it takes hold. [GN] FLOW FOUNDATION: Rosen Law Investigate Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of investors in FLOW (FLOW-USD) cryptocurrency, resulting from allegations that Flow Foundation may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased FLOW cryptocurrency you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56767 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: If you purchased FLOW cryptocurrency on or before December 27, 2025 and held your Flow cryptocurrency through December 29, 2025, please reach out to the firm. There are no out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barnes Due July 9 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET BARNES, ERIC SENKYRIK, MICHAEL HOGAN, SHARON JACKSON, SCOTT KAHLER, and MARK PANNULLO individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-06147-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting stipulation to continue deadlines for class certification and discovery. The Court modifies the Scheduling Order as follows: Event Deadline Motion for class certification and July 9, 2026 expert reports: Opposition to motion for class Sept. 8, 2026 certification and expert reports: Reply brief re: motion for class Nov. 2, 2026 certification: Close of expert discovery: Dec. 14, 2026 Expert disclosure (Rebuttal): Sept. 8, 2026 Last Date to Hear Motions [Friday]: Jan. 29, 2027 The Defendant is a global American automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D19VCx at no extra charge.[CC] FOXBLOOD INC: McAfee Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages --------------------------------------------------- Excellent McAfee, and others similarly situated v. FOXBLOOD INC. dba MY VIOLET; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV12120 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and violation of Business and Professions Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay wages. The Defendant violated Labor Codes because it failed to pay Plaintiff and Other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because the Defendant had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Moreover, Plaintiff herself worked "off the clock" in that she had to work through lunch in order to finish projects and tasks and would be interrupted during her meal period by management/co-workers who would ask her questions about particular products. In addition, Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked in, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a front office associate and in social media starting in August 2024. FOXBLOOD INC., doing business as MY VIOLET is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and which employed Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 GERBER LIFE: Higdon Telemarketing Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as REBECCA HIGDON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. N/A, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, Clark County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 31, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05316-JHC to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Gerber Life, or persons acting on its behalf, engaged in telemarketing and telephone solicitation activities in Washington State, including the placing of computerized phone calls to the Plaintiff and Washington State residents to sell products and services. The Plaintiff alleges she received 18 calls more than 30 days after she registered her phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Telephone Solicitation Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Gerber Life Insurance Company provides juvenile and family life insurance products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mark Rosencrantz, Esq. CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104-7010 Telephone: (206) 622-8020 Facsimile: (206) 467-8215 - and - Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Damon W. Suden, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ahumada Suit Due June 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff's reply to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to June 8, 2026. The Parties have a dispute as to whether the Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery relating to the 2021 Declarants (including requests for documents and/or depositions). The Defendant contends that no further discovery should be permitted regarding the 2021 Declarants as the declarations were produced on Nov. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff had ample time to conduct discovery regarding these declarations, and the discovery cutoff has passed. The Plaintiff contends that additional time is required for the Parties to meet and confer and, if they cannot resolve the discovery dispute, submit the discovery dispute for an informal discovery conference and/or discovery motion. To address the above concerns, the Parties have met and conferred and agreed to a continuance of the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Motion. On Nov. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cUC41M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. Maia Mdinaradze, Esq. Daniella J. Lee, 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: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com Maia.Mdinaradze@jacksonlewis.com Daniella.Lee@jacksonlewis.com GLOBANT SA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 23 ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Globant S.A. ("Globant" or the "Company") (NYSE: GLOB), and certain of the Company's directors and officers, alleging violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Globant common stock between February 15, 2024 and August 14, 2025, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Mandeep S. Minhas at (888) 398-9312 for more information. Globant is a Luxembourg-incorporated international technology services company that provides digital consulting, software development, and IT outsourcing services to multinational corporations across a variety of sectors. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Globant S.A., Case No. 26-cv-3405 (S.D.N.Y.), from February 15, 2024 and August 14, 2025 (the "Class Period"), Globant and certain of the Company's directors and officers made materially false and misleading statements about Globant's Latin American operations, including concealing the true state of the Company's Latin American business. When the market learned the truth over the course of 2025, Globant's stock suffered a steep decline. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON JUNE 23, 2026 If you purchased or otherwise acquired Globant common during the Class Period, and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than June 23, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. Contacts Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 (888) 398-9312 mminhas@scott-scott.com [GN] GREIF INC: Scheduling Conference Continued in Lujano Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HILDEFONSO B. LUJANO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GREIF, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00102-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Singer entered an order continuing scheduling conference and setting deadline by which to file motion to remand. On April 13, 2026, the Court convened a scheduling conference. The Court and parties discussed the submitted joint scheduling report, class certification issues, and Plaintiff’s anticipated motion to remand. As agreed at the conference, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file his motion to remand within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer regarding a schedule for class certification discovery and briefing. The parties are directed to consider what discovery is required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b) and to jointly develop a class certification discovery and briefing schedule. Greif is a producer of industrial packaging products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jYE73q at no extra charge.[CC] HAIN CELESTIAL: Paley Balks at Mislabeled Garden Veggie Puffs ------------------------------------------------------------- BONNIE PALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02157 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2026) is brought pursuant to the New York General Business Law arising from Defendant's conduct of making false and misleading statements by marketing its Garden Veggie Puffs as containing "no artificial ingredients" when the products contain synthetic lactic acid and synthetic citric acid. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that the products contain "no artificial ingredients." In purchasing the products, Plaintiff Paley relied on Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive marketing claims. Had Ms. Paley known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading, she would not have purchased the products or would have only been willing to purchase the Products at a lesser price, says the suit. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells organic and natural products in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com HIMS & HERS: Dolphin Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DOLPHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS & HERS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03077 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 2, 2026. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their private information; the loss or diminished value of their private information as a result of the data breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; breach of confidence; violation of California Unfair Competition law; and violation of the California Customer Records Act. Hims & Hers, Inc. is a California-based healthcare technology company focused on delivering virtual care solutions. Defendant is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Mark Reich, Esq. Melissa Meyer, Esq. Tyler Litke, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com IHM LIVING: Paladins Civil Suit Removed to W.D. Wis. ---------------------------------------------------- The case PALADINS OF TRUTH MINISTRY, as Representative for /s/ Carlos J. Cangiano & Orchid Morningstar, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IHM LIVING TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2022; MARK IHM, as Trustee; JULIANNA IHM; MARK IHM; JOHN BEST, Case No. 2026SC000082, was removed from the Grant County Circuit Court, Small Claims Division, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on April 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Wisconsin assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00322-wmc to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(f)(3)(B), by refusing to make reasonable accommodations and by threatening eviction. [BN] INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Innovative Scientific Solutions data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Innovative Scientific Solutions data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Innovative Scientific Solutions Security Incident: What Happened? Innovative Scientific Solutions, operating as Luxor Scientific across two medical testing, research, and development facilities in South Carolina and Texas, has disclosed a data breach. According to a notice on the company's website, Innovative Scientific Solutions learned on September 6, 2025 that certain systems were compromised by a cybersecurity incident. To assess the scope of the breach, Innovative Scientific Solutions enlisted third-party cybersecurity experts, whose investigation revealed that personal information may have been accessed or acquired by unauthorized parties. A letter sent to the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office states that on March 31, 2026, it was determined that the potentially compromised information included full name, date of birth, health insurance policy number/subscriber number, medical history, condition, treatment and/or diagnosis, dates of service, telephone numbers, and prescription information. A report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office indicates that Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial information were also among the information exposed in the Innovative Scientific Solutions data breach. Individuals whose data may have been affected received mailed notifications, which were sent out beginning April 7, 2026. What You Can Do After the Innovative Scientific Solutions Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Innovative Scientific Solutions data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Innovative Scientific Solutions to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] INSURIFY INC: Koontz Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN KOONTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURIFY, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11694-LTS (D. Mass., April 13, 2026) is a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in aggressive text messages sales campaigns to consumers with no regards for consumers' rights under the TCPA, even after customers opt out from Defendant's messages. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Insurify, Inc. is an insurance corporation engaged in the sale of health, life, car and home coverages, to consumers based out of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: omer@edelsberglaw.com IPPC INC: Earl Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------- MELBA EARL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IPPC INC., IPPC OF NEW YORK LLC and INNOVATIVE PHARMACY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03853-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between September 18, 2025, and September 19, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. IPPC Inc. is a long-term care pharmacy and pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Morganville, New Jersey. IPPC of New York LLC is a long-term care pharmacy and pharmaceutical manufacturer in New York. Innovative Pharmacy, LLC is a long-term care pharmacy and pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Morganville, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com IPPC INC: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Hall Says ----------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IPPC INC., IPPC OF NEW YORK LLC and INNOVATIVE PHARMACY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03855-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between September 18, 2025, and September 19, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. IPPC Inc. is a long-term care pharmacy and pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Morganville, New Jersey. IPPC of New York LLC is a long-term care pharmacy and pharmaceutical manufacturer in New York. Innovative Pharmacy, LLC is a long-term care pharmacy and pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Morganville, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com JETBLUE INC: Hit With Claims Over Personal Data-Based Ticket Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Colson Thayer, writing for People, reports that a new proposed class action lawsuit accuses JetBlue of using customers' personal data without their consent to set ticket prices. The class action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York on April 22 and obtained by PEOPLE, claims the airline tracked New York resident Andrew Phillips' personal information as he was booking airfare through the company's website for the "purpose of setting prices." The complaint claims the practice allows JetBlue "to manipulate prices in real time in order to make as much money as they can on fares," and price them differently based on the individual's personal data, "which they did not consent to surrender for this purpose." The complaint further alleges JetBlue sold Phillips' data to third parties without his consent. "Consumers should not have to have their privacy rights violated to participate in [JetBlue's] digital rat race for airline tickets which should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger," the complaint says. Blake Yagman, Phillips' attorney, called JetBlue's alleged use of dynamic surveillance pricing "abhorrent" in an emailed statement shared with PEOPLE. "Each time consumers make transactions online, they should be afforded the same privacy rights as if they had made those transactions in person. And, in an increasingly digital economy, it becomes even harder for consumers to protect their privacy and the data points that are collected about them," Yagman said. He added: "This is even more offensive when consumers are completely unaware of the purposes their data is being taken and specifically to whom it is being shared." Included in the complaint was a screenshot taken of an April 18 exchange on X in which a JetBlue representative seemingly suggested clearing a user's data before using their website. "I love flying @JetBlue but a $230 increase on a ticket after one day is crazy," an X user wrote, tagging the airline. "I'm just trying to make it to a funeral." "Try clearing your cache and cookies or booking with an incognito window," the official JetBlue X account appeared to respond, referring to the temporary data store on a device. "We're sorry for your loss." In a statement shared with PEOPLE from a JetBlue spokesperson, the company says it does "not use personal information or web browsing history to set individual pricing. Fares are determined by demand and seat availability, and all customers have access to the same fares on jetblue.com and our mobile app." Addressing the social media exchange, the spokesperson said the "reply was simply a mistake from an individual customer service crew member. The steps the crew member suggested would not have changed the airfares available for purchase." JetBlue did not comment directly on the proposed class action lawsuit. Phillips is demanding a trial by jury and is seeking an unspecified amount in damages for allegedly violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and two New York consumer protection laws. On Tuesday, April 21, two Democratic lawmakers -- Representative Greg Casar and Senator Ruben Gallego -- asked JetBlue to answer detailed questions about pricing and whether it uses personal data to "inform prices," Reuters reports. [GN] JOEST LLC: Mezoff Bid to Certify Class Tossed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mezoff v. Joest LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-10555 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 4, 2026), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order denying motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify a class for step-one notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion. Although the standard for conditional certification is lenient, plaintiffs cannot satisfy their burden merely by alleging the existence of a common plan. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs fail to make that showing here. At best, each plaintiff alleges that, during a single pay period, he or she worked more hours than his or her paystub reflects, which they infer means meal breaks were automatically deducted. The Defendant, however, unequivocally attests that it does not automatically deduct meal breaks but instead requires employees to clock out at the beginning of their meal breaks and clock back in at the end. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiffs' mere speculation that a contrary policy exists is not sufficient to establish the existence of a similarly situated group of potential plaintiffs. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Joest is in the vibration technology business.[CC] KALSHI INC: Kaiserman Sues Over Illegally Listed Event Contracts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Kaiserman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALSHI INC., KALSHIEX LLC, KALSHI KLEAR INC., KALSHI KLEAR LLC, TAREK MANSOUR, LUANA LOPES LARA, and JOSHUA BEARDSLEY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01525-VMC (N.D. Ga., March 20, 2026), is brought for violations of the Commodities Exchange Act ("CEA") and regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") pursuant to the CEA due to the Defendants' illegally listed and cleared Sporting Event Contracts. The Defendants online platform accessible at its website and mobile app (the "Kalshi Platform") offers "event contracts" where participants who are 18 years or older, including Plaintiff and Class members, can bet or "trade" on "event contracts" that are based on the outcome of sporting events or the performance of players in those sporting events (together, the "Sporting Event Contracts"). The Kalshi Defendants listed and cleared these Sporting Event Contracts in bad faith with full knowledge of these illegalities. By September 2025, 90% of the Kalshi Defendants' revenue was concentrated in illegally listed and cleared Sporting Event Contracts; and by February 2026, the Kalshi Platform traded $1 billion related to the Super Bowl. The Kalshi Defendants engaged in this conduct across all fifty states, including Georgia, evading the exact CFTC regulations it once acknowledged prevented the Sporting Event Contracts it offers today. Moreover, the Kalshi Defendants aggressively marketed their Sporting Event Contracts to college students and people under the age of 21 – the legal age in the vast majority of states where sports gambling is permitted. The Kalshi Defendants and their executive officers have committed multiple violations of the CEA by offering Sporting Event Contracts. These violations have damaged Plaintiff and the putative Class Members by causing them to lose money on Sporting Event Contracts that only existed because the Kalshi Defendants chose to violate their statutory and regulatory obligations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created a Kalshi account in Georgia using his Georgia address and bank account. The Defendants own and operate an online platform accessible at its website and mobile app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Overlook II 2839 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-377-4704 Fax: (888) 410-0415 Email: joel@skclassactions.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Holds Class Cert Bid in Abeyance --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Student DOE #1 et al., v. NOEM et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02998-KSH-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Katharine S. Hayden entered an order granting request to hold in abeyance the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. Accordingly, by way of order dated March 12, 2026, the Court granted this request. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YDNUuk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 E-mail: llustberg@fbtgibbons.com LACOSTE USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hashimi Extended to August 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QASEM HASHIMI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LACOSTE USA, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. 3:25-cv-02559-AGS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Major entered an order granting the joint motion to extend deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed on or before Aug. 21, 2026. Before filing the motion, movant's counsel must contact Judge Schopler’s chambers for a hearing date. Lacoste retails clothings. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H51MXd at no extra charge.[CC] LAST BRAND INC: Hawes Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel D. Hawes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAST BRAND, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV09447 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 20, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's false and misleading marketing of numerous clothing products sold under the brand name "Quince," in violation of the California's consumer protection laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Business and Professions Code Section 17500. The Defendant markets and sells certain products as being made from "Mongolian Cashmere," repeatedly representing, among other things, that the Products contain cashmere originating from "Mongolia." These representations appear prominently in the product titles and marketing statements displayed on Defendant's website, including product names such as "Mongolian Cashmere V-Neck Sweater," "Mongolian Cashmere Crewneck Sweater," and numerous other products labeled as containing "Mongolian Cashmere" and on the Products' label tags. In reality, the cashmere used in the Products does not originate from Mongolia. Instead, Defendant sources the cashmere used in the Products from Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of the People's Republic of China. Despite prominently representing that the Products contain "Mongolian Cashmere," Defendant includes only a buried, miniscule reference stating that the cashmere is sourced from goats in Inner Mongolia, and without explaining that Inner Mongolia is part of China rather than the country of Mongolia. This buried reference does not correct Defendant's prominent and repeated representations that the Products contain Mongolian Cashmere, and reasonable consumers viewing Defendant's marketing would therefore understand that the Products are made from cashmere sourced from Mongolia, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Quince Mongolian Cashmere Cropped Tank. LAST BRAND, INC. dba Quince is the owner and distributor of the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Stevens, Esq. Lauren A. Bochurberg, Esq. STEVENS, LC 1855 Industrial Street, Suite 518 Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (213) 270-1211 Email: pstevens@stevenslc.com lbochurberg@stevenslc.com - and - Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (213) 514-5681 Fax: (213) 514-5682 Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks to Maintain Certain Materials Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10667-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal certain materials submitted by the Plaintiff on April 8, 2026, in support of her (1) Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. and (2) Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of Gareth Macartney, Ph.D. (together, "Plaintiff's April 8 Filings"). Accordingly, these materials contain confidential, proprietary business information and sensitive personal data, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm and infringe on privacy interests. This request is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Second Circuit's standards governing sealing. The Laundress has limited its sealing and redaction requests to information that contains confidential business information, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm. This includes trade secrets, internal strategies, and sensitive commercial data. The request is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Second Circuit's presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. Furthermore, the confidentiality of the exhibits and excerpts identified herein is justified and necessary to prevent competitive injury. Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iUgi6A at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr., Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: rrothste@winston.com LEGATO MEGER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with Einride AB -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Legato Meger Corp. III (NYSE: LEGT) related to its merger with Einride AB. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Legato shareholders will receive one share of Einride common stock for each Legato ordinary share issued in the form of American depository shares. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/legato-meger-corp-iii/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Stellar Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: STEL) related to its sale to Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Stellar shareholders are expected to receive 0.3803 shares of Prosperity common stock and $11.36 in cash for each share of Stellar common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 27, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/stellar-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- CECO Environmental Corp. (NASDAQ: CECO) related to its merger with Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CECO shareholders are expected to own approximately 62.5% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 27, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ceco-environmental-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: THR) related to its sale to CECO Environmental Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Thermon shareholders may elect to receive, for each share of Thermon common stock, either: (i) $10.00 in cash and 0.6840 shares of CECO common stock, (ii) $63.89 in cash per share, or (iii) 0.8110 shares of CECO common stock per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 27, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/thermon-group-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] LEUCADIA BEACH: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- The Malaysian Reserve reports that the lawsuit alleges Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay its employees for all time worked. The San Diego labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group, APLC, filed a class action complaint against Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health, for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods. The class action lawsuit, Case No. 26CU016751C, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the complaint can be read https://www.zakaylaw.com/images/2026_03_25_Conformed-Complaint.Encinitas-Post-Acute).pdf According to the lawsuit, Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections Secs. 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) pay wages when due; and (6) reimburse employees for required expenses. Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period involved, not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health allegedly required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer’s control while working off-the-clock. As such, Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health allegedly failed to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. If you would like to know more about the Leucadia Beach Holdings, Covenant Care Encinitas, Affirma Rehabilitation, and Elevate Home Health lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC is a labor and employment law firm located in California that dedicates its practice to fighting for employees who have been wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices. Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN] LGCY POWER: Class Cert. Bid Opposition Due Feb. 9, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dounane v. LGCY Power, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04720-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a revised case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Sept. 13, 2027 Final pretrial conference: July 29, 2027 Class certification hearing: March 9, 2027 Class certification motion: Reply filed by: Feb. 16, 2027 Opposition to be filed by: Feb. 9 ,2027 Motion filed by: Jan. 26, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 20, 2026 The Defendant is a renewables & environment company that sells solar panels and solar energy. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hgEQb8 at no extra charge.[CC] LIGHT & WONDER: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Poker Gaming Machines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Brief reports that gambling company Light & Wonder said it will "vigorously defend" a new class action lawsuit filed by Melbourne-headquartered law firm Phi Finney McDonald in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The context: The claim alleges that representations provided by Light & Wonder regarding its Dragon Train game "lacked reasonable grounds". The class action has been brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired holdings in the company between 22 May 2023 and 24 September 2024. Light & Wonder agreed in January to pay rival gambling company Aristocrat Leisure $190 million to settle litigation in Australia and the US following claims of misappropriation and infringement of intellectual property. Light & Wonder acknowledged that "certain Aristocrat math information" was used in the development of its Dragon Train and Jewel of the Dragon poker machines. It also agreed to permanently cease commercialisation of those games globally, and to remove existing installations. Dragon Train lead developer Emma Charles, who previously worked at Aristocrat, parted with Light & Wonder in late 2024 after the US District Court of Nevada granted Aristocrat a preliminary injunction and ordered the removal of the gaming machines in North America. [GN] LIVEPERSON INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to SoundHound AI --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating LivePerson, Inc. (NASDAQ: LPSN) related to its sale to SoundHound AI, Inc. for an equity value of $43 million. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liveperson-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] LIVINGSTON FOOD: Faces Cuenca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ ERNESTINO MARIO HERNANDEZ CUENCA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVINGSTON FOOD CORP. (D/B/A METRO FEAST), NOMAN MAYAS, and FARES MAYAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02136 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees and former employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Hernandez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Hernandez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by Defendants at Metro Feast as a deli worker from approximately 2019 until March 9, 2026. Livingston Food Corp. owns, operates, and controls a diner under the name "Metro Feast," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LKQ CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in M.D. Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired LKQ Corporation ("LKQ" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LKQ) securities between February 27, 2023 and July 23, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, LKQ repeatedly touted the benefits of the acquisition. The Complaint alleges that in announcing the acquisition in February 2023, LKQ represented that the acquisition was a "compelling strategic fit" to "enhance LKQ's business and drive profitable growth." The Complaint alleges that LKQ also represented that the acquisition presented "minimal integration risk," including because "Uni-Select's FinishMaster business improves LKQ's scale and product mix to compete" in the North American automotive paint segment. The Complaint states that in truth, FinishMaster was losing major customers and market share, including the business of key clients that were critical to revenue. The Complaint states as LKQ later admitted, these customer losses began before the acquisition started and only grew worse as LKQ continued to integrate FinishMaster into its operations. The truth began to emerge on April 23, 2024, when LKQ surprised investors by lowering its financial guidance, blaming slow demand in its North American segment, where FinishMaster was being integrated. The Complaint alleges that the Company also announced that CEO Dominick Zarcone, who oversaw the Uni-Select acquisition, was departing the Company, as a result of these disclosures, the price of LKQ stock declined by $7.28 per share, or 14.9%. The Complaint states, however, the Company reassured investors that the Uni-Select acquisition "was the right thing to do long term" and that the Company had "uncovered additional synergies" during the integration of FinishMaster. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of LKQ should contact the Firm prior to the June 22, 2026 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] M&T BANK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the M&T Bank data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the M&T Bank data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. M&T Bank Security Incident: What Happened? M&T Bank has reported that a security incident involving a third-party service provider has compromised customer information. M&T Bank's own systems were not impacted. A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that in August 2025, the third-party service provider, whose system contained M&T customer personal data, experienced a data breach. Subsequently, M&T Bank worked with the provider to determine the affected data. According to a report to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, the M&T Bank data breach compromised Social Security numbers, financial account information, and credit/debit card numbers. M&T Bank operates branches and ATM-only locations in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. What You Can Do After the M&T Bank Data Breach If your information was exposed in the M&T Bank data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force M&T Bank to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] MANAGEMENT ASSOC INC: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to July 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riva on the River Homeowners Assoc. v. The Management Assoc, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02782 (E.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Chi Soo Kim entered an order granting the Parties' request to extend the briefing deadlines and hearing associated with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as modified as follows: Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: April 14, 2026 -- Deadline extended to April 21, 2026. Reply to Motion for Class Certification: June 15, 2026 -- Deadline extended to June 22, 2026. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: July 7, 2026 -- Hearing continued to July 28, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The nature of suit states Breach of Fiduciary Duty.[CC] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Merrell Appeals Summary Judgment Order -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL MERRELL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Paul Merrell, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06664-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On Oct. 6, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge William H. Orrick granted on Mar. 9, 2026. In sum, the Court concludes that there is no dispute of material fact that Merrell lacks standing and Marriott's website met ADA standards for Merrell's purposes. The appellate case is styled as Merrell, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 26-2241, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 15, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on April 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on May 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 1, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 31, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PAUL MERRELL, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Chumahan Benjamin Bowen, Esq. Jesenia Martinez, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Jennifer Leinbach, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Defendant-Appellee MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. is represented by: Alex Donald Terepka, Esq. Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 MATCHABAR INC: Faces Suit Over Falsely Advertised Matcha Powder --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that MatchaBar, Inc. is staring down a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges its Ceremonial Grade Matcha Powder is low quality and not fit for use in a Japanese tea ceremony as advertised. The 24-page false advertising lawsuit daycontends that MatchaBar, which represents that its Ceremonial Grade Matcha Powder is of such high quality that it is suitable for use in a traditional Japanese tea ceremony, has charged consumers an unwarranted premium price given that its matcha powder is not of the highest grade and quality. MatchaBar repeatedly emphasizes throughout advertising and marketing materials the purportedly "ceremonial grade" characteristics of its matcha powder, the suit conveys. On the product's Amazon page, for instance, the company claims that the matcha is "certified ceremonial grade" by a tea master in Kagoshima, Japan who supposedly has a tenth-level "tea master," or "chashi," certification. Per the suit, marketing materials further claim that the company works to "craft the smoothest ceremonial grade matcha in the world." According to the class action lawsuit, Japanese tea ceremonies, or "sa-dou," use matcha, a powdered green tea, that is grown and harvested in accordance with "strict" rules and a "laborious and exacting" production process, and due to the rigorous standards involved in its production, is one of the "most expensive" teas on the market, the filing says. The suit explains that high-quality matcha powder is made with the top three layers of young tea plants that have been shade-grown and contain higher levels of chlorophyll, which gives high-quality matcha its characteristic striking green color. After the leaves are harvested, they are steamed, deveined and ground in stone mills, the case says. Matcha is evaluated based on five criteria, the filing explains, including color, particle size, ability to foam, foam color and taste. High-quality matcha is a "vivid" bright green color with fine, uniform particles that produce "abundant" green foam and give the tea a "complex and deep" aroma and taste with a "dissolved" mouthfeel, the lawsuit says. By contrast, low-quality matcha tends to be marked by "bluish-black," white-washed, reddish-brown or yellowish hues, with uneven grainy particles that foam poorly, which the case says creates a gritty mouthfeel with a "grassy or raw" aroma and a burnt, bitter taste. The filing says that while the term "ceremonial grade" is not used for matcha in Japan, matcha producers and Western media sources such as Bon Appetit have used the term to refer to matcha of the highest possible quality, and consumers "ubiquitously" understand that matcha powders with a ceremonial grade designation are superior and "fit for use" in Japanese tea ceremonies, the suit relays. Per the complaint, independent testing of the MatchaBar Ceremonial Grade Matcha Powder by a Japanese tea-grading expert using a sensory evaluation method revealed that the matcha powder is of a lower quality than the "ceremonial grade" designation would suggest. The case says that the expert found that MatchaBar powder would be "unlikely" to be selected for use in an authentic Japanese tea ceremony; the product was allegedly tinged with "a strong yellow hue," redness and blueish-black tones, suggesting that the tea leaves used were older or not properly shaded as the plant grew, that the chlorophyll had degraded or that there were errors in processing time. Additionally, tea made with the matcha powder lacked the characteristic bright green color of high-quality matcha, the filing states, and the taste was tainted by "bitterness and astringency." Had the plaintiffs and class members known that the MatchaBar matcha powder was misleadingly labeled and of a lower quality than a reasonable consumer would expect, they would not have paid the price premium commanded by "ceremonial grade" matcha, the lawsuit states. The MatchaBar class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who purchased at least one of the company's MatchaBar Ceremonial Grade Matcha Powder products in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Consolidated Bid to Seal Class Cert Materials OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting joint consolidated administrative motion to seal materials filed in connection with class certification, motions to exclude, and other briefing as modified. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xdzx6A at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. Natalie J. Hausknecht, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com META PLATFORMS: Sealing of Class Certification Docs Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. Case :22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order sealing materials filed in connection with class certification, motions to exclude, and other briefing. Meta's requests are narrowly tailored to seal only the most sensitive, non-public information contained within these documents that reflect Meta's highly confidential Source Code, proprietary data storage systems, matching methods, integrity systems, advertiser account information, and employee contact information. Disclosure of this information would place Meta at a competitive disadvantage and could allow bad actors to undermine the integrity of Meta's systems (or in the case of employee contact information, risk a security concern to Meta), and is unnecessary to the public's understanding of this case. And the plaintiffs' requests are narrowly tailored to seal only material that reflects Plaintiffs' personal financial information or reveals (or may reveal) the identify of plaintiff Jane Doe. Meta is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Threads, and Man. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vxyJdH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Liskow, Esq. Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com rpeterson@4-Justice.com - and - Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. Natalie J. Hausknecht, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Aunan Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER AUNAN, on behalf of her minor child, L.A., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC SPECIALISTS, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-26-5971 (D. Minn., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to exercise reasonable care in supervising its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers, and in handling and securing the sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members which actually and proximately caused the Data Breach and Plaintiff's and Class Members' injury. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving its services, Defendant requires that its patients, including Plaintiff and Class Members, entrust it with highly sensitive Private Information. Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. On April 8, 2026, Defendant fell victim to a ransomware attack executed by "The Gentlemen" threat group. The Gentlemen exfiltrated highly sensitive data from Defendant's systems, including sensitive Private Information belonging to Defendant's patients. Defendant's failure to report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information, says the suit. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the Class, for monetary damages and injunctive relief including lifetime credit monitoring and ID theft monitoring. Plaintiff Heather Aunan is a victim of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Defendant Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists, P.A. is a Minnesota-based healthcare provider of care for children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S, Ste 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com MICROSOFT CORP: CAT Certifies GBP2-Bil. Suit Over Cloud Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Saran of Computer Weekly reports that a case seeking compensation for approximately 59,000 businesses and organisations using the Microsoft Windows Server operating system in non-Microsoft public clouds is going ahead. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ruled to certify a GBP2bn legal action against Microsoft over its cloud computing and software practices. The collective action court case, brought by digital markets regulation expert Maria Luisa Stasi, accuses Microsoft of overcharging UK businesses and organisations that use its Windows Server on rival cloud services. CAT dismissed Microsoft's arguments against certification and granted a Collective Proceedings Order on an opt-out basis, allowing the case to head to trial. Speaking to Computer Weekly at the end of last year, Stasi discussed Microsoft's dominance. "Microsoft is dominant on some parts of the [IT infrastructure] stack and is using this power to impose things that otherwise will be difficult to accept for business users, and the reality is that they can do that because they limit choice for people," she said. "For years, Microsoft's practices have had real financial impact on both public and private organisations. I'm now looking forward to preparing for trial and getting their money back on their behalf." In March this year, the UK Competition and Markets Authority announced it would launch a Strategic Market Status investigation into Microsoft, probing its software licensing practices in the cloud market. The class action from Stasi involves two aspects of Microsoft licensing. The first is pricing abuse of Microsoft Service Provider License Agreement (SPLA) and concerns Microsoft charging wholesale prices for Windows Server under SPLAs that are higher than those for equivalent licences charged to Azure users. The second is abuse of re-licensing, which is where Microsoft allows organisations with on-premise Windows Server licences to deploy the server operating system on Azure, without the need to pay re-licensing fees. This is not possible if the customer chooses to deploy Windows Server on a cloud service provider that is listed as approved by Microsoft. Re-Licensing Abuse operates by way of the Azure Hybrid Benefit which is granted to the holder of an on-premise licence. "We are very pleased with the tribunal's decision, including its confirmation that Dr Stasi's action should proceed on an opt-out basis, as sought in her application," said James Hain-Cole, partner at law firm Scott+Scott, which is leading on the case against Microsoft. "Certification of this claim is a pivotal step in securing compensation for thousands of businesses and organisations," he added. "The decision illustrates the importance of the regime for UK businesses who, like consumers, require and deserve the access to justice that it was designed to offer. Looking ahead to the trial, we are proud to be supporting Dr Stasi's efforts to provide access to justice for those organisations that have suffered as a result of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, which remains the target of competition regulators around the world." In its ruling, the court dismissed Microsoft's arguments and allowed the case to head to trial. It also concluded that the claim "comfortably crosses the hurdle of having a real prospect of success". [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: UK Tribunal Sends Cloud Licenses Suit to Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Speed of The Register reports that a UK Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed Microsoft's objections to a collective action lawsuit brought by UK-based cloud licensees, clearing the way for trial. The case seeks compensation for approximately 59,000 businesses and organizations over Microsoft's pricing of Windows Server on Azure versus competing cloud platforms including AWS and Google Cloud -- allegations that Microsoft charged less for the software on its own platform than on rivals'. If Microsoft loses, it could face liability of up to GBP2 billion (c $2.7 billion). The CAT granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) on an opt-out basis, and said in its judgment that the claim "comfortably passes" the reasonable prospect of success threshold. The CPO -- expected to be published within weeks -- will set a deadline for businesses to opt out, and may include directions for when hearings begin. Microsoft's protestations concerned funding and the merits of the case. Lead claimant Dr Maria Luisa Stasi called the ruling "an important moment for thousands of organisations impacted by Microsoft's conduct." She added: "For years, Microsoft's practices have had real financial impact on both public and private organizations. I'm now looking forward to preparing for trial and getting their money back on their behalf." A spokesperson for Microsoft told The Register: "We will pursue an appeal of the Tribunal's decision because it failed to follow recent precedent from the Supreme Court on class action certifications. We also dispute the underlying allegations by the class representative, and today's decision makes no final determination on those claims." The case, filed in December 2024, is one of several legal headaches for Microsoft in the UK. The company is separately appealing a CAT ruling over secondhand software sales in a claim brought by reseller ValueLicensing. Jonathan Horley, boss at ValueLicensing, said of the class action case heading to trial: "However it pans out, it is very good that MS are being held to account over their strategic move to a subscription model. "Over the last 15 years, in both the desktop and datacenter environments, VL believes that Microsoft has abused its dominant position to achieve that aim. I believe the Stasi and Wolfson claims are manifestations of that." Cloud provider Civo also welcomed the development. CEO Mark Boost told us: "Ensuring a level playing field for all providers is essential to fostering innovation, expanding choice, and delivering the best outcomes for customers." Microsoft's alleged licensing practices have drawn scrutiny across Europe and further afield -- in 2024, the company settled with EU cloud vendor group CISPE with a payout and commitments to change its practices. CISPE had no comment to make on this latest development. In the same year, Google filed a complaint with the European Commission's anti-trust team over the matter. The FTC is examining if Microsoft's cloud clout crosses the line, and authorities in Japan are investigating if the vendor has violated anti-monopoly laws. Google and AWS have not commented on the CAT licensing ruling, which sends the case to trial. [GN] MIDLAND NATIONAL: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL J. ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending her deadline to file her reply in support of her motion for class certification and her resistance to the Defendant's motion to strike the expert declarations of Howard Zail and Robert Mills from April 28, 2026, to May 28, 2026, and to adjust certain related interim deadlines accordingly. The suit says that conflicting and shifting deadlines in separate matters involving the same expert witnesses and members of the Plaintiff's legal team have necessitated an adjustment to the current schedule. The requested extension will permit the Plaintiff to provide the Court with comprehensive briefing that thoroughly addresses the complex actuarial and economic arguments raised in the Defendant's motions. The close of discovery and all subsequent deadlines, including the dispositive motion deadline, summary judgment briefing, the final pretrial conference, and trial, would remain unchanged. Midland provides life insurance and annuities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6luMaF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin G. Maxon, Esq. Chandler M. Surrency, Esq. HOPKINS & HUEBNER, P.C. 2700 Grand Avenue, Suite 111 Des Moines, IA 50312 Telephone: (515) 244-0111 Facsimile: (515) 697-4299 E-mail: rmaxon@hhlawpc.com csurrency@hhlawpc.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Nicholas N. Spear, Esq. Halley W. Josephs, Esq. Kim Page, Esq. Erik Wilson, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Eve A. Levin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com nspear@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com ewilson@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com elevin@susmangodfrey.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Tuck, Esq. William H. Higgins, Esq. Tania L. Rice, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7134 Facsimile: (404) 253-8404 E-mail: andy.tuck@alston.com william.higgins@alston.com tania.rice@alston.com - and - Michael A. Dee, Esq. Jennifer E. Lindberg, Esq. BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS, AND BASKERVILLE, P.L.C. 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-2510 Telephone: (515) 242-2400 Facsimile: (515) 323-8531 E-mail: dee@brownwinick.com jen.lindberg@brownwinick.com MILLIMAN INC: Thao Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leng Thao, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MILLIMAN, INC., Case No. 26-2-10685-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on April 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01339. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Milliman violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Phone: 206-816-6603 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffery M. Wells, Esq. WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 Phone: (206) 628-6600 Email: jwells@williamskastner.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bryan Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Merlene Bryan, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00521 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03321-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Chesney Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joanne Chesney, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00509 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03322-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarkson Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Clarkson, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00501 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03323-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Selhaver Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Selhaver, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00517 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03325-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MORTGAGEPROS LLC: McGee Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgagepros, LLC. The case is styled as Marcus McGee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mortgagepros, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00170 (D. Neb., April 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MortgagePros -- https://mtgpros.com/ -- is a leading mortgage company specializing in home loans and refinancing solutions, including conventional, FHA, and VA loans.[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 MUBI INC: Final Hearing in $1.6M Deal Subscription Suit Set July 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that MUBI agreed to a $1.6 million class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to provide adequate notice that its subscriptions automatically renewed and failed to seek sufficient consent to the renewals. The MUBI class action settlement benefits California residents who signed up for a MUBI subscription on or after April 1, 2021, that was renewed between April 1, 2021, and May 31, 2025, and who did not receive a refund from MUBI for all subscription renewal charges. MUBI is a global streaming service, production company and film distributor that offers a rotating selection of films. According to a class action lawsuit, MUBI failed to provide adequate notice that its subscriptions automatically renewed and failed to seek sufficient consent to the renewals. The plaintiff says he was charged for an automatically renewing subscription without being given adequate notice. MUBI has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.6 million to resolve these claims. Under the terms of the MUBI settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed and the amount deducted for fees and other costs. Class members can choose to receive their settlement payment as a check or electronic payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 9, 2026. The final approval hearing for the MUBI subscription settlement is scheduled for July 16, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 9, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits California residents who signed up for a MUBI subscription on or after April 1, 2021, that was renewed between April 1, 2021, and May 31, 2025, and who did not receive a refund for all subscription renewal charges. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A 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 06/09/2026 Case Name Cesar Cejudo v. Mubi Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-03652-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 07/16/2026 Settlement Website MubiSettlement.com Claims Administrator Cejudo v. MUBI Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 admin@mubisetlement.com (833) 319-1847 Class Counsel Jonas Jacobson Simon Franzini Martin Brenner Grace Bennett DOVEL & LUNER LLP Defense Counsel Michael H. Rubin Gregory W. Swartz LATHAM & WATKINS LLP [GN] MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Robinson Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Laureen Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUNSON HEALTHCARE, Case No. 1:26-cv-01080-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich., April 1, 2026), is brought arising from a data breach. The Defendant manages and maintains medical records as part of its business operations, lost control over highly sensitive protected health information ("PHI") in a cybersecurity breach ("Data Breach"). Despite recognizing the risk that security breaches pose to the information it maintains in its systems, and its responsibility to quickly warn them about data breaches, Munson failed to implement reasonable security measures to safeguard PHI. The Defendant is well-aware it is responsible for safeguarding highly sensitive PII and PHI. The Defendant stated "Munson will not provide your information to any Other person or company for marketing any products or services other than Munson products or services unless you have signed an authorization." The Defendant failed its responsibilities. As set forth in the notice the Defendant provided to its patients on January 12, 2026, a third party hired by the Defendant allowed sensitive medical records to be exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeking damages for the injuries that the Defendant's negligence have and will cause, as well as injunctive relief to ensure that the data the Defendant continues to store Will be protected by reasonable data security practices going forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a victim of the data breach. Munson Healthcare is a health care provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Abood, Esq. Jeffrey L. Abood, Esq. ABOOD LAW FIRM 246 E. Saginaw Street, Suite 100 East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: (517) 332-5900 Email: andrewnaboodlaw.com kff@aboodlaw.com - and - Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 578-5582 Email: mboyle@bgandg.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. 60 East Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com NASSAU COUNTY ASSESSORS: Grand Ave 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 Grand Ave Center Inc., 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. 401308/2026 (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: Rita Eredics 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 Rita Eredics, 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. 401316/2026 (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: Thermo King 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 Thermo King Metropolitan/CNR Refrigeration, 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. 401305/2026 (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: Vlahakis 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 Estate of Vlahakis Stylianos and Vlahakis Maria Trust, 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. 401313/2026 (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 NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Bryant Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frank Bryant, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC, D/B/A NFI; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2600526 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04102. The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; and unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, 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: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Valentina Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: vwilson@littler.com NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS: O'Day Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Jim O'Day, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00960-JHC (W.D. Wash., March 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.naviabenefits.com/ -- provides comprehensive health and compliance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com NEOGEN CORP: Hycoat Equine Solution Contain Microbes, Martin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIFNI MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEOGEN CORPORATION, SCIARRA AEROMED, INC., SCIARRA LABORATORIES, INC., BELL-MORE LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00270 (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2026) is an action on behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased and used a now-recalled equine product called "Hycoat." All Defendants are agents of each other, with respect their respective duties to manufacture, market, and/or distribute Hycoat. Defendant Hymed has been in the business of making and selling Hycoat since 1995. Despite describing itself as a manufacturer, Hymed does not directly manufacture or market its Hycoat product. Instead, it relies on contracted partner businesses, like NeoGen, Sciarra Defendants, and BML. By October and November 2025, veterinarians began to contact NeoGen directly with concerns about Hycoat's relationship to the deteriorating health of the horses they were treating. Equine veterinary practitioners began to suspect that the injuries they observed in their clients' horses were related to the use of Hycoat. On January 28, 2026, Defendant NeoGen publicly issued what it described as a "Nationwide Recall" of its Hycoat product. The Food and Drug Administration designated this recall as the most serious type of recall because there is a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death for horses. According to the complaint, Hycoat was sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition, as it was contaminated with microbes. Unfortunately, contaminated Hycoat leads to fungal infection in horses. This infection leads to severe injury and in many cases, death, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Martin was the owner of JS LONE CARRIZZO "Izzie," an 8-year-old standardbred horse. Neogen Corporation provides a comprehensive range of solutions and services for the food processing, animal protein, and agriculture industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilyas Sayeg, Esq. Cam F. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE LAW 8551 W Sunrise Blvd., Ste. 300 Plantation, FL 33322 Telephone: (954) 515-5656 Facsimile: (954) 515-5657 E-mail: justicepleadings@justiceinjurylawyer.com NEW YORK HEALTH: Vaca Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Vaca, v. New York Health & Hospitals Corporation et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04804-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Subramanian entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Court agrees that the plaintiff has met the low threshold at this stage to distribute notice. However, the Court directs that the plaintiff make two changes to the proposed notice. First, notice should be distributed only by mail and email, not by text message. Second, the notice should be modified as plaintiff suggests in his reply brief to address defendants' concerns. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 44. New York Health is a municipal health care delivery system. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mKxHrA at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Expert Discovery in Z.Q. Suit Due May 15 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q., et al., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered an order revising class schedule as follows: Expert discovery to be completed by May 15, 2026 The Plaintiffs' class certification motion, Daubert motions, and The Defendants' summary judgment motions due by June 5, 2026 -- Oppositions due by July 10, 2026 -- Replies due by July 20, 2026 The New York City Department of Education manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xo6Pl8 at no extra charge.[CC] NINTENDO CO: Gamers File Class Action Over U.S. Tariff Refunds -------------------------------------------------------------- According to a report from Game File, a pair of gamers have filed a class action lawsuit against Nintendo. This will represent everyone in the U.S. who purchased products impacted by a price increase between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026. Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan say they bought Nintendo products that saw a price increase because of tariffs. As stated by Game File, they're now claiming that the company "will be unjustly enriching itself with any refund it secures from the U.S. government over widespread tariffs last year that, among other things, hiked the prices of Nintendo hardware and accessories." The lawsuit states: "Unless restrained by this Court, Nintendo stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds." Like many companies, Nintendo was impacted by the tariffs that went into effect last year. It was the catalyst that led to the price increase of various products, including the original Nintendo Switch, Switch 2 Pro Controller and Joy-Con 2, and more. We have the list of changes at https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-switch-price-change-list/ Nintendo filed its own lawsuit against the U.S. government last month. However, it was put on hold pending the implementation of a refund system, with the process now starting this week. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Parties Seek to Set Class Certification Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Elias, Kelly Wemer, James Gallina, Julie Gallina, Tesha Hall, Brian Lawson, and Montgomery Headley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00348 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to set deadlines for the completion of discovery and a class certification briefing schedule pursuant to the Court's May 20, 2024 Order. To date, the Parties have conducted significant discovery, including exchanging written discovery and documents and completing several party depositions. However, additional discovery currently remains outstanding as the Parties intend to, inter alia, exchange additional written discovery and take additional party depositions and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. On April 10, 2026, the Parties conferred and agreed to the following deadlines for the completion of discovery and Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for class certification: a. Deadline to complete fact discovery: Aug. 14, 2026 b. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification and serve any expert report(s) related to class certification: Sept. 18, 2026 c. Deadline for Defendant to depose Plaintiffs’ class certification expert witnesses: Oct. 26, 2026 d. Deadline for Defendant to file its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, file Daubert motion(s), and serve related class certification expert report(s): Dec. 2, 2026 e. Deadline for Plaintiffs to depose Defendant’s class certification expert witnesses: Jan. 8, 2027 f. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of motion for class certification, response(s) to Defendant’s Daubert motion(s), and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Feb. 15, 2027 Nissan operates in the automotive industry. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0XgVJ7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Susan S. Lafferty, Esq. LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, INC. 1321 Murfreesboro Pike, Suite 521 Nashville, TN 37229 Telephone: (615) 878-1926 Facsimile: (615) 472-7852 E-mail: ssl@laffertylawtn.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brigid M. Carpenter, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 1600 West End Avenue Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 726-7341 E-mail: bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com - and - Peter J. Brennan, Esq. Elena M. Olivieri, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 E-mail: pbrennan@jenner.com eolivieri@jenner.com NORDVPN S.A.: Class Cert. Filing Extended to April 9, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peterson v. Nordvpn S.A. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03218 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting joint motion for extension of case deadlines. The Scheduling Order is amended as follows: The deadline for joinder parties and amendment of pleadings is August 7, 2026, The fact discovery cutoff is October 30, 2026. The deadline to serve opening expert reports is November 20, 2026, The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is December 18, 2026. The expert discovery cutoff is February 26, 2027. The deadline for filing the motion for class certification is April 9, 2027. The deadline to oppose the motion for class certification is May 7, 2027. The deadline to file the reply in further support of the motion for class certification is June 4, 2027. The October 3, 2025 deadline for service of written discovery requests was not addressed in the motion. The Court sets that deadline at 45 days prior to the fact discovery cutoff date. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. NordVPN is a cybersecurity company.[CC] NORDVPN SA: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal of Subscriptions --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that NordVPN, which owns the brand Nord Security, is staring down a class action lawsuit that alleges the privacy and cybersecurity service provider has illegally enrolled consumers into difficult-to-cancel, automatically renewing subscriptions without providing the necessary disclosures or obtaining consent. According to the 65-page filing, when a consumer purchases Nord Security services -- which include a virtual private network called NordVPN, the NordPass password manager and an encrypted cloud storage service called NordLocker -- Nord enrolls them in an automatically recurring subscription without adhering to the strict requirements of Virginia and North Carolina law. The lawsuit further contends that Nord Security "buries" the subscription cancellation method on its website to continue extracting revenue from consumers who were unwittingly enrolled in unwanted Nord subscriptions. The Nord Security class action lawsuit states that Virginia's Consumer Protection Act and North Carolina's Automatic Renewal Law require online retailers to disclose the terms of automatically renewing subscriptions in clear, conspicuous language, obtain consumer consent, and provide a timely, cost-effective and easy cancellation method. Instead of following these requirements, Nord Security acts in bad faith and uses deceptive tricks, known as dark patterns, to ensnare consumers in unwanted automatically renewing subscriptions, the filing alleges. The complaint explains that dark patterns refer to carefully designed, misleading user interfaces that trick consumers into making choices they otherwise would not make, such as "nudging" consumers to spend more money, view more ads or hand over personal information. The filing claims that Nord Security "deceives" consumers by hiding crucial automatic renewal and cancellation terms in "confusing, inconsistent, and inaccurate" language when consumers purchase a cybersecurity service on its website for what they believe is a fixed term, such as two years. Per the case, when consumers navigate to the payment page on Nord Security's website, they must scroll to the bottom of the page to view an "inadequate" disclosure of the automatic renewal terms in an easy-to-miss light grey font. Indeed, the case says that Nord Security's automatic renewal terms are not in "visual proximity" to the request for payment, and the disclosure allegedly only provides "tiny," inconspicuous links to terms that still do not explain the nature of the automatic renewal offer or provide a cancellation mechanism. After consumers purchase a service from Nord Security, they generally receive acknowledgment and receipt emails from the company confirming their purchase, the filing states. The complaint says the emails are woefully insufficient as they do not include information about the terms of automatic renewal, the length of the subscription, the recurring charges or any instructions on how to cancel a Nord Security subscription. The lawsuit adds that Nord Security's acknowledgment emails similarly do not include a toll-free telephone number, an email address or another timely and easy-to-use cancellation mechanism as required by Virginia law. The case goes on to claim that companies like Nord Security capitalize on their arduous and confusing cancellation processes to rake in more money from consumers, knowing that "harried" consumers are unlikely to take the extra steps needed to cancel. Consumers who wish to cancel a Nord Security subscription online must log in to their account and navigate through the billing, subscription and management pages before finally being presented with the option to cancel, per the filing. The lawsuit says this is a classic example of a dark pattern known as a "roach motel," meaning users can easily sign up for the service but must navigate an overly complicated, multi-step cancellation process intended to "thwart" their efforts to cancel their subscription. Moreover, the case says that consumers who use Nord Security's mobile app have no apparent way to cancel autorenewal, which is a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Importantly, once consumers are "trapped" in an automatically renewing subscription, Nord Security blatantly fails to provide accurate information about when they will be charged, the lawsuit states. Both Virginia and North Carolina require companies to provide notice of the upcoming autorenewal, the date by which a consumer must cancel to avoid being charged, cancellation methods and a copy of the automatic renewal terms and conditions. Nord Security also employs a "highly unconventional" practice of charging consumers for their subscription 14 days before their subscription period ends, rather than automatically renewing it at the beginning of a new subscription period, the case says. Finally, the lawsuit says Nord violates Virginia law by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" notice of important changes to customers' automatic renewal terms and failing to explain how to cancel in each notice about term changes. The plaintiff, an active duty service member, says he first purchased a Nord Security subscription in 2021 while stationed in Virginia. The lawsuit says that after the plaintiff's initial two-year plan ended, he chose not to renew the subscription, believing that when it expired, his subscription would be terminated. However, the filing says that unbeknownst to the plaintiff, his subscription was renewed and he was charged for the unwanted Nord Security subscription on three more occasions -- for a total of $488.24. The Nord Security class action lawsuit looks to cover all Nord Security customers in Virginia, including customers of companies Nord Security acts as a successor to, who were automatically enrolled into and charged for at least one month of Nord Security membership by the privacy company at any time from the applicable statute of limitations period to the date of judgment. The case also looks to represent all Nord Security customers in North Carolina (including customers of companies Nord acts as a successor to) from the "earliest allowable date" through the date of judgment. [GN] NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks Stay in Suit Over Jail Mental Health Services ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Journal Staff reports that state health regulators are asking a judge to pause his consideration of class action status for a lawsuit targeting mental health services provided to North Carolina jail inmates. The group Disability Rights North Carolina alleges that state officials fail to provide timely services to pretrial detainees who might be incapable to proceed to trial. DRNC filed paperwork in March to pursue the case as a class action. In a motion Monday, April 20, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Devdutta Sangvai requested a stay of DRNC's request of class action certification. "[A] stay is appropriate to allow Defendants to take pre-certification discovery necessary for them to properly evaluate the class certification issues raised in the motion," wrote Michael Wood, the state special deputy attorney general representing DHHS and Sangvai. "Without a stay, Defendants will suffer unfair prejudice, the Court will not be presented with a full and adequate record by which to properly evaluate these important class certification issues, and the interests of justice will not be served. In contrast, a stay will not prejudice Plaintiffs." US District Judge William Osteen issued a March 30 order allowing the lawsuit to proceed. DRNC alleges that DHHS "is responsible for, but has failed to provide timely and adequate capacity assessments and restoration services to pretrial detainees who are suspected of, or adjudicated to be, incapable to proceed to trial due to mental health disabilities or cognitive disabilities," according to a June 2025 court order. Affected inmates are known as "ITP detainees" because they are or may be incapable to proceed to trial. Osteen's latest order refused DRNC's request to issue an injunction against DHHS. But Osteen endorsed a modified version of a magistrate judge's 2025 order allowing portions of the lawsuit to move forward. The trial judge rejected the portion of the suit claiming that DHHS policies created an illegal disparate impact. "DRNC does not and cannot sufficiently allege the comparison necessary to establish a disparity; it cannot show that NCDHHS' practices in managing the ITP system 'has a more harsh effect' on persons with disabilities than those without because no persons without disabilities qualify for ITP services in the first place," Osteen wrote. "DRNC fails to sufficiently allege the necessary 'causal connection' -- that is, a disparity -- to make out a disparate impact claim." Osteen looked more favorably on DRNC's claim that state health officials failed "to make a reasonable accommodation" for the ITB detainees. "Here, DRNC's allegations appear to raise the question of whether the North Carolina's ITP system 'waiting list' moves at a reasonable pace," the judge wrote. "That is, when a criminal defendant is designated as ITP and, therefore, requires assessment and subsequent treatment, whether the amount of time that criminal defendant must wait to receive these services is reasonable. Reasonableness is a fact-intensive and context-dependent question; there is no Fourth Circuit decision that clearly suggests what is reasonable in this context. Therefore, this claim presents issues which would benefit from further factual development and dismissal at the 12(b)(6) stage is not appropriate." While the case can move forward, Osteen explained why he would not issue an injunction. "This court cannot find that DRNC has established that, at this stage, 'an injunction is in the public interest,'" he wrote. "DRNC's requested preliminary injunction implicates and could have an adverse impact on, among other things, North Carolina's health system, particularly psychiatric hospitals and emergency departments, and its justice and public safety systems." "Additionally, given the complexities of, and the many actors involved in, the ITP system, this court does not fin[d] that, at this stage, the record before it supplies sufficient information to appropriately craft an injunctive order, if it wanted to," Osteen added. DRNC initially filed suit in April 2024. Identified in a court filing as "the federally mandated protection and advocacy organization for people with disabilities in North Carolina," DRNC is seeking to amend its complaint. The group is also asking Osteen to permit four additional inmate plaintiffs who would serve as representatives for a larger class. The class would cover "[a]ll individuals with serious mental health and other cognitive disabilities charged with crimes who are or will be detained in North Carolina jails to await capacity evaluations or restoration services that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services ('NCDHHS') is statutorily required to provide," according to a class-action motion. The amended complaint focuses attention on House Bill 307, approved in October 2025. The legislation "will add to the bottlenecks in the waitlist for individuals awaiting evaluation or admission for involuntary commitment services that will ultimately impact detainees deemed incapable to proceed," DRNC claimed in a court filing. The updated complaint alleges that HB 307 will "exacerbate" the original problems identified in the 2024 lawsuit. The latest version of the complaint also attempts to address issues that prompted US Magistrate Judge Joe Webster to recommend dismissing part of the suit in 2025. DRNC claimed in its initial suit that DHHS violated "the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." The lawsuit sought a preliminary injunction against DHHS and an oral argument in the case. Webster recommended in 2025 against issuing an injunction or holding an oral argument. He also recommended dismissing the portion of the complaint dealing with Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. He would have allowed DRNC to continue to pursue claims linked to "violations of substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment." "Taking the facts as alleged in the Complaint as true, the undersigned concludes that DRNC has alleged a plausible substantive due process Fourteenth Amendment claim that NCDHHS is violating the rights of ITP detainees to be free from incarceration by subjecting them to prolonged confinement in county jails while they await ITP or IVC examinations and/or treatment at a state psychiatric hospital or other appropriate integrated settings," Webster wrote. "The claim is grounded in a liberty interest in freedom from incarceration, reasonable conditions of safety and mental health care, and timely restorative treatment." "The undersigned also concludes that DRNC has alleged a plausible procedural due process claim against NCDHHS," Webster wrote. The 2024 lawsuit contended that people with mental health issues sat in North Carolina's county jails for months before getting required services. "Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a person with a mental health disability who is charged with a crime and detained 'solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future,'" DRNC lawyers wrote. "In violation of this bedrock principle, North Carolinians with serious mental health disabilities and other cognitive disabilities are languishing in jails for months, and in some severe cases, years at a time," the complaint continued. "Their prolonged detention extends well beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances for an evaluation and determination of whether they possess the requisite mental capacity to proceed to trial." The lawsuit aimed "to reduce the profoundly harmful and unconstitutionally prolonged detention times." DHHS "is systemically violating the Fourteenth Amendment, [Americans With Disabilities Act], and [Rehabilitation Act] by failing to provide capacity assessments and restoration services to pretrial detainees who are suspected of, or adjudicated to be, incapable to proceed (collectively, "ITP detainees"), in a timely and adequate manner," according to the complaint. Disability Rights pointed to two main problems. First, people "who have been charged with a crime and had their capacity to stand trial questioned often spend months waiting for a capacity assessment by Local Management Entities/Managed Care Organizations ("LME/MCOs") or Central Regional Hospital ("Central Regional")." "Second, individuals in North Carolina who have been charged with a crime, adjudicated incapable to proceed to trial, and ordered to a state psychiatric hospital to undergo an involuntary commitment examination or capacity restoration services wait months for bed space necessary to receive these court-ordered services," the complaint alleged. Detainees "wait an average of two months for their capacity assessment to be completed and nearly five months for treatment at a state psychiatric hospital," according to the suit. In contrast, the average wait time for a capacity assessment in Virginia is seven days. Because of long wait times, some "detainees spend more time in pretrial detention awaiting a capacity assessment and subsequent treatment than they ever would receive as a sentence if convicted." The number of state beds for mental health treatment had dropped from 892 to 453 over seven years, the lawsuit argued. Of the remaining beds, "about 35% are occupied by individuals who are ready for discharge but unable to leave," according to the suit. "Most often in these instances, individuals who are ready for discharge are unable to be discharged because of a lack of appropriate services available in the community." Disability Rights blamed DHHS for failing to ensure "that LME/MCOs fulfill their statutory and contractual duties to develop and maintain adequate provider networks in the community." "County jails are intense and stress-inducing environments, generally not suitable for those diagnosed with any kind of debilitating ailment, let alone severe mental health disabilities," the lawsuit contended. "Prolonged detention in such environments can lead ITP detainees to experience a further decline in mental health, which can result in self-harm and threats to ITP detainee safety." "This is a statewide crisis. NCDHHS's mismanagement and failure to provide essential mental health services on a timely basis exacerbates existing problems and inflicts cruel and unusual pain and suffering on ITP detainees who wait at length for the services NCDHHS is legally obligated to provide," Disability Rights' lawyers argued. [GN] NORTH POLE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Clark Suit Due August 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATT CLARK, v. NORTH POLE POST OFFICE LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00730-SB-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Trial: April 5, 2027 Pretrial Conference (Fri., 8:30 a.m.) (including hearing on motions in limine): March 19, 2027 Motion for class certification: Aug. 7, 2026 Opposition to motion for class Aug. 21, 2026 certification: Reply brief in support of class Sept. 4, 2026 certification Motion for class certification hearing: Sept. 25, 2026 Discovery deadline – nonexpert: Nov. 13, 2026 The Defendant is a service offering personalized letters from Santa Claus. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gTYHRx at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Continues to Defend Bethpage Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Northrop Grumman Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bethpage personal injury and property damage class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company is also a party to a putative class action in the Eastern District of New York alleging personal injury and property damage related to the legacy Bethpage environmental conditions (the Bethpage EDNY cases). The court had previously stayed the filed individual lawsuits and recently set an April 24 hearing on plaintiffs motion to lift that stay as to a subset of plaintiffs. Although the court has ordered, and the parties have submitted, supplemental briefing on pending class certification and expert motions in the putative class action, the parties remain engaged in a mediation. The company cannot at this time predict or reasonably estimate the potential outcomes or ranges of possible liability of the Bethpage EDNY cases. Northrop Grumman Corp is a global aerospace and defense technology company that provides products and services in autonomous systems, cyber, space, strike, and logistics and modernization for government and commercial customers worldwide. The company is a major contractor to the U.S. Department of Defense and other national security and civil government agencies. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: P.M. Sues Over Unguarded Information -------------------------------------------------------------- P.M., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-02917-MEF-JSA (D.N.J., March 20, 2026), is brought concerning an individual's health is among the most sensitive, and closely guarded information in our society and to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other visitors to the Pharmaceutical Websites, Defendant does not keep its patients' private personal and health information confidential. Instead, through the Pharmaceutical Websites, Defendant collected and transmitted personally identifiable and sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiff's medical conditions, prescriptions, and medical expenses (collectively, the "Sensitive Health Information") to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google") and Contentsquare (together with Google, the "Tracking Tool Providers"), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools without Plaintiff's or Class Members' consent. The Defendant is a company that chose to prioritize their marketing efforts and profits over their patients' privacy by installing the Tracking Tools on their websites. The Plaintiff and Class Members used a Pharmaceutical Website and had their personal Sensitive Health Information tracked by Defendant using the Tracking Tools. However, Defendant never obtained authorization from Plaintiff or Class Members to share their Sensitive Health Information with third parties. Therefore, at all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members could not, and did not, provide informed consent for their Sensitive Health Information to be transmitted to the third parties, including to the largest advertisers and compilers of personal information in the world, says the complaint. The Plaintiff P.M. visited the Kisqali Website to obtain information regarding Kisqali and to apply for a Savings Card in November of 2024. Novartis is one of the largest healthcare companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Jordan Underhill, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: junderhill@sirillp.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street, 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ssingh@sirillp.com NUTRIEN LTD: Conspires to Fix Fertilizers' Prices, RH Grain Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RH GRAIN FARMS LLC, and TERRY POLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; MOSAIC CANADA CROP NUTRITION, LP; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER CANADA, UCL; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02193-TC-JBW (D. Kan., April 10, 2026) is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of American farmers and agricultural purchasers who directly purchased fertilizer products manufactured by Defendants at artificially inflated prices from January 1, 2021 through the present. According to the complaint, the contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among Defendants and their co-conspirators to: (a) fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain the prices of Fertilizer Products sold in the United States at supracompetitive levels; and (b) restrict, limit, and suppress the supply of Fertilizer Products available to United States purchasers. 249. Defendants’ anticompetitive and unlawful conduct has proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs and members of the Class by restraining competition and thereby raising, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the price of Fertilizer Products at levels above the prices that would have prevailed in a competitive market. Plaintiff RH Grain Farms LLC operates a farm at 106 Michael Lane, Royal Center, Indiana and produces corn, beans, and wheat. Nutrien Ltd. is the world's largest producer of potash and one of the world's largest producers of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers with its principal place of business in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terrence J. Campbell, Esq. BARBER EMERSON, L.C. 1211 Massachusetts Street P.O. Box 667 Lawrence, KS 66044 Telephone: (785) 843-6600 Facsimile: (785) 843-8405 E-mail: tcampbell@barberemerson.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Amelia Burroughs, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. Robin Stemen, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law aburroughs@burke.law klv@burke.law rstemen@burke.law - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq. Bridget Fogarty Gramme, Esq. Heidi B. Weaver, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com dbrockwell@scott-scott.com bgramme@scott-scott.com hweaver@scott-scott.com - and - 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 E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com - and - Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Ave., 24th Floor New York, NY 11069 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: matt.perez@scott-scott.com brian.hogan@scott-scott.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com rstlouis@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com O'REILLY AUTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 22 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAH MCMILLON and JOHN PLUMLEE, behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-00711-CAB-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint notice of settlement and motion to vacate class certification, expert and discovery deadlines, and trial date due to settlement. The Plaintiffs anticipate filing an amended complaint in the state court action and dismissing this action once all of the claims are before the Superior Court. Deadline Date The Plaintiffs' deadline to file class April 20, 2026 certification motion: The Defendant's deadline to file June 22, 2026 opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion: The Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply July 22, 2026 brief in support of class certification motion: Fact discovery deadline: July 29, 2026 Expert list due: Aug. 26, 2026 Final pretrial conference: Feb. 18, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. On Dec. 31, 2025, the Parties filed a joint motion to continue class certification, related expert and discovery deadlines and trial date due to mediation. The Court entered an order granting the Parties' motion on Jan. 6, 2026. O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7epk8f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 4 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com - and - Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Maggie K. Realin, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com mrealin@ckslaw.com - and - David R. Markham, Esq. Lisa R. Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 323-1684 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Peterson, Esq. Edwin M. Boniske, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-7910 Telephone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com boniske@higgslaw.com OCMBC INC: Bryant Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY HUDSON-BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OCMBC, INC. D/B/A LOANSTREAM, PREMIER FINANCIAL MARKETING LLC D/B/A RESMO LENDING, AND SEAN ROBERTS, Case No. 8:24-cv-00067-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 18, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court to: (1) Certify the Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (2) Appoint the Plaintiff as representative of the Class; and (3) Appoint Anthony Paronich, Andrew Perrong, and Dana Oliver and their respective law firms as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff makes this motion on the grounds that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. The Plaintiff also makes this motion on the ground that questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting individual members, and a class action is the superior method for adjudicating the dispute. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All persons in the United States who, from August 2021 through June 2022, (1) were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (2) and who received more than one telephone call from the LoanStream calling campaign, as evidenced in the calling data produced by LizDev in this lawsuit, (3) within any 12-month period (4) as identified in the Expert Report of Aaron Woolfson." LoanStream is a mortgage lender. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLLYAy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855)384-3262 Facsimile: (888)570-2021 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com - and - Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. Perrong Law LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com OCMBC INC: Hudson-Bryant Seeks to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY HUDSON-BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OCMBC, INC. D/B/A LOANSTREAM, PREMIER FINANCIAL MARKETING LLC D/B/A RESMO LENDING, AND SEAN ROBERTS, Case No. 8:24-cv-00067-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her leave to file under seal certain portions of and documents submitted in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Finally, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification cites extensively to the deposition of Serene Vernon, LoanStream's Rule 30(b)(6) designee, which was taken on March 31, 2026. Under the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order, the Designating Party has thirty days from receipt of the transcript to designate specific portions as confidential. Accordingly, the deposition transcript excerpts are being filed under seal pending the expiration of the designation period. The Plaintiff will work with Defendant to file a public version containing all non-designated portions once the designation period has run or designations have been made. LoanStream is a mortgage lender. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJa0i9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Arteaga Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Alejandro Arteaga, individually and for others similarly situated v. ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01016 (W.D. Tex., April 20, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and seeks to recover unpaid wages on behalf of the named Plaintiff and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff and the OnTrac Drivers regularly worked for OnTrac in excess of 40 hours each week. But OnTrac did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, OnTrac improperly paid Arteaga and the OnTrac Drivers a piece rate without overtime. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Arteaga and the OnTrac Drivers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week—often seven days a week, with workweeks exceeding 70 hours during busy seasons— without receiving overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate. The Plaintiff and OnTrac Drivers were required to work beyond their scheduled hours without receiving overtime pay as mandated by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the OnTrac Drivers worked for OnTrac as drivers and delivery workers. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. is a company engaged in providing transportation, package delivery, warehousing, logistics, and supply chain solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal OSCAR HEALTH: Jones Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSCAR HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03008 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on December 31, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Oscar Health, Inc. is a healthcare technology company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com OSHKOSH CORP: Fullerton Sues Over Antitrust Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------ The City of Fullerton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corp., REV Group, Inc., Boise Mobile Equipment, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00956 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' antitrust conspiracy with regard to Fire apparatus price. Fire apparatus price increases and delivery delays cannot be attributed to organic causes. Rather, these price increases are attributable to anticompetitive conduct and conspiracies carried out by Defendants, who have artificially increased prices to supracompetitive levels through a combination of artificial supply restriction, exclusive dealing, market allocation, resale price maintenance, and acquisitions. The purpose of the conspiratorial and unlawful conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators was to suppress competition and to fix, raise, stabilize and/or maintain the price of fire apparatus. The precise amount of the overcharge impacting the prices of fire apparatus paid by Plaintiff and the Class can be measured and quantified using well accepted models. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to their property, among other things, having paid higher prices for fire apparatus than they would have in the absence of Defendants' illegal contracts, combinations, or conspiracies and, as a result, have suffered damages in an amount presently undetermined. This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish and prevent. The Plaintiff and the Class members could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that the inflated prices they endured were the result of illegal anticompetitive conduct. Defendants took affirmative steps to fraudulently conceal their conspiracy from Plaintiff and the Class, thereby tolling the statute of limitations applicable to the claims, says the complaint. The Plaintiff City of Fullerton is a public entity located in Fullerton, California. Oshkosh Corporation is the parent company of fire apparatus manufacturers Pierce Manufacturing Inc. and Maxi-Metal, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Klenov, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-4844 - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. Daniel A. Epstein, Esq. Labeat Rrahmani, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 641-9750 Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com depstein@koreintillery.com lrrahmani@koreintillery.com PACIFICORP: Limited Judgment in James Wildfire Class Action Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Jeanyne JAMES; Robin Colbert; Jane Drevo; Sam Drevo; Brooke Edge and Bill Edge, Sr.; Lori Fowler; Iris Hampton; James Holland; Rachelle McMcaster; Kristina Montoya; Northwest River Guides, LLC; Shariene Stockton and Kevin Stockton, Victor Palfreyman; Palfreyman Family Trust; Duane Brunn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Alfred Cuozzo; Deborah Jo Fawcett; David Giller, Sr.; Richard Jensen; Scott Johnson; Frank King, individually and in his capacity as trustee of the King Revocable Trust; Stephen David Nielsen; Cory Staniforth; and Deborah Tank, Plaintiffs-Respondents Cross-Appellants, and Mary Kathleen BECHERER et al., Plaintiffs, and OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Creditor-Respondent, v. PACIFICORP, an Oregon Corporation, and Pacific Power, an Oregon registered electric utility and assumed business name of PacifiCorp, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Respondents, Case No. A183140 (Or. App.), the Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the trial court's limited judgments against PacifiCorp. This class action proceeding arises from devastating wildfires that occurred in Oregon around Labor Day in 2020 during the course of what the Plaintiffs' counsel described in the trial court as a "historic windstorm." A jury determined that the Defendant, PacifiCorp, a public utility providing electricity in various parts of Oregon, engaged in tortious acts or omissions in relation to certain of those wildfires and that those tortious acts or omissions caused the Plaintiffs to suffer both economic and noneconomic damages. PacifiCorp appeals the resulting limited judgments against it, raising thirteen assignments of error. The Plaintiffs cross-appeal, raising two cross-assignments of error. Numerous devastating wildfires burned in Oregon around Labor Day in 2020. The Plaintiffs' complaint asserted that PacifiCorp's tortious acts and omissions caused four of those wildfires, which were referred to in the trial court as (1) the 242 Fire, which burnt approximately 13,829 acres near Chiloquin, (2) the Echo Mountain Complex Fire (made up of two separate fires, the Echo Mountain Fire and the Kimberling Fire), which burnt approximately 1,890 acres near Lincoln City, (3) the South Obenchain Fire, which burnt approximately 29,531 acres near Eagle Point, and (4) the Santiam Canyon Fire, which burnt approximately 45,660 acres in the Santiam Canyon. In the operative complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted claims against PacifiCorp for negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass in relation to those wildfires. The operative complaint identified 17 named plaintiffs—one within the boundary of the 242 Fire, four within the boundary of the Echo Mountain Complex Fire, two within the boundary of the South Obenchain Fire, and 10 within the boundary of the Santiam Canyon Fire. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The trial court ultimately certified a single issues class and specified "fourteen issues" for "class-wide treatment." Nevertheless, at the end of the trial, it ultimately submitted to the jury the question of PacifiCorp's liability for the various causes of action alleged in the Plaintiffs' complaint. The single class in this case included the owners of over 2,000 parcels of property that were damaged by at least four different wildfires—the 242 Fire, the South Obenchain Fire, the Echo Mountain Complex Fire, and the Santiam Canyon Fire—certain of which were separated by well over a hundred miles. For each of those four wildfires, the trial court identified a "boundary" based on what its certification order termed the "maximum extent of burn" for each wildfire. For three of the wildfires—the 242 Fire, the South Obenchain Fire, and the Echo Mountain Complex Fire—the Plaintiffs' theory at trial was that a particular, identifiable ignition started a wildfire, which burned throughout that particular wildfire's boundaries, and that "but for" PacifiCorp's tortious acts and omissions, the wildfire would not have occurred, and the Plaintiffs would not have been harmed. The Plaintiffs' theory was different for the largest of those four wildfires: the Santiam Canyon Fire. For that wildfire—unlike the other wildfires—plaintiffs did not have a single, unified theory of causation as to how plaintiffs within the Santiam Canyon Fire boundary were harmed by PacifiCorp. Instead, they argued that the evidence permitted a finding that the Plaintiffs who owned property in the Santiam Canyon were harmed either by (1) one of any number of PacifiCorp caused fires, when those fires destroyed the Plaintiffs' property in the Santiam Canyon directly, or (2) alternatively, for some of the Plaintiffs in the Santiam Canyon, by a lightning-caused wildfire, which was burning to the northeast of the Santiam Canyon before Labor Day 2020 and swept through the Santiam Canyon after the PacifiCorp-caused fires were ignited in the Santiam Canyon. In making the latter argument—that the lightning-caused wildfire burnt the Plaintiffs' property—the Plaintiffs' theory was that certain fires in the Santiam Canyon caused by PacifiCorp's power equipment caused firefighters who were stationed in the Santiam Canyon to evacuate the Santiam Canyon, leaving it defenseless. Additionally, for the Santiam Canyon Fire, the trial court instructed the jury that PacifiCorp was liable if its acts or omissions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding that the single class in this case consisted of plaintiffs who were located in the "maximum extent of burn" for four different wildfires, which burnt in four different geographic locations in Oregon, and that the Plaintiffs' theory of causation as to one of those wildfires—the Santiam Canyon Fire—was different than the others, ultimately, the Plaintiffs requested a jury instruction based on California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), Instruction No. 115, "Class Action Defined." That instruction told the jury that, "You may assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members." And plaintiffs’ counsel argued to the jury that it could "assume that the evidence that came in applies to the class members as a whole." It is that jury instruction that PacifiCorp challenges in its fourth assignment of error. The Court of Appeals addressed PacifiCorp's fourth assignment of error, which is dispositive as to the issues before it on appeal. In that assignment, PacifiCorp contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that in determining whether PacifiCorp was liable to the Plaintiffs it could "assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members." The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it could "assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members." It also concluded that that error was prejudicial to PacifiCorp. In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeals emphasized that special jury instructions can be proper and are even perhaps necessary in class actions. But the instruction that was given in this case, which PacifiCorp challenges on appeal, was erroneous in view of the class that was certified, the evidence at trial, and the Plaintiffs' theories of causation. That is, the error is not in CACI No. 115 in the abstract, but in giving it in this case, because, in view of how this case developed, aspects of causation were not proven through use of common evidence. The Court of Appeals also emphasized that, with the benefit of knowing how the Phase I trial developed, including the Plaintiffs' eleventh-hour motion to amend the boundary for the Santiam Canyon Fire, the trial court has the authority on remand to reconsider its class certification decision and reconsider whether a single class is appropriate in the case. Consequently, it reverse and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at https://l1nq.com/wjq02bs. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- California, argued the cause for appellants-cross-respondents. On the briefs were Per A. Ramfjord -- per.ramfjord@stoel.com -- Brad S. Daniels -- brad.daniels@stoel.com -- Reilley D. Keating, and Stoel Rives LLP; Alison L. Plessman, Rajan S. Trehan, Stephanie W. Xiao, Khoa D. Nguyen, and Hueston Hennigan LLP, California; Douglas J. Dixon, Craig A. Fligor, and Hueston Hennigan LLP, California; and Blaine H. Evanson and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, California. Erin Roycroft -- eroycroft@stollberne.com -- and Nicholas Rosinia -- nrosinia@edelson.com -- Illinois, argued the cause for respondents-cross-appellants. Also on the answering brief and opening brief on cross-appeal were Alexander G. Tievsky, Megan Delurey, Schuyler Daum, Landon Webster, and Edelson PC, Illinois; Todd Logan and Edelson PC, California; Matthew J. Preusch -- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- and Keller Rohrback L.L.P., California; Daniel Mensher -- dmensher@kellerrohrback.com -- Natida Sribhibhadh -- natidas@kellerrohrback.com -- and Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Washington; Yoona Park -- ypark@kellerrohrback.com -- Sarah R. Osborn, and Keller Rohrback L.L.P.; Keith A. Ketterling -- kketterling@stollberne.com -- Timothy S. DeJong, Cody Berne -- tdejong@stollberne.com -- Emily Johnson -- cberne@stollberne.com -- and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.; and Nicholas A. Kahl and Nick Kahl, LLC. Also on the reply brief were Lydia Anderson-Dana; Rafey Balabanian and Brandt Silver-Korn, and Edelson PC, California; Amy Hausmann, Zoë Seaman-Grant, and Edelson PC, Illinois; Derek C. Johnson, Marilyn A. Heiken, and Johnson Johnson Lucas & Middleton, PC. Matthew J. Kalmanson -- mjk@hartwagner.com -- and Hart Wagner LLP and Meghana D. Shah -- meghanashah@eversheds-sutherland.com -- John S. Pruitt -- johnpruitt@eversheds-sutherland.com -- and Eversheds Sutherlands (US) LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited. Jeremy C. Rice -- Jrice@pbswlaw.com --and Parks Bauer LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Oregon Association of Defense Counsel. Irion Sanger -- irion@sanger-law.com -- John Maxwell Greene, and Sanger Law, P.C., filed the brief amicus curiae for Oregon People's Utility Districts. J. Aaron Landau and Harrang Long P.C. and Jeremy C. Marwell -- jmarwell@velaw.com -- and Vinson & Elkins LLP, District of Columbia, filed the brief amicus curiae for Edison Electric Institute. Paul S. Stewart -- paul.stewart@painehamblen.com -- and Paine Hamblen, P.S., Washington, filed the brief amicus curiae for Pacific Northwest Investor-Owned Utilities. Iván Resendiz Gutierrez -- ivan.resendiz@millernash.com -- KC Lynne Hovda -- kc.hovda@millernash.com -- and Miller Nash LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Oregon Business & Industry Association. Sara Kobak -- skobak@schwabe.com -- and Andrew J. Lee filed the brief amicus curiae for Oregon Forest Industries Council. Matthew Kirkpatrick and Oregon Consumer Justice Law P.C.; and Elizabeth Savage and Elizabeth Savage Law LLC filed the brief amicus curiae for Oregon Consumer Justice and Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. No appearance for respondent Oregon Department of Justice. PEACHTREE HOTEL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data Pierre, Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE PIERRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEACHTREE HOTEL GROUP II, LLC, D/B/A PEACHTREE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01995-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 13, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On February 19, 2026, Defendant was hacked in the Data Breach by the notorious cybercriminal syndicate PayoutsKING. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, the sensitive PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was placed into the hands of cybercriminals--inflicting numerous injuries and significant damages upon Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Marie Pierre is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant Peachtree Hotel Group II, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Group is a private investment firm with $15.0 billion in real estate asset value and $4.7 billion capital under management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com PEADEN AIR: Smelkinson Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARI SMELKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEADEN AIR CONDITIONING LLC, a Delaware company, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00104-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant to stop the Defendant from violating the TCPA and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") by placing calls and text messages to consumers without consent including pre-recorded voice calls and calls/text messages to phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call registry ("DNC"), and unsolicited calls that are placed to consumers using an autodialer in violation of the FTSA. The complaint relates that Defendant Peaden uses Hatch to screen consumers through an automated system that does not require any human intervention. Hatch also provides automated call technology, in addition to automated texting. In addition, Hatch enables its users, including Defendant Peaden, to send pre-recorded voicemail messages automatically to consumers. In November of 2023, Plaintiff Smelkinson contacted Peaden by phone to get a quote to replace his home's HVAC. After inspecting the home, Defendant Peadon called Plaintiff by phone to present him a quote for the work. Plaintiff felt that the quote was above his budget and decided not to do business with Peaden. On that phone call, Plaintiff Smelkinson specifically instructed Peaden to not contact him again. Despite Plaintiff Smelkinson's request, Defendant Peaden continued calling and sent unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cell phone throughout 2024 and 2025. The calls and text messages were soliciting Peaden's HVAC, plumbing and electrical services. The unauthorized solicitation telephone calls and text messages that Plaintiff Smelkinson received from or on behalf of Defendant Peaden have harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, occupied his phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff ARI is the subscriber and sole user of the cell phone number ending with 5221. Defendant PEADEN AIR CONDITIONING LLC uses Hatch, an AI-based, automated consumer contact system that can fully interact with consumers through calls and text messages without human intervention.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd Suite 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com PEGASYSTEMS INC: Settlement Reached in Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Pegasystems Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2026, that on February 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a new complaint against the members of the Company's board of directors, certain employees of the Company, and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Mary Larkin and Dag Sagfors, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Leon Trefler, Larry Weber, Kenneth Stillwell, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, (the "Defendants"), and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant (Case 1:25-cv-10303). The complaint asserts against Defendants claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Exchange Act relating to (i) the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, described above; (ii) alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in that litigation; and the Class Action, described above. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2025. On June 6, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative matter currently pending in Massachusetts Superior Court, Case No. 2484CV0173, moved to intervene in this matter and to stay it pending the resolution of the state derivative matter. The Court held a hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss and state court plaintiffs' motion to intervene on July 21, 2025. Following argument, the Court took the motions under advisement. On October 14, 2025, the parties jointly notified the Court that on October 2, 2025 the Massachusetts Superior Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the related state court derivative action and proposed that the Court refrain from issuing a decision on the motions to dismiss pending a joint submission by the parties of their respective positions on the impact of the state court dismissal on the federal court case within thirty (30) days. On December 17, 2025, the court entered an order administratively closing this action in light of the developments in the State court cases. On January 7, 2026, the Collective Plaintiffs agreed in principle to a proposed settlement of the litigation. Pegasystems Inc is a software company that develops enterprise customer engagement and digital process automation platforms for large organizations worldwide. The Massachusetts-based company provides cloud and on-premises solutions aimed at improving customer service, marketing, sales, and operational efficiency across regulated industries. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on March 31, 2026, Judge Margo Brodie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against an exercise equipment company and its officers and directors for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tian v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 23-cv-4279-MKB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026). Having previously granted a motion to dismiss the action with leave to amend, which we covered here, the Court granted this motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Company manufactures personal fitness equipment and sells subscriptions to live and on-demand fitness classes. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made a series of false and misleading statements relating to the potential rusting of bike posts that ultimately resulted in a recall. Plaintiffs identified five categories of alleged misrepresentations: (1) the Company's risk disclosures regarding potential manufacturing defects; (2) statements regarding loss accruals related to the recall; (3) statements regarding the Company's commitment to product safety standards; (4) statements refuting articles written about the quality of the Company's products, and (5) positive statements made regarding subscriptions to the Company's products. The Court found that plaintiffs failed to plead a misrepresentation or omission or scienter as to each. The Court first found that the Company's risk disclosures were not misleading because they explicitly warned investors that products may be affected by design and manufacturing defects and that such defects could affect the Company's business. The Court emphasized that the risk disclosures concerned the effects of the defects on the business -- not the existence of the defects themselves. The Court held that the risk disclosures were not misleading because the Complaint did not contain allegations that the alleged defects were already impacting the Company's business or that the Company knew of an impending adverse effect at the time the disclosures were made. The Court further held that the Company did not have an affirmative obligation to take the "gloomiest" view of the potential impact from the reports of rusting it had received at the time of the alleged misstatements. Next, the Court found that the loss accruals were not actionable because, even though the statements allegedly underestimated the amount of the loss, they were forward looking and protected by meaningful cautionary language, including because plaintiffs did not allege that the losses had already been accrued in amounts exceeding the accruals. The Court then turned to the two categories of alleged misstatements concerning product safety standards and subscriptions, holding that "generic, indefinite statements of corporate optimism are typically not actionable." The Court reached a similar conclusion with respect to the Company's statements about its goal of prioritizing subscription growth. Finally, the Court held that statements made in response to an article on the safety of the products were not false or misleading, because plaintiffs failed to plead that the Company knew that the statements were false at the time they were made -- and, in fact, plaintiffs cited to evidence that the Company learned of evidence concerning the products' safety after the alleged misstatements had been made. The Court then explained its determination that plaintiffs did not plausibly plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter under either of the prongs available in the Second Circuit -- conscious recklessness or motive to commit fraud. First, the Court held that plaintiffs did not plead that defendants acted with conscious recklessness; defendants' alleged awareness of several dozen reports of issues in a product with over 2.2 million units sold and knowledge of previous recalls both by the Company and its competitors were not enough to show that defendants knew, at the time they made their statements, that the Company would have to recall its product. Second, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants had a concrete, personal motive to commit fraud, including because there were no allegations of unusually timed stock sales. Because plaintiffs failed to plead an underlying primary violation, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' control person claims under Section 20(a). [GN] PRADA USA: Denies Refunds on Non‑Conforming Goods, Lander Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN LANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRADA USA CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03020 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2026) is a class action brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the class of individuals who purchased personalized goods from Prada that were not made to their specifications but whose requests for refunds and/or exchanges were nonetheless denied. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased a $1,100 pair of custom designed lace-up tennis shoes that, when manufactured, did not include any of the basic design elements--including the color and monogram Plaintiff specified. Notwithstanding Prada's mistake, it denied Plaintiff's request for a refund or exchange, claiming that buyers of such items have no recourse but to accept the goods as made. The Plaintiff and the Class suffered injury as a result of Prada's deceptive acts and practices, including paying for goods promised to conform to their specifications, including the design elements they specified, but receiving goods that did not conform to those specifications, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks classwide relief for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, violation of the New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Devin Lander is a natural person residing in and a citizen of Florissant, Missouri. Defendant Prada USA Corp. operates and manages numerous branded retail boutiques across the United States that sell luxury fashion products for men and women, as well as the online store prada.com (accessible at https://www.prada.com/us/en.html).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Medico, Esq. Frank Napolitano III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MEDICO AND NAPOLITANO LLC P.O. Box 503 Port Chester, NY 10573 Telephone: (203) 661-8151 E-mail: amedico@medicoandassociates.com frank@ctreattorney.com - and - William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 230 Northgate Street, Suite 103 Lake Forest, IL 60045 Telephone: (847) 877-2970 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com RANLIFE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 31 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. RANLIFE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00441-AMA-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Bennett entered an order granting in part and denying in part the stipulated motion to extend the deadline to file a class certification motion. The court orders that the deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to July 31, 2026. Although the parties have demonstrated good cause to extend the deadline, the court is not persuaded that an extension of the duration requested is necessary. District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen referred this case to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A). Ranlife provides mortgage lending services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E88fAm at no extra charge.[CC] RAPID INVESTMENTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hall Modified to May 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY HALL, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RAPID INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a RELEASE PAY; and AXIOM BANK N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-05039-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order modifying the case schedule as follows: The Plaintiff's motion for May 22, 2026 class certification: The Defendants' response to motion June 19, 2026 for Class Certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of July 3, 2026 class certification: Hearing on motion for class To be set by the Court certification: All previously set deadlines and hearings are TERMINATED pending the Court's ruling on any motion for class certification. IT IS SO ORDERED. Rapid Investments is a private market investment management firm specializing in placing commitments from institutional and private investors. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S6VX7R at no extra charge.[CC] REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: RGC) securities between October 28, 2024 and October 31, 2025. Rivendell is a purported early-stage bioscience company focused on the research, development, and commercialization of traditional Chinese medicine ("TCM") for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD") and autism spectrum disorder ("ASD"). The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited (RGC) was Impacted by a Stock Manipulation Scheme According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Regencell was vulnerable and/or subject to market manipulation; (ii) the resulting volatility in the market for the Company's ordinary shares exposed Regencell's investors to significant financial risk; (iii) all the foregoing subjected Regencell to a heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and reputational harm; and (iv) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The Plaintiff alleges that on October 31, 2025, Regencell disclosed in an SEC filing that "following recent volatility in the market for our Ordinary Shares, the Company received correspondence and a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ('DOJ'), indicating that the DOJ is conducting an investigation into the trading in our Ordinary Shares." Regencell said that "[t]he DOJ has requested the production of documents and communications concerning these and other corporate operational, financial and accounting matters" and that the Company "expect[s] to continue to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the investigation" and "may be required to pay fines, penalties, damages or settlement costs in excess of our insurance coverage, if any, related to the investigation." On this news, Regencell's ordinary share price fell $3.09 per share, or 18.56%, to close at $13.56 per share on November 3, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/regencell-bioscience/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] RELLEVATE CT: Faces O'Hora Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES T. O'HORA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RELLEVATE CT, INC., STEWART STOCKDALE, GREG SCHNEIDER, and VICTORIA LOPEZ NEGRETE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00570 (D. Conn., April 13, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Connecticut Minimum Fair Wage Act, and the Connecticut common law of unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Plaintiff O'Hora and the other members of the Class were misclassified as "independent contractors," and, as such, were deprived by Defendants of the benefits afforded to them by the state and federal laws' protections and entitlements, including but not limited to their right to minimum wages and overtime pay. The Defendants were personally aware of their legal obligations, but knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally failed to pay minimum wages and/or overtime pay, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff started as an employee in mid-2020, and continued throughout his tenure with the company. He became a business development partner for Rellevate on or about March 18, 2020. Rellevate CT, Inc. is a financial technology firm that develops and markets corporate payroll services, including "pay-any-day" services and digital checking accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Mule, Esq. MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC 3000 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, NY 11042-1073 Telephone: (516) 328-8899 Facsimile: (516) 328-0082 E-mail: michaelmule@mllaborlaw.com RENEWABLE ENERGY: Borges Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MARCUS BORGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, a foreign company, RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation, and RES AMERICA CONSTRUCTION INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2026-CV-30141, was removed from the District Court of the City and County of Denver to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on April 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01616 to the proceeding. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that (1) Defendants' bonus policies violated the Colorado Wage Act, (2) in the alternative, it is alleged that Defendants breached their implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing, and (3) Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. Defendant Renewable Energy Systems Limited is a private limited company that was incorporated in 1981 with the role of developing, financing, constructing and managing wind farms and solar plants. Defendant Renewable Energy Systems Americas, Inc. is a renewable energy project development company based in the United States. Defendant RES America Construction Inc. is a renewable energy company in the US that develops wind, solar, energy storage, and transmission projects.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ashley W. Jordaan, Esq. Shawna Ruetz, Esq. 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-749-7200 Facsimile: 303-749-7272 E-mail: Ashley.Jordaan@huschblackwell.com Shawna.Ruetz@huschblackwell.com RESIDENT HOME: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mattresses' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that certain Nectar mattresses are falsely advertised as safe and fit for normal use, given that the products can "leak" or risk leaking toxic fiberglass into consumers' homes. The 40-page Nectar lawsuit contends that the mattress company purportedly "Trusted by 5.5 Million American Sleepers" has failed to warn consumers that its memory foam mattresses -- including the Nectar Classic, Nectar Premier, Nectar Luxe, and Nectar Ultra models -- pose a significant health and safety risk as they come with a flame-retardant sleeve made of fiberglass that can leak or "seep" tiny glass fibers into the surrounding environment. According to the class action, exposure to fiberglass can cause acute adverse health symptoms, including intense eye and skin itchiness, breathing difficulties or exacerbation of existing asthma or bronchitis, stomach irritation, and mouth, nose and throat irritation. Additionally, the complaint against Resident Home LLC, Ashley Global Retail LLC and Ashley Furniture Industries LLC says that the fiberglass may become embedded in skin and require surgical intervention. Should glass fibers invade the lower part of a person's lungs, the risk of adverse health effects is "significantly" increased, the case says, adding that fiberglass, once airborne, can find its way into HVAC systems and then quickly be dispersed throughout a consumer's home. The false advertising lawsuit says that Nectar failed to provide adequate disclosures regarding the inherent dangers of fiberglass in its mattresses. Although an outer mattress tag on a Nectar mattress reads "Glass Fiber . . . 23%," the tag nevertheless fails to warn consumers that the products are likely to leak or risk leaking toxic fiberglass through regular use, according to the suit. The Nectar lawsuit claims that any small tear in the outer mattress cover, or removal of the cover, risks exposing consumers and their families to a highly toxic, known irritant. Nectar mattress fiberglass leakage can cause major problems, class action lawsuit says Memory foam mattresses like those sold by Nectar are inherently more flammable than traditional mattresses and, as a result, are sold with a fire-retardant sleeve made of woven fiberglass to comply with federal Open Flame Resistance Standards. Per the suit, the fiberglass sleeve is meant to suffocate the oxygen a fire needs for fuel, while the fiberglass melts to keep the inside of a mattress from catching fire. However, the complaint alleges that Nectar's mattresses pose two serious safety issues for consumers. The lawsuit says that should fiberglass begin to leak from the mattress, the sleeve will not only gradually lose its fire-retardant properties, increasing the risk that the mattress may ignite in a fire, but also easily disperse bits of fiberglass from the mattress throughout consumers' homes. The case stresses that fiberglass contamination is not easily remedied. In addition to the health issues linked to fiberglass exposure, cleaning fiberglass contamination often requires professional cleaning services and costs thousands -- or even tens of thousands -- of dollars, the suit says. Fiberglass is especially pernicious because it is "virtually impossible" to remove from a space once it spreads, per the case. In particular, loose glass fibers can travel through ventilation systems and become airborne, eventually settling and contaminating furniture, drapery, carpeting, clothing, towels, and innumerable other items throughout the entirety of a consumer's home, the filing states. Experts generally recommend that individuals vacate a home contaminated with fiberglass until it can be professionally cleaned, which the case says is evidence of the extent and severity of potential fiberglass contamination. Nectar informed consumers covers were safe to remove, case says A main point of contention in the Nectar class action lawsuit is the company's allegedly inaccurate and irresponsible representations that the outer mattress covers are safe to remove and clean. As the suit tells it, Nectar's track record regarding fiberglass is "particularly problematic," as the case highlights a complaint levied against the company in mid-2020 after a consumer removed the outer mattress cover to clean it after a spill. Per the complaint, Nectar's website indicated that the outer cover was removable, although when the consumer did so her entire apartment was covered in fiberglass that was "almost impossible" to remove: "Our apartment is sparkly with fiberglass. We have had to drop money on a HEPA filter vacuum that could safely remove some of it, and on new non-permeable mattress covers to contain the worst of the source. We have had to garbage-bag up [sic] almost everything in her room. No amount of runs through the laundry seems to get it all out of clothes, and we have to thoroughly wipe out the washer and dryer drums every load . . . I'm sure there will be trouble on the horizon with our landlord regarding the carpet, even if we do vacuum it as well as we can." According to the suit, Nectar in 2019 denied that there was any fiberglass in its mattresses. The case says that the company admitted that they used fiberglass only after being prompted to do so after consumer complaints. Despite the presence of a fiberglass sleeve, Nectar has continued to represent on its website that consumers can remove the outer covers to wash them when necessary, the complaint states. The case says that in 2022 or 2023, Nectar added a tag warning stating that removal of the cover created a "risk of injury or death," but still omitted a clear disclosure about fiberglass. "Remarkably, [Nectar] added this disclaimer to the outer cover and continued to manufacture the outer cover with a zipper that made the cover removable," the lawsuit scathes. "This minimized the effect of any possible warning." Nectar mattresses are unsafe to use, class action lawsuit claims Despite the risks posed by fiberglass and its duty to disclose the significant likelihood of fiberglass leakage, Nectar has continued to tout its mattresses as trustworthy and safe, the lawsuit alleges. Moreover, when consumers have asked directly about the presence of fiberglass in the mattresses, the company has demurred, claiming that the fiberglass inside was not "'the harmful type,'" even though there exists no non-irritating types of fiberglass. The suit adds that Nectar has deceived and misled consumers because "just laying [sic] on the mattress," or attempting to remove the cover to wash it, poses an "unreasonable safety hazard." "Indeed, a mattress -- designed for sleeping on -- cannot function as such if sleeping on it causes the defect to arise," the class action lawsuit contends. The lawsuit charges that the Nectar mattresses at issue are "worthless," or at the very least worth less than consumers paid. Who is covered by the Nectar lawsuit? The Nectar class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased the Nectar mattress products at issue from the beginning of any applicable statute of limitations through the date of judgment in the case. How do I sign up for the Nectar class action lawsuit? Typically, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, settlement class members will typically receive written notice of the deal via mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights. [GN] REYES FLEET: Gamez Wage and Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RICARDO L. GAMEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated; Plaintiff vs. REYES FLEET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV07112, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03926 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and the alleged class, purported unpaid minimum and overtime wages; rest and meal premiums; alleged unreimbursed business expenses; penalties for failure to pay final wages upon separation; damages and penalties related to the alleged failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and penalties for failure to keep requisite payroll records; and restitution based on alleged unfair competition. Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs. The Defendant is represented by: Kerry Friedrichs, Esq. Ryan McCoy, Esq. Petersen Walrod, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2930 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com rmccoy@seyfarth.com pwalrod@seyfarth.com RIGHTMOVE PLC: GBP1.6BB Suit Highlights Pricing Strategies' Risks ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that a GBP1.6 billion opt-out claim against Rightmove highlights the escalating litigation risks and exposure that digital platforms face regarding their pricing strategies in the United Kingdom. On April 16, 2026, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal published further details of a significant new collective proceedings claim against Rightmove plc and Rightmove Group Limited. Brought on an "opt-out" basis, the GBP1.6 billion (approx. $2.2 billion) claim highlights the escalating litigation risks for digital platforms and potentially dominant service providers in the United Kingdom. Under UK (and EU) competition law, holding a dominant position is not inherently unlawful. However, a dominant firm is prohibited from abusing that position to the detriment of consumers or competitors. Such abuse typically falls into two categories: exploitative conduct, such as charging unfair or excessive prices, and exclusionary conduct, which prevents rivals from effectively competing. This claim asserts that Rightmove has engaged in both, alleging that the company abused its dominance in the "property portal services market" of Great Britain by employing exclusionary tactics that diminished the use and appeal of rival platforms. The claimant argues that such reduced competition allowed Rightmove to charge unfair and excessive fees to its subscribers. The action seeks aggregate damages on behalf of an estimated 7,200 members who paid for Rightmove's services over a six-year period—primarily small businesses such as estate agents, letting agents, and new homes developers. Crucially, the action is proposed as an "opt-out" claim, meaning that all eligible customers are automatically included in the lawsuit unless they explicitly choose to leave. This is in contrast to an "opt-in" model, which would require them to actively join. The claimant argues that an opt-out approach is necessary because three main factors would deter claimants from actively opting in: the complexity of competition litigation, the relatively modest individual recoveries, and the commercial fear of retaliatory action from a "must-have" business partner. Capturing the entire class also makes funding the litigation more economically attractive despite the relatively modest individual recoveries. For businesses operating digital platforms, this case serves as a critical reminder of the scrutiny applied to pricing strategies and platform terms. The continued expansion of the United Kingdom's "opt-out" regime means that aggressive market conduct can now rapidly translate into significant class action exposure, driven by sophisticated representatives and litigation funders. [GN] RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Class Cert. Bid in Wolfe Due Jan. 21, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHADD WOLFE, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 4:25-cv-08182-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: May 6, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 18, 2026 Class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' Jan. 21, 2027 expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the March 4, 2027 Defendants' expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: March 18, 2027 Class certification reply due: April 1, 2027 The Defendant is an American luxury hotel brand and subsidiary of Marriott International. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ych0Wf at no extra charge.[CC] RTX CORP: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suits in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------ RTX Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2026, that multiple shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints in these actions allege that the defendants caused the Company to make materially false and misleading statements relating to Pratt & Whitney's GTF engines, and failed to maintain an adequate system of oversight, disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting. Based on the information available to date, the Company does not believe that either matter will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. RTX Corp is a leading global aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military, and government customers. The company operates through businesses including Pratt & Whitney, Collins Aerospace, and Raytheon, delivering propulsion, avionics, and defense technologies worldwide. RTX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------- RTX Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2026, that two putative federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain current and former executives of the Company. The lawsuits allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and omitting material facts relating to Pratt & Whitney's GTF engine fleet, including the impact of the powder metal issue on the fleet, in various regulatory filings. The lawsuits were consolidated, and on September 12, 2025, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated case. On October 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. RTX Corp is a leading global aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military, and government customers. The company operates through businesses including Pratt & Whitney, Collins Aerospace, and Raytheon, delivering propulsion, avionics, and defense technologies worldwide. RUSSELL ROAD: Discovery and All Discovery-Related Deadlines Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASLYN COSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RUSSELL ROAD TIC I LLC d/b/a GLO LAS VEGAS (a foreign limited liability company); TIC MANAGER LLC (a foreign limited liability company); GREP SOUTHWEST, LLC, DBA GREYSTAR (a foreign limited liability company); and DOES I through XX, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-02069-JAD-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the stipulation to stay discovery and all discovery-related deadlines pending resolution of the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay action. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and request that the Court order as follows: -- discovery in this case is stayed, including written discovery, depositions, expert discovery, third party discovery, and subpoenas, as well as any obligation to serve supplemental disclosures or expert disclosures during the pendency of the stay; and all discovery-related deadlines and dates currently in effect, including the current July 20, 2026 discovery deadline and all related expert disclosure and class-certification-related deadlines, are held in abeyance pending the Court's resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action. Glo is a residential community, offering a modern and visually appealing living environment. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jw1d5O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul S. Padda, Esq. Ravi Chanderraj, Esq. PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC 4560 S. Decatur Boulevard, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (702) 366-1888 Facsimile: (702) 366-1940 E-mail: psp@paulpaddalaw.com rchanderraj@paulpaddalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas E. Mcgrath, Esq. Lilith V. Xara, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 949-3100 Facsimile: (702) 916-1776 E-mail: mcgratht@litchfieldcavo.com xara@litchfieldcavo.com SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Garcia Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- TATIANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. ________ (Mass. Super., Plymouth Cty., April 13, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members. On or about April 6, 2026, the Defendant posted a notice to its public website disclosing that Signature Healthcare was "currently responding to a cybersecurity incident" that had affected certain information systems within its health system. The notice did not disclose what categories of private information were affected, how many individuals were impacted, or how the attackers gained access to Defendant's systems. The Defendant has not sent any individualized mailed notice to affected patients. According to the complaint, the data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Signature Healthcare Corporation provides healthcare services. The Company specializes in cardiology, orthopedics, surgery, and cancer care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Glennon, Esq. BRODY, HARDOON, PERKINS & KESTEN, LLP 265 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 880-7100 E-mail: mglennon@bhpklaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com SLED DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert. Bid in Cerkezoglu Due Oct. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CERKEZOGLU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SLED DISTRIBUTION, LLC, d/b/a MY MEDIC, Case No. 3:25-cv-06189-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: Oct. 13, 2026 The Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: Nov. 3, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply due: Nov. 17, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: TBD The Defendant is a supplier of tactical, trauma, and emergency response products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qLg4oE at no extra charge.[CC] SOLENIS LLC: Rojas Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO GALEANO ROJAS, Individually and on behalf of the SOLENIS, LLC EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. SOLENIS, LLC; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00423-UNA (D. Del., April 13, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The complaint relates that the Defendants control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan. As fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this Complaint Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for more than eight years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to obtain the relief provided under the ERISA for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches described below, and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief. Plaintiff RICARDO GALEANO ROJAS is a former employee of the Defendant and was invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. Defendant SOLENIS, LLC is the named fiduciary and sponsor of the Plan. Doe Defendants, as fiduciaries and members of the investment committee, were fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Ryan M. Tucker, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com rtucker@milberg.com STATE FARM: Safont Seeks to File Unreadacted Reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Reply in support of motion for class certification. The Reply summarizes deposition testimony by State Farm's two corporate representatives, Jacob Nimesgern and David Schmidt, that State Farm maintains is confidential. As such, the Plaintiffs request that the unredacted copy of the Reply remain sealed until the end of the case or until this Court determines the applicability of confidentiality to the deposition testimony. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V1Ttep at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 100 Southeast Second Street Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and - Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. Paulino A. Nunez Jr., Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 Email: frr@rtgn-law.com pan@rtgn-law.com - and - Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745 2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com susan@mikeknecht.com SUPER MICRO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 26 ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) between April 30, 2024 and March 19, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 26, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Super Micro securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Super Micro class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28261 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 26, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a significant portion of Super Micro's sales of servers were to companies based in China; (2) these transactions violated U.S. export control laws; (3) there were material weaknesses in Super Micro's controls to ensure compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Super Micro's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SYNGENTA CROP: Dionne Balks at Defective Paraquat Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Mark Dionne, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. Defendants, Case No. N26C-04-134 PQT (Del. Super., April 10, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated victims as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat, Plaintiff Dionne developed Parkinson's disease in the years following his exposure to Paraquat, alleges the suit. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical products and agricultural services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: Raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7728 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Arbuckle Due Nov. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARBUCKLE FUNDING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McCarthy entered an order a sixth amended discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Expert depositions shall be completed by Nov. 20, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Nov. 20, 2026. -- Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 24, 2026. -- Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Jan. 31, 2027. -- Any replies in support of class certification shall be filed no later than Feb. 22, 2027. Talcott provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jKjTTo at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Pszwaro Suit Transferred from D.N.J. to E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as EDWARD PSZWARO, JAVIER DIAZ, AMANDA PETERSON, and CHRISTOPHER HOVEY, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A. INC. and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01400, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 19, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01792-JMA-ARL to the proceeding. This action arises from Defendants' failure to disclose to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals of a defect within the UA80 8-speed automatic transmissions and torque converters and related software. The Defendants were aware of this manufacturing defect and, knowing that the vehicles at issue are unreliable and unsafe, failed to disclose it, says the suit. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. TMS is responsible for the marketing, distribution, and sale of Toyota and Lexus vehicles in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Gladbach, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 556-2206 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 E-mail: egladbach@kslaw.com TRADER JOE'S: Final OK Hearing of $7.4-Mil. Settlement Set Aug. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Trader Joe's agreed to a $7.4 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated federal law by printing too much credit card information on customer receipts. The Trader Joe's settlement benefits account holders whose credit or debit card was used in a transaction at a Trader Joe's store between March 5, 2019, and July 19, 2019, for which the payment processing software caused a customer receipt to be formatted to display the first six and last four digits of the card number. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Trader Joe's printed receipts that displayed the first six and last four digits of credit and debit card numbers. According to the class action lawsuit, this practice violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Trader Joe's, a grocery store chain with locations across the United States, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $7.4 million to resolve the FACTA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Trader Joe's class action settlement, members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. According to the settlement website, each claimant is estimated to receive $102.45. Any funds remaining in the settlement after the first distribution will be used for a second distribution if feasible. If not, the funds will be donated to the Identity Theft Resource Center. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 9, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Trader Joe's settlement is scheduled for Aug. 10, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 9, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits account holders whose credit or debit card was used in a transaction at a Trader Joe's store for which the payment processing software caused a customer receipt to be formatted to display the first six and last four digits of the card number used in the transaction between March 5, 2019, and July 19, 2019. Potential Award An estimated $102.45 Proof of Purchase N/A 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 06/09/2026 Case Name Keim v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 19STCV36790, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Final Hearing 08/10/2026 Settlement Website TJ-FACTASettlement.com Claims Administrator Keim v. Trader Joe's Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 admin@TJ-FACTASettlement.com (888) 444-7415 Class Counsel Keith J. Keogh Michael S. Hilicki KEOGH LAW LTD Scott D. Owens SCOTT D. OWENS P.A. Joseph M. Hekmat HEKMAT LAW GROUP P.C. Defense Counsel Dawn Sestito Noah Ickowitz O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP [GN] UNITED HOMES: Kadiyam Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ RAMESH KADIYAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED HOMES GROUP, INC., MICHAEL NIERI, JOHN G. MICENKO, JR., and KEITH FELDMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02989 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired United Homes securities between May 19, 2025 and February 22, 2026. The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. United Homes is a residential home building company. It was founded by Michael Nieri, who was Chief Executive Officer until October 2024 and has been the Company's Executive Chairman since that time. John G. Micenko, Jr. has been the Company's Chief Executive Office since May 19, 2025. Keith Feldman was the Company's Chief Financial Officer. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company’s controlling shareholder, Nieri, intended to force a sale of the Company; (2) that Nieri was taking actions to devalue the Company and its financial condition; (3) that Nieri leveraged his controlling interest to effectuate that sale, including by effectively forcing the dissident directors to resign; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Nieri was not acting in the best interests of the Company and public investors. On February 23, 2026, before the market opened, United Homes announced that it had agreed to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Stanley Martin Homes, LLC in an all-cash transaction that represents an enterprise value of approximately $221 million, cashing out all stockholders for consideration of $1.18 per share. On the last trading day preceding the announcement, United Homes' stock closed at a price of $2.38. The deal price, thus, represents an over 50% discount on the preceding trading price. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2026, subject to customary closing conditions. On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $1.23 per share, or 51.68%, to close at $1.15 per share on February 23, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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, alleges the complaint. Plaintiff Ramesh Kadiyam purchased United Homes securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions, adds the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 UNITED STATES: Appeals OK'd Motion to Postpone in African TPS Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in the official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for postponement of agency action in the lawsuit entitled African Communities Together, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Markwayne Mullin, in the official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10278-BEM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs brought suit to challenge the lawfulness of the termination of Ethiopia's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation, arguing that the Defendants had violated the TPS statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. On Jan. 25, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to postpone the effective date of the termination of Ethiopia's TPS designation, which Judge Brian E. Murphy granted on Apr. 8, 2026. The Court concludes that the Defendants terminated Ethiopia's TPS designation without regard for the process delineated by Congress thus the Plaintiffs' motion is granted. The appellate case is captioned as African Communities Together, et al. v. Mullin, et al., Case No. 26-1376, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nargis Aslami, Esq. Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq. Abbey Rose Koenning Rutherford, Esq. MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 1032 15th St NW, #362 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 897-2622 (202) 655-2969 - and - Joy A. Chen, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 International Pl., Ste. 1020 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (508) 517-8150 - and - Erik Matthew Crew, Esq. 4560 Alvarado Canyon Rd San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-7411 - and - Michael E. Cunniff, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 - and - Paul Killebrew, Esq. Ayana Lindsey, Esq. Mark H. Lynch, Esq. Stephen Petkis, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 10th St., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5930 (202) 662-5776 (202) 662-5544 (202) 662-5801 - and - Sarah Leadem, Esq. COMPLEX APPELLATE LITIGATION GROUP LLP 96 Jessie St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-6021 - and - Collin Poirot, Esq. 1032 15th St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (214) 392-2281 Defendants-Appellants MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in the official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. are represented by: Abraham R. George, Esq. Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq. Nicole Marie O'Connor, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3266 UNITED STATES: Hedling Appeals Denied Intervention Bid to D.C. Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- BOREALIS S. HEDLING is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to intervene in the lawsuit entitled JAMIE GARMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KASHYAP P. PATEL, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01086-JMC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all similarly situated former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees to seek redress for the Defendants' unconstitutional decimation of non-partisan law enforcement and to prevent them from further debasing an institution the Plaintiffs believe in. On Mar. 31, 2026, Hedling filed a motion to intervene, which Judge Jia M. Cobb denied on Apr. 3, 2026. The Court concludes that because Hedling's claims bare no meaningful relationship to the Plaintiffs' claims, it is convinced that allowing Hedling to intervene would unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. The appellate case is captioned as Garman, et al. v. Patel, et al., Case No. 26-5110, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMIE GARMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq. Rachael Wyant, Esq. Daniel M. Eisenberg, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763−5000 Facsimile: (212) 763−5001 Email: acelli@ecbawm.com rwyant@ecbawm.com deisenberg@ecbawm.com Movant-Intervenor BOREALIS S. HEDLING appears pro se. VALE SA: Bid to Exclude Dr. Feinstein's Testimony OK'd in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rauch v. Vale S.A. et al. (RE VALE S.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:19-cv-00526-EK-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order granting in part the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Feinstein's testimony. Accordingly, Dr. Feinstein may testify to his qualitative and quantitative loss causation analyses (though he may not use the phrase "economic materiality"). But Dr. Feinstein's damages model is excluded pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702. Plaintiff's motion to exclude Dr. Hubbard's testimony is granted to the extent that his opinions have been rendered irrelevant by the exclusion of Dr. Feinstein’s damages analysis. The Plaintiff's motion to exclude Dr. Hubbard's testimony is aimed almost entirely at his critiques of Dr. Feinstein's damages analysis. The Plaintiff brought this securities-fraud class action against Vale S.A. and five of its executives. Now before the Court are plaintiff and defendants' reciprocal motions to exclude each other's loss-causation and damages experts. Vale is a Brazilian multinational corporation engaged in metals and mining. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c2WkOF at no extra charge.[CC] VNGR BEVERAGE: Class Settlement in Cobbs Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS, v. VNGR BEVERAGE LLC (re VNGR Beverage, LLC Litigation), Case No. 4:24-cv-03229-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement. Once the Court issues its order on the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, the parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this final order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Class counsel shall file a Post-Distribution Accounting within 21 days after the settlement checks become stale (or, if no checks are issued, all funds have been paid to Class Members, cy pres beneficiaries, and others pursuant to the Settlement Agreement). The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the Settlement Class Members received adequate notice. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant VNGR Beverage, LLC markets Poppi as "gut healthy" due to its inclusion of prebiotic dietary fiber, but that this representation is misleading, as Poppi actually harms gut health. The Plaintiffs allege that Poppi is harmful and ineffective due to its low fiber content, high sugar content, and use of agave inulin, a type of prebiotic fiber that, according to the Plaintiffs, is less effective for promoting gut health and has been linked to adverse health effects. The Settlement Class is defined as: "all persons in the United States who, between Jan. 23, 2020 and the Settlement Notice Date, purchased in the United States, for household use and not for resale or distribution, one or more of the Products." "Products" is defined as "all flavors and package sizes of Poppi's beverages sold between Jan. 23, 2020 and the Settlement Notice Date." The Defendant will make a $8,900,000 non-reversionary payment. The Defendant is a beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LxL0O6 at no extra charge.[CC] VOZZCOM INC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOZZCOM, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-61793-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to file a motion for class certification and serve expert disclosures. The Plaintiff seeks to extend the class certification motion deadline until May 22, 2026, 30 days after the parties' scheduled discovery hearing to allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to use Vozzcom's call records at class certification. Because of the relevance of these records to class certification, despite the Plaintiff's diligence, the Plaintiff will be prejudiced if required to seek class certification prior to the discovery hearing, the suit says. Vozzcom does not oppose an extension of the class certification deadline subject to the Court also extending the initial expert disclosure and rebuttal expert disclosure deadlines. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court extend the rebuttal expert deadline until June 21, 2026. On Sept. 5, 2025, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising from Vozzcom's prerecorded calls to persons who were not the intended recipients of those calls (i.e., wrong number calls). Vozzcom provides wireline telecommunication services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Orr4Pe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com WAYFAIR LLC: Jaracuaro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case VANESSA JARACUARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAYFAIR LLC and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2507389, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 13, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01814 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Wayfair LLC is an e-commerce company doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nathan K. Low, Esq. Elizabeth T. Ferguson, Esq. Phil N. Bui, Esq. Jonathan G. Chang, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 Email: nlow@fisherphillips.com etferguson@fisherphillips.com pnbui@fisherphillips.com jchang@fisherphillips.com WEST MONROE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Daly Suit to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ WEST MONROE PARTNERS INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West Monroe Partners Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06805, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify class. On Mar. 27, 2026, Judge John Robert Blakey entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class. In sum, the Court concludes that the case qualifies for certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certifies the following class, excluding the 33 proposed Class members who signed the class action waivers discussed above: "All participants in the Plan who received a distribution in an amount determined based on the 2020 Valuation of Company stock who did not sign a class action waiver as part of any employment termination agreement with Company." The Court excludes 33 would-be participants from the certified Class. These 33 signed severance agreements that putatively waived any right or ability to be a class or collective action representative or to otherwise participate in any putative or certified class, collective or multi-party action or proceeding based on such a claim in which the Defendants are a party. The appellate case is styled as Matthew Daly v. West Monroe Partners Inc., et al., Case No. 26-8009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MATTHEW DALY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - and - Charles Henry Field, Jr., Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Ave., Ste. 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 577-4252 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5656 Email: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com - and - Russell Kornblith, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, Ste. 37th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5646 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 Email: rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com - and - Matthew Jason Singer, Esq. MATT SINGER LAW, LLC 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 248-9123 Email: matt@mattsingerlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners WEST MONROE PARTNERS INC., et al. are represented by: Elizabeth L. Woods, Esq. 341 Pineridge Dr. Winston Salem, NC 27104 Telephone: (772) 485-2307 Email: ewoods@groom.com - and - Jeffrey Aaron Hesser, Esq. CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 444-2473 Email: jhesser@cassiday.com - and - Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Meredith Foster Kimelblatt, Esq. Samuel Isaac Levin, Esq. Theodore A. Van Beek, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHTD. 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 (202) 861-5412 (202) 857-0620 Email: lgolumbic@groom.com mkimelblatt@groom.com slevin@groom.com tvanbeek@groom.com - and - Jeffrey Russell, Esq. Jacob Simon, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER 211 N. Broadway Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Email: jeffrey.russell@bclplaw.com jacob.simon@bclplaw.com WEST MONROE: Daly Appeals Class Certification Order to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW DALY is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West Monroe Partners Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06805, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify class. On Mar. 27, 2026, Judge John Robert Blakey entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class. In sum, the Court concludes that the case qualifies for certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certifies the following class, excluding the 33 proposed Class members who signed the class action waivers discussed above: "All participants in the Plan who received a distribution in an amount determined based on the 2020 Valuation of Company stock who did not sign a class action waiver as part of any employment termination agreement with Company." The Court excludes 33 would-be participants from the certified Class. These 33 signed severance agreements that putatively waived any right or ability to be a class or collective action representative or to otherwise participate in any putative or certified class, collective or multi-party action or proceeding based on such a claim in which the Defendants are a party. The appellate case is styled as Matthew Daly v. West Monroe Partners Inc., et al., Case No. 26-8010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner MATTHEW DALY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - and - Charles Henry Field, Jr., Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Ave., Ste. 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 577-4252 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5656 Email: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com - and - Russell Kornblith, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, Ste. 37th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5646 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 Email: rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com - and - Matthew Jason Singer, Esq. MATT SINGER LAW, LLC 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 248-9123 Email: matt@mattsingerlaw.com Defendants-Respondents WEST MONROE PARTNERS INC., et al. are represented by: Elizabeth L. Woods, Esq. 341 Pineridge Dr. Winston Salem, NC 27104 Telephone: (772) 485-2307 Email: ewoods@groom.com - and - Jeffrey Aaron Hesser, Esq. CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 444-2473 Email: jhesser@cassiday.com - and - Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Meredith Foster Kimelblatt, Esq. Samuel Isaac Levin, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHTD. 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 (202) 861-5412 (202) 857-0620 Email: lgolumbic@groom.com mkimelblatt@groom.com slevin@groom.com WILDERMUTH FUND: Court Allows Email Service on Elusive Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rochelle Cramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WithumSmith+Brown, PC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-17032 (RK)(RLS) (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L Singh of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff's motion for alternative service and an extension of time to serve Defendants Daniel Wildermuth and Carol Wildermuth. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misled investors by overstating the Fund's Net Asset Value and purchasing portfolio company interests for their own benefit, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 36(b) and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Despite repeated attempts at addresses in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C., Plaintiff was unable to personally serve the Wildermuths. The court found that Plaintiff demonstrated due diligence sufficient to authorize substituted service. The court permitted the following alternative methods: for Daniel Wildermuth, delivery to his attorney Alan M. Wolper at Thompson Hine LLP by mail and email, and to Quartz Partners Investment Management in Saratoga Springs, New York, by mail and email; for Carol Wildermuth, delivery to Quartz Partners by mail and to her Quartz and Kalos Financial email addresses. The service deadline was extended by 90 days, through July 20, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j39GDC from PacerMonitor.com WOFLOW INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dominguez Says --------------------------------------------------------- HENRY DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOFLOW INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03072 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2026) arises out of Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to take place in or around March 2026, which compromised Defendant's network that contained private information of Plaintiff and Class members. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which it was entrusted for purchases and employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) invasion of privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and California Constitutional Right to Privacy, (iii) violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (iv) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. Woflow Inc. is a technology company that provides artificial intelligence tools and services designed to support business operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com - and - Jane Manwarring, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jmanwarring@classlawdc.com WOODFORDS FAMILY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Paradis Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY PARADIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. WOODFORDS FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:26-cv-00188-JCN (D. Me., April 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, first and last names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, medical diagnostic and treatment information, and health insurance information (collectively "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The complaint relates that by obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as April 8, 2024, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until March 27, 2026--almost two years after discovery--and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. Representative Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from Representative Plaintiff's Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals. Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the Private Information was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") Privacy Rule, the HIPAA Security Rule, and other relevant standards. Plaintiff Tiffany Paradis is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Woodfords Family Services is a provider of community based services to individuals with special needs and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, ME 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 E-mail: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com E-mail: lvn@colevannote.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 ***